What is your actual point here? It feels like we’re just playing a game if hypotheticals that are no longer based in reality.
Sure Apple could update your device to send all your photos unencrypted to them. They could also remotely turn on the mic and spy on all of us. They could also add key word detection to iMessage and flag law enforcement if you text out the wrong words.
I think everyone here understands what Apple could do. Which is why it’s a good thing that signs point to Apple not wanting their customer data. And why Apple refusing government orders that they feel violate their customers is unequivocally a good thing (even if they’re doing it for selfish reasons)
that e2e encryption by a third party does not give you privacy from the US government if that third party can remotely control or update your device and is subject to US laws. it is a direct reply to the assertion made in the GP: "The adversary is someone attacking the service provider, like a hacker or a government with a warrant, and getting access to Apple's storage of your data."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...
in this case it could have set a dangerous (and expensive) precedent for them.
that does not mean they will fight any and all requests.