I disagree. I read "after" in the headline to succinctly imply that there are reasonable grounds to suspect a causal link between these events, while acknowledg

I disagree. I read "after" in the headline to succinctly imply that there are reasonable grounds to suspect a causal link between these events, while acknowledging that such a link has not been admitted by Apple (otherwise it would be "in response to"). It's true this kind of wording is often used in low quality journalism to float the idea of a causal link when there is no good reason to suspect one, but this is not one of those cases.