“The argument here is that without Apple taking control of the user's software the user would fall prey to the privacy violating practices of the likes of Google and Microsoft, which is not true. Hence the "lie by omission".”
You say it’s ‘not true’. I think it’s quite likely to be true.
But more importantly - it’s an argument. Not a fact. You just happen to disagree with him. It’s not a lie of omission to simply come to a different conclusion.
He hasn’t presented any argument why he should be considered an apologist. You are arguing that he is an apologist. That is both ad hominem, and a loaded term, and it’s you who is using it.
