True. But while reading through, I started getting the feeling that as much as it was about the US Government’s inadequate measures to prevent mass shootings in the future, the article also subtly tried to promote Apple as a company. Obviously, Apple’s stance is admirable, but it exists because of circumstances rather than some unimaginable company pro-activeness. Apple is just a smartphone company that happened to have made the mobile phone used by the terrorist in that case. It has less than 35% of the global market share of smartphones. Had the shooter had another brand smartphone and had its maker company reacted in a similar principled way, would you have written the article in a similar Other-Smartphone-Company-loving tone?
Don’t get me wrong — I like the idea of the article and its eloquence. I’m also quite Apple-neutral. However, certain hidden nuances of Apple-ness cannot remain unnoticed.