There is no reasonable argument to be made that people shouldn't have higher quality products when they _don't_ cost more^.
Apple only have to develop "unbreakable" encryption once and then it costs them no more to make it available in every iPhone than to only make it available in some of them. Indeed, it'd be cheaper than maintaining both breakable and "unbreakable" variants.
There are arguments to be made about the secure enclave hardware, since it presumably costs more to make it more tamperproof.
However, securing iPhones against this particular "attack" appears to be a software issue: iOS should never apply updates without an authenticated user approving them first.
^ For the avoidance of doubt, this includes externalized costs.
If you're using a breakable crypto , you're not protected at any given time.
If you're using a watch that's waterproof up to 100m, you're safe up to 100 meters.
To be pedantic, that's not exactly what is meant by 100m Water Resistant, but your point is valid.
Although no watch can be absolutely waterproof, not even at a given depth, there are levels of risk one can accept. A watch you can use at 100m for several hours a day is effectively waterproof if that's the harshest treatment the watch will receive.
Similarly, although no cryptographic system is absolutely unbreakable^, there are levels of risk one can accept. And, unlike with watches, we can design cryptographic systems which, except in the face of unforeseen mathematical breakthroughs, or bugs (or backdoors) in their implementation, cannot be broken in the next few hundred years even by a nation state-level attacker.
I think is it reasonable to describe a cryptographic system that can't be broken within the lifetime of anyone alive today as "unbreakable".
^ Except maybe one-time-pads, depending upon how "unbreakable" is defined.
It depends, how many meters does it have to claim before I can make sudden movements and god forbid press the buttons underwater?
