Who are the stakeholders in this and how might they be affected by Apple's decision?

The stakeholders include anyone who has a share and ownership of the company, employees, along with any iPhone users.

Apple wanted to look at the future ordeal that could occur if they released the information. With the use of a cost$-$benefit analysis, they saw the company being affected by the attrition rate, decrease in sales, and lawsuits that could occur if others felt their privacy, rights, and information were breached $($University of Maryland Global Campus, Utilitarianism, n$.$d$.).$

What decision benefits the greatest number of these stakeholders?

The decision that Apple made was what they felt was best for the company and the users of the iPhone. What the FBI did was what was best for the people. Both held others, not themselves, in the highest regard; both stood on moral ground. As ethics is described, there is no right or wrong choice, it is doing our best and not necessarily following the law $($University of Maryland Global Campus, A Framework for Thinking Ethically, n$.$d$.).$

To play devil$$s advocate, and to not follow feeling but rather fact, the decision that benefits the greater number of these stakeholders would be Apple$$s decision not to release the information to the FBI. Should Apple have given the information? One could argue, yes of course. However, how many of the one billion users would feel their privacy is of no importance? Also, will that policy apply to Android users, social media, and any other communicative platforms? The FBI SHOULD have received the information from them, but in the grander scheme of things, one billion iPhone users will have a bigger effect than the possible prevention of another attack.

Do you agree with the decision that utilitarianism leads you to$?$ Why or why not?

I do not agree with the decision and believe each situation should be on a case$-$by$-$case basis. However, I understood why each made the choices they did. If one puts themselves in the other shoes, the FBI wanted to prevent another attack. They wanted to get ahead of the criminals instead of experiencing the aftermath of their doings. Apple didn't want the FBI to breach others$$s privacy, create data that could risk falling into the wrong hands and even just break the contract that was developed between users and the company. Both were, in a way, trying to prevent the other from using an egoism approach since each was trying to pursue their own greater good for their cause $($University of Maryland Global Campus, Utilitarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #$36,$ n$.$d$.).$

Does applying the test in Rights and Duties or Fairness and Justice lead you to a different answer?

No$,$ they do not lead me to a different answer. Rights still follow an $$if and only if$$ approach which still coincides with my case$-$by$-$case approach $($University of Maryland Global Campus, Rights and Duties, n$.$d$.).$ A duty$-$based approach somewhat relates, but when the duty still affects the greatest number, it is still debatable.