This is a scathing ruling against the government.One key point appears in a footnote:
In considering the burden the requested relief would impose on Apple, it is entirely appropriate to take into account the extent to which the compromise of privacy and data security that Apple promises its customers affects not only its financial bottom line, but also its decisions about the kind of corporation it aspires to be. The fact that the government or a judge might disapprove Apple's preference to safeguard data security and customer privacy over the stated needs of a law enforcement agency is of no moment: in the absence of any other legal constraint, that choice is Apple's to make, and I must take into account the fact that an order compelling Apple to abandon that choice would impose a cognizable burden on the corporation that is wholly distinct from any direct or indirect financial cost of compliance [emphasis added].In other news from New York, District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. will go before Congress to discuss encryption. As Gregg Keizer at ITWord says of Vance, he "wanted Apple to return to the security model it used through 2013's iOS 7. 'We want smartphone makers to offer the same strong encryption that Apple employed before iOS 8,' Vance said."
Apple wants personal device security to be controlled by the person; the government wants it controlled by the government via corporate proxies.