I think the message Apple is trying to get across is identical to the standard usage of the terms, which is to measure the effect of Apple on US employment. Do

I think the message Apple is trying to get across is identical to the standard usage of the terms, which is to measure the effect of Apple on US employment. Do you really think they are trying to trick people with (standard) terminology? Direct employment numbers are in every quarterly report, do you think they were hoping the lazy Apple press would overlook a huge employment increase? And, if you read the page (which is a hundred times more detailed than the average "create or support" release), Apple makes it pretty darn clear how the numbers break down, direct/indirect. If Apple was less clear, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because we'd just be wondering about it without enough information to form opinions. Forthcomingness is the new dishonesty, I guess. :)