Restating what someone said in a way which is deliberately far more outrageous and then arguing with the restatement is dishonest. First off, the article headl

Restating what someone said in a way which is deliberately far more outrageous and then arguing with the restatement is dishonest. First off, the article headline: > Apple shut down my iCloud account for five days You: > You would not accept to have a non-functional service for a couple of months from anyone else Is five days acceptable? Probably not, no. Is five days remotely the same as "a couple of months"? No, and you know it, so knock it off. And what people are pointing out is that even though "shut down my account" and "had a maintenance issue that made my account unavailable" obviously have the same effect -- you can't get to your account, and that's bad -- the two phrases carry very different semantic meaning. If I say "my Twitter account isn't working", what you take away from it is going to be very different than if I say "Twitter locked me out of my account". In this article's case, the headline says one thing and the article says another. Nobody is saying it's just fine if you can't get to your iCloud account for five days if Apple screws something up. Nobody is defending Apple's bad communication here. Historically, not even the most enthusiastic Mac fans have ever once said "You know what Apple is great at? Cloud services." What we're saying is criticize them for the right thing.