I would like to introduce an opinion into this discussion.

Corporate policies often align with public interests because it is in a corporation's best interests to be viewed favorably by the public.

Corporately produced missives intended for public consumption are well-considered and engineered with care.

I'm heartened that Tim Cook is directing Apple to take this stand, but a sober mind stops short of inferring anything about the moral character of this decision. A momentary alignment of corporate policy with public interest does not contradict an amoral character of the corporation.

Keep in mind that Apple fully cooperated with government spying operations and didn't double down on end user security until after they were exposed to have done so.

It is not difficult at all to see how this decision is in Apple's best interests. If they were to comply with the government on this request, it would very likely become public knowledge that they did so and this would very likely have a negative impact on their public perception specifically because the public has been primed in recent years to respond with open vitriol to policies which they are informed threaten their privacy.

While I'm glad that Tim Cook has made this decision, I recognize it as a result of earlier action. Ten years ago Apple would have sold out end user security in a heartbeat. If you want to feel thankful for this development, or seek to assign praise for it, look to Edward Snowden and security watchdog groups which are responsible for creating the environment within which this decision makes sense for Cook. This environment was not always here, and this decision is not the one Apple would have historically made.