GP is not implying that Apple products are like cancer. He is trying to show that GGP's argument was invalid, by applying to a different case where it obviously

GP is not implying that Apple products are like cancer. He is trying to show that GGP's argument was invalid, by applying to a different case where it obviously doesn't hold. A: "X is not bad, because millions have used and loved it." B: "That doesn't follow. Millions have used and loved Y, and Y is clearly bad, so A's argument doesn't hold." C: "B claims that X is like Y, but Y causes cancer, and X doesn't, so B's argument is invalid." D (me): "No, B doesn't claim that X is like Y, so C's argument is not sound, and B's is valid and sound, and A's is invalid." Or so.