Because China asked for access to check for back doors in the devices not to add back doors like the USA is?

Since people seem to think this is an easy set of points to win, consider:

* Apple has virtually no ability to shape policy in China (at least, in comparison to western democracies) * China (the government, not the people) is not subject to the same limitations as the US government * Apple depends on China for a great deal of things, including manufacturing, and a market for products * If Apple can't manufacture and market it's products in China, it's products become more expensive and less available all over the world. * China passed laws and regulations that demand access to source code

Apple choosing to fight this battle is undoubtedly motivated by the potential business impact of supplying the software that the US government has demanded, and there is no doubt in my mind that if it was a better long term move for Apple, then it's leadership team would concede, and ship the code they were asked for (see: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2472002/endpoint-securi... among other instances).

Apple is using the polarizing nature of the technical details at hand in light of modern concerns about the surveillance state to frame it's argument against what would be a very bad legal precedent that would be disastrous for Apple, and for the tech sector in general.

I don't quite understand where your perceived lack of consistency is - are you implying that Apple didn't try to use every tool at it's disposal to do the best thing for it's investors?

Oh no, I do think they think in their investor's bests interests. I am not sure the investors' interests are in sync with more freedom for any citizens on earth.

I am just accepting the fact the Apple has a very variable concern about freedom of speech and privacy when their business is concerned.

Like when workers are prevented from exercising their freedom to choose a new job and make competition works their way and Apple take part into a no poaching agreement.

Then I look at IT's budget, their contribution to the world taxes and I clearly think that they do not really care about the laws of the common people.

And then I am concerned by companies that are richer than most governments in the world and how they behave when they have enough power.

Should we accept that big power without control and just hope for the better?

Remember UK and France used to have bad experiences with such huge companies and that it did not ended well for anyone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

Apple supports security of devices, and in all cases that is good. Security and privacy are different things. Security can be used to enable privacy. Also, if Apple's phones are secure what harm is giving details to the Chinese government? It won't help break into a truly secure device.

What is missing from most of the discussion is that strongly secure phones are good for the government. If the US government can ask Apple in the US to open a phone, then the Chinese government can ask Apple in China to open a phone. That means that every phone is vulnerable to theft and transport to a jurisdiction that agrees to the 'lawful' access to the contents.

When did Apple say they don't think the people of China should have privacy?

The difference is, Apple can't do anything about the Communist dictatorship in China. They don't ask nicely, they don't debate you on liberty or policy, they tell you how things are. Apple can try to resist what the FBI is asking for in the US. They could similarly try to resist such moves in most of Europe. That's the benefit of democracy / representative government in the US / Europe / elsewhere vs what China has. If the Chinese people dislike it so much, they are the ones that will have to do something about it, nobody else can do it for them.