Given pressure from governments for this type of surveillance is, i think, well agreed upon - Apple giving in while avoiding direct responsibility seems quite the incentive in my view.
For sure there had to be a lot of pressure. I don't believe Apple did just because it was a beautiful morning once.
I'd guess they tried it once or twice, and it was too slow so they went for more forceful means.
This just reasoning from what they've already done in the past.
That’s a very bold claim to make on hearsay. Does your friend work at Apple? Are they just speculating, or do they have actual evidence? Why do you believe them?
C’mon, people, I know this is a knee-jerk issue, but exercise some basic critical thinking skills.
As far as the attack goes, I have a few more details, but I'd rather no reveal them since I could be violating confidentiality somehow. I understand why you'd be skeptical.
Winning!
To follow the law? You can already read a bagful of stories where it caved in on law enforcement pressure. It already follows much invasive legal systems in China or India like any other major tech company. The measures there are being presented as "anti-terrorism", maybe a less marketable term in the US currently.