The device in question is insecure. For example, if the proper subset of Apple employees' children were kidnapped, they'd be using their backdoor.
As such, Apple could have acted how courts expect a commercial third party to act [0], issued a security advisory for the vulnerability, and made damn sure future devices were secure. Alas, doing so would undermine their model of maintaining a backdoor to owners' devices but only wanting to use it for commercial purposes.
[0] A locksmith doesn't editorialize about which warrants to facilitate, and when he does, the government simply changes locksmiths. The novelty here is that Apple is supposedly the only locksmith that can unlock this lock, so USG wishes to compel them to engage. Given that they're an incorporated commercial entity, I don't hold out hope.
As such, Apple could have acted how courts expect a commercial third party to act [0], issued a security advisory for the vulnerability, and made damn sure future devices were secure. Alas, doing so would undermine their model of maintaining a backdoor to owners' devices but only wanting to use it for commercial purposes.
[0] A locksmith doesn't editorialize about which warrants to facilitate, and when he does, the government simply changes locksmiths. The novelty here is that Apple is supposedly the only locksmith that can unlock this lock, so USG wishes to compel them to engage. Given that they're an incorporated commercial entity, I don't hold out hope.