And not only that, but "backdoor" isn't accurate. It's not what has been requested. "Backdoor" sounds more provocative though, and helps build numbers for the Apple side of the debate.
If Apple can crack the phone open, let's see it happen. And then after that, they should improve iOS security so not even Apple can crack it.
I'm not impressed that Apple can if they wanted to, build in a system to weaken my phone's security. They should patch that opportunity in the next release.
If a loudly media backed ruling to force Apple to comply with the FBI is then followed by Apple making a phone which makes it impossible to comply with such requests in the future, it will much easier to get legislation or rulings requiring the all phones have an inbuilt backdoor.
This is why the FBI is forcing Apple specifically to do what they or another organization (eg McAfee) might do. Especially since the phone in question, while spectacular from a media perspective, probably has very little interesting on it.
I think honesty is the best option. Apple should say "yes, we can help this time, but we believe in privacy and security, so in future our phones will not be able to be cracked by this or any method". Apple gets to be the good guys for customers, AND help the FBI in this instance. Win win.
In future, the FBI couldn't ask Apple anything because we all know their phones are unbreakable.
But Apple have dug themselves a hole this time by refusing to go the full distance even though it's technically possible. Probably not the best move IMHO.
I'm of course only presuming it's possible to make such an unbreakable phone in future.