that's the endgame of government surveillance requests: it's increasingly in a company's best interest to have the best security possible so they can't be compelled to hack their own devices.
Surely it is a company's best interests to have 'good enough' looking security to serve their PR purposes while also secretly providing government access to maximise government kudos and all the benefits that would entail?
For many customers of hardware and software trust is what is being sold.
As trust is eroded 'good enough' is no longer good enough. The only way to continue to be trusted is to be more secure, and as the grandparent points out the endgame there is that the encryption puts the software and hardware beyond the reach of the company that produced it.
You really have to pick one side or the other, unless you're extremely good at keeping a secret and deceiving outside researchers. That's a much higher level of difficulty than simply creating a secure system.
