Of course it's a short-term marketing benefit. But, if the encryption is secure, then the marketing benefit is matching up with the customer benefit, so hey.
It's not clear that it IS a short-term benefit. Poll results are mixed (although the wording has a significant impact on the results) and a leading presidential candidate is calling for a boycott of their products. Marketing campaigns tend to be less polarizing. Also, I would imagine that losing the case would negatively impact sales more than if they had quietly complied.
Polls say whatever the poll-maker wants. Ask people if they support government surveillance, they say "Sure." Ask if they want the government to be able to access their Dick-Pics and the answer is a resounding NO[1]. Apple is on the right side of history here.
Right, but the question here is of the obvious short-term marketing benefit, which to me is not that obvious. I think that in the short term Apple has more to lose financially by not aiding the FBI in an emotionally-charged request than if they had silently complied, particularly if they end up losing the case.
