I think it's both, and impossible to separate. It's a public company, it doesn't have stuff close to it's heart, but it does have ideals it strives for that it presents to the board as the path forward. Part of that explanation is explaining how it helps the company.
> So, just asserting that it's purely a marketing move and then furthermore implying that a deviating assessment is delusional strikes me as unjustified.
But, if you read carefully, it wasn't asserted that it was purely a marketing move. Just that it was one (which we've sort of covered tangentially), and it was delusional to think that it wasn't (which we've also covered). There wasn't any statement that it also wasn't something they've incorporated into their company ideology.
That's one of the shortcomings of delayed text communication. What could have simply been a quick reply of "sure, it may not be the only reason, but it can't be discounted" from the original author gets blown out into a larger discussion where people are arguing slightly differently things based on their contextual interpretation of the statement.
I am just arguing against GP's dismissal of Apple's stance on privacy as a marketing move. I believe it's truly close to their heart, and it's a happy coincidence that it's also increasingly a marketable asset (given the despicable data collection practices of the big tech/advertisement firms).
But neither me nor, presumably, GP has privileged inside information on Apple's true motives (and surely they're multifaceted and complex and not monolithic anyway). So, just asserting that it's purely a marketing move and then furthermore implying that a deviating assessment is delusional strikes me as unjustified.