> because Apple was very much in favor of client-side scanning until they encountered a popular uproar about it.

I always find it curious when I see "company changes plans due to consumer feedback" framed as a bad thing rather than a good thing, especially when they are one of a field of companies that are largely already doing the thing people were upset about. Personally, I think it's great when a company has a pragmatic motive to act in the consumer's interest rather than (or possibly in addition to) an idealistic motive, because a pragmatic motive is much more likely to stand the test of time.

So, I disagree with you that it's not a good example. In fact, I think it's a great example of one of these big platforms being materially better wrt. consumer privacy than their competition. Frankly, I think your "impression of Apple [...] that they're very sensitive to privacy intrusions by anyone who isn't named 'Apple'" is exactly what I was talking about in my first comment in this thread: a cynical, unsubstantiated implication that all these platforms are equally as bad as each other, and that we've already lost the battle in the consumer space.

> I always find it curious when I see "company changes plans due to consumer feedback" framed as a bad thing rather than a good thing

I wasn't framing it that way at all. Being responsive is a good thing. But in the context of this issue, that they did so means they're responsive to outcry. It doesn't seem to me to be an indication that they care more about privacy issues generally.

> implication that all these platforms are equally as bad as each other

As I stated in an earlier comment, I don't think this at all and certainly wasn't intending to imply it. But just because one company is better than another on these issues doesn't mean that company is good on these issues.