Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't grasp this logic. Apple builds a feature to help with 911 services so they should fund 911 services? Apple also implemented Amber Alert support. Should they fund the Amber Alert system, too? Aren't emergency services pretty clearly the government's job? You already pay a fee on your cell bill specifically to cover the cost of 911 services to your local and state governments.
Apple is building a feature that will help them maintain their image and gain more user trust and loyalty. Government services aren't capitalist companies, their job is to efficiently allocate budget, not to "out-compete" anyone. If Apple starts subsidizing the cost of modern 911 (and building a feature into their mobile operating system to make 911 more accessible is surely subsidizing the cost of upgrading failing…
What this implies is that everyone should do the bare minimum required by law, because if they do anything more they should expect to shoulder billions in infrastructure costs that would otherwise be correctly carried by the government.
> If richer areas see benefits from this and start to drop the amount they spend on something like a private, enterprise mobile 911 product, then other departments are going to follow suit, and suddenly you have less 911 support in poorer/more rural areas because that's where less people have iPhones, yet departments are still following national budgeting/spending trends.
You are arguing that lowered support costs will actually decrease support. This makes no sense.