> We know that they can be compelled to lie to us about their compute architecture, so why accept half-measures in your security?
There's a difference between a court ordering preventing disclosure and compelling speech. The first amendment prevents compelling speech. They can be forced not to reveal. They can't be forced to make false claims.
Distinction without a difference, here. Apple's marketing already promised things they cannot guarantee, and instead of dropping the privacy shtick altogether they deliberately misconstrued their image to promote sales of Apple devices. The NSA didn't write the lines for them, but they also knew Apple wouldn't stop marketing privacy even if the CCP owned iCloud servers. Lying for marketing purposes is part of Apple's core identity.
Therein lies the problem. If you distort reality to cast a positive light on a service of dubious value, you're only going to drive out the knowledgeable users. This is how Apple killed FCP, Logic, Aperture, XServe, Metal and it's how they've driven out security experts too. Everyone serious about security got out of dodge years ago - the only people left are the sycophants who argue on the merit of whitepapers that cannot be validated. With Apple suing security researchers and neglecting their bug bounty program, it's no wonder we ended up in this situation. Companies like Cellebrite and Greykey can stock up on exploits because Apple doesn't take their security researchers seriously.
There's a difference between a court ordering preventing disclosure and compelling speech. The first amendment prevents compelling speech. They can be forced not to reveal. They can't be forced to make false claims.