They don’t have any significant advertising business. They don’t need to collect any personally identifiable information. They’ve promoted their brand by putting their customers privacy first.
So why would you believe they would intentionally risk all of that here?
Yes... now. Can you say that with certainty 10 years from now? 15? 20? Would you want an evil Apple 10 years from now having that? Or one that a 3-letter agency forced to collect it and they could never tell anyone because National Security Letter? Is that a bet you want to take? One you NEED to take? Is it truly unavoidable, sufficient to justify such a thing?
The best bulwark against overreach is to not create the capacity for it in the first place. Power will only ever do 1 thing, and that's amass more power.
Why would private company not utilize leverage? You have no source, you can't even turn off these checks without hacks. Privacy first is open source and audit. It is removing feature people don't want.
A corporation's nature is determined by their business model.
If you want to apply that fable to, say, Apple's relationship with independent repair shops, I'd 100% agree.
> They don’t have any significant advertising business.
This refutes that they're the scorpion in this relationship.