How much is the version that doesn't auto-share with hackers?
Monthly fee to maintain access to your own data: $0.
Monthly fee to keep hackers from stealing your information and spreading it all over the Internet: $0.
Monthly fee to keep some slimy corporation from handing your data over without your knowledge in response to a secret warrant: $0.
https://www.hongkongfp.com/2017/06/08/china-uncovers-massive...
That's just employees improperly accessing information about customers and selling it. You'll note that the information is things that Apple naturally has access to like names / phone numbers / Apple IDs, rather than private data stored on customers' devices or in iCloud. No hacking necessary to get this, just breaking internal policy and some laws.
The suspects, who worked in direct marketing and outsourcing for Apple in China
I'm not sure these people should have access to private information by default.
You are arguing semantics, it was illegal access of private data on Apple's watch. Even if you do not consider it a hack (~fud), iCloud is in the news again, which was the original point. BTW, to me, taking it at face value, it reads like Apple had no idea what is going on and it was all the work of the police.
And iCloud is not in the news again. That article had literally nothing at all to do with iCloud; it didn't even mention it.
Just because some of the suspects are Apple employees it does not disqualifies it as a hack, but we can agree to disagree on the definition. Apple employees selling private info is much more of a reason not to trust the company with your data, mind.
It can't happen at any company and it is an obvious reason not to trust them. It is not a rouge employee, there were 22 people involved. Either they were hacked, or they were basically employing/contracting criminals.
And yes, 22 people, that work at a large company. It shouldn't strain credulity to believe that a company that has over 100 thousand employees can end up with a handful of dishonest ones. This doesn't mean they were hacked. And yes, they were employing criminals, by definition, because the thing those employees did was a criminal act. Presumably they weren't criminals when they were hired though.