...I think people struggle, because they're so used to viewing it through a lens where resisting gov't orders is the sole goal. This article is orthogonal to that. THE ENTIRE POINT of the article is that we can't look at this space so simplistically.

One point he brings up is that they "built the very thing that they and the privacy community have been saying for years is reckless, dangerous or impossible", which definitely has implications for future debates. Further, they clearly haven't thought through the effects of blocking all access through this particular means. It's going to have implications for future debates, because this technology wouldn't be limited to just cases where we think the information is worth protecting.

Consider an extreme case - some banks (maybe just foreign at first) start using a technology like this to hide money from tax authorities. If this proliferates and a large portion of the tax base (or even just a bunch of rich people who are hated by the general population) are able to hide their money from taxation, do you think the gov't (and the voting populous) will just accept that? Apple isn't thinking about how things could go... and frankly, you aren't either. You think total privacy is an end goal on its own and that no other goals can infringe upon it. If other people have different values, you might find yourself in an interesting political fight over which values are most important for public policy. This development is absolutely relevant for that possible conversation.