> This is just inane. There's nothing in this piece, or in anything from the previous decade, that suggests Microsoft is intentionally putting people at risk.

> This is just inane. There's nothing in this piece, or in anything from the previous decade, that suggests Microsoft is intentionally putting people at risk. Are saying the article suggests that but does not support it? If so, where does it suggest that? I don't see that, scanning the article -- but I do see: > it was not the company’s intention to become a leading contributor to security risk. It seems like they're not suggesting some evil plan, but something more like just the operation of the market?