There's nothing to be gained by trusting a large corporation.
By defending user privacy, Apple is able to have a direct affect on the bottom line of its rival corporations.
All corporations behave according to incentives that will help they to progress further than their competitors. If they don't rival coporations will take the lead.
So should why should I trust anyone? The crux of these arguments is essentially anti-capitalism. That’s fine. But be upfront about it. There is a debate to be had around the ethics of privacy in a capitalist free market economy. In this instance, for me at least, Apple is the devil I know. Your point around trusting corporations is totally valid, but I’ve yet to see a similarly valid argument for trusting open source projects. “You can read/compile the source code” is only valid if it is all encompassing. At some point in that line of argument trust still has to be deferred.
Conceptually, trust suggests we don't need to question, or exercise due diligence. I'd argue, in a capitalist system, you definitely shouldn't trust anyone! Capitalism is based on incentive.
--
So following on from this. Is the crux of these arguments anti-capitalist?
No .. it's not anti-capitalism. It's realistic. Even more realistic if you believe in a capitalism system and want to compete.
I feel that capitalism works most successfully when it provides more people with a better quality of life.
Fundamentally, there are conceptual problems with a capitalist system .. factors that lead to scenarios that are likely to lead to the system operating sub-optimally.
An example of a problem; if a corporation is allowed to grow without limit, how can new companies realistically compete?
The remedy? I guess it's up for discussion. But I think regulation can prevent the worst form occurring, and many markets have measures in place to carry out this type of regulation.
--
Why am I saying this?
Because I feel that open-source is simply a remedy to a conceptual problem that exists within our capitalist economy. It is not antithetical to capitalism.
Namely, the question it serves to answer is; how do we balance the power provided by digital technologies with the incentive companies have to exploit these powers for commercial gain?
Open-source is a logical answer to this. You could argue, we don't have the tools available to highlight any injustices contained in a code-base. My answer would be .. that doesn't mean we conceptually couldn't or won't in the future.
Closed source is a conceptual dead end - and won't lead to a better future.
I think the point stands.