I wonder (seriously) what the ROI on a statement like this might be. Is there a level where "responsibility to the shareholders" is sampled, or could it be a few layers of indirection away?
There is a pretty fine line between cynicism (i.e. it's just marketing) and idealism (ethical companies will generate a higher level of support), but I wonder how far this goes before a lawsuit shuts it down.
The business judgement rule gives company management pretty wide latitude in making business decisions so long as they are not blatantly fraudulent or conflicted. For example Shlensky v Wrigley[1] which concerns the owner of Wrigley field’s decision not to install lights and hold night games. A decision by their own admission motivated not by a business interest but by a personal belief that baseball is a “daytime sport”.
I have no idea about accessibility on iOS, but on the web making a website more accessible will usually make it display faster simply because accessibility forces you down a road that stops you filling a site with bloat and rubbish. If people pushed for accessible websites everyone would benefit from lower bandwidth usage and faster rendering.
It's not unreasonable to think pushing for an accessible OS makes the rest of it better as well.
There is a pretty fine line between cynicism (i.e. it's just marketing) and idealism (ethical companies will generate a higher level of support), but I wonder how far this goes before a lawsuit shuts it down.