> He hasn’t presented any argument why he should be considered an apologist.

He _literally_ did, himself, in the article he wrote:

"I think the privacy arguments are far-fetched"

and actually acknowledging it verbatim:

"While I'm going to sound like an Apple apologist,"

as in "people who say this are Apple apologists, but I'm only like one if I state it."

> Many invalid points, and straw men in your comment.

Of course.