Yes, that is exactly the problem. No need to read more into it.

Yeah, that's always how bribery works.

From Wikipedia: "Bribery is the corrupt solicitation, payment, or acceptance of a private favor (a bribe) in exchange for official action."

Yes, everyone knows. It was transparently a bribe.

But let’s not motte bailey that into proof that Apple intentionally ships backdoors.

I view it more as a ransom / hostage payment or a response to bullying. There was a threat of tariffs; I'm going to hold your business hostage. The ransom was paid and the tariffs weren't imposed.

I think a bribe is better defined as "you cannot have this thing you want, unless you give me this". A quid pro quo.

I guess it comes down to who the "active" party was.

I would definitely call it a bribe if Tim Cook was the one that asked to get special treatment or lower Tariffs than anyone else and the response was give me a "gift".

Even if you believe it was a bribe, the value of it was purely symbolic. What was given wasn't a change in policy, it was a material gift of zero value to anyone else except for scrap. Others that have been subjected to this behavior have given up things like changes in hiring practices and working with "non favored" organizations.

> the gold thing seemed like a good, cheap way to get on Trump's good side

Which, whilst morally repugnant, does make business sense - if Apple got hit by tariffs or other penalties, you can be sure the Carl Icahn style leeches would be popping out of the woodwork complaining that Tim Cook was ruining Apple / the share price / etc. and trying to orchestrate shareholder and/or board revolts.

(And Good Lord, imagine the threads on here if Apple's value dropped just because Tim Cook didn't give a hideous piece of tat to Trump.)