What am I missing?

[Robert J. Hansen]

> Why would this be an outragious conspiracy theory?

Because it assumes the FBI is stupid.  Conspiracy theories which require
the conspirators are morons are very rarely correct.

> The smaller company would probably not have gone to court over it and
> just complied, so it would not set a legal precedent. Or it would just
> have closed itself, like Lavabit.

So they find one that's large enough to put up a fight but not large
enough to win.

Your conspiracy theory founders on the fact that Apple is *the largest*
and *most formidable* player in this space.  (Maybe Alphabet can compete
with them for that title.)  If they can win against Apple, they don't
need precedents to pull on others.  If they need precedents, they would
be for use against Apple.

Put this in terms of a computer RPG.  You take on the smallest monsters,
get level-ups and better weapons, take out the mini-boss, get equipment
from that fight, and ultimately use everything you acquired along the
way to fight the boss monster and win.

But if you're strong enough to take on the boss monster without any of
that stuff, why would you need it to take on the small guys?