There's a big difference between the actual details of the case (which few outside of the technology fields understand) and the public perception of the case. To the public, it was:
FBI: We need Apple to hack this terrorist's phone
Apple: We could, but we won't"
This is gonna get spun as "Apple wanted the phone uncracked, FBI cracked it, FBI wins," but that's not accurate: what Apple wanted was not to be forced to crack the phone themselves. If the FBI backs off on that, Apple has unequivocally won.
Yeah, but, they're actually telling the truth here, right?
The iPhone 5C has an unsecured AHB or AXI bus. You can inject arbitrary code via DMA and trigger and interrupt to cause it to run. This went away with TrustZone (present in ARMs with a secure enclave including later iPhones).
For one, you have to try to go after the All Writs Act.
If I were Apple, I'd deploy a billion dollars and buy everyone in DC as necessary. Not exaggerating. Defense contractors, conglomerates, energy companies, etc. spend in the mere millions to get their way on things. Apple should purchase the entire Congress, aggressively, and destroy the All Writs Act as far as this type of situation is concerned, and push for favorable legislation that resolves the broader context of encryption and warrants in a rational way to preempt the FBI's next attempts.
It's not Apple who would take down the All Writs Act, it would be a citizen who had evidence against them obtained via the All Writs Act. They would have to discover that is how the evidence against them was uncovered, argue in court that the specific application of the All Writs Act was not legal, and a court would have to address it in a ruling. The result would be a reduction in scope of the act.
But who would do that, when it's unlikely to help them?
The evidence against them would likely stand, either a matter of inevitable discovery (Evidence gets tossed when it is "fruit of the poisonous tree", but if you can show that you'd have gotten that same evidence a different way, the evidence remains. Just like here: Had Apple folded, given the evidence, and then it was ruled inadmissible due to the methods, the FBI could just argue other hack options were available) or as a matter of "good faith" (where, if the cops didn't know what they were doing was illegal, they get to keep the evidence they obtained under "good faith"). My understanding is that good faith allowances have grown quite large in recent year, to the point of absurdity.
So our suspect, in this case, will only challenge the evidence if the chance of it helping THEM is high enough. They aren't going to do so for the good of society.
I don't like relying on the good will or desperation of suspects that have evidence against them to mold our legal rights.
Apple sues the government for putting them through a frivolous law suit? Then as evidence they demand full details of the exploits, all internal FBI communications, etc etc.
