[avazhi]

If Apple had unlimited money they’d just buy the exploit makers at whatever asking price. Or they’d set exploit bounties at a price guaranteed to outbid others etc.

No, just like any other company they don’t have unlimited money and my point stands.

[raw_anon_1111]

Really? You don’t think Apple could “afford” to set aside $500 million dollars for instance to pay off exploit makers? Less than 0.5% of their profit? Or even $1 billion? Less than 1% of their profit?

[alsetmusic]

I don't know, but I would suspect that they don't purchase these companies out of a sense of principle: not wanting to reward the behavior. Yes, that allows them to keep operating, but it's sorta like why you don't pay a ransomware group.

[avazhi]

Huh?

Ofc they could afford to, but they don’t. They could alo afford to if they had unlimited money, but in the latter case by definition they’d lose nothing by actually buying.

Given the absurdity of the scenario and its contrivance though I’m not sure what your point is. More money spent on security is good is my point. And if they had more money they’d have more money to spend on security. And if they didn’t spend money on dumb shit like virtue signaling then they’d have more money. That’s the reasoning.

[raw_anon_1111]

My point is that it’s silly to say that Apple doesn’t have enough money left over after spending money on marketing to pay off people who find security vulnerabilities if they have $110 billion in profit after spending money on marketing.

If you had to spend 0.5% of your income for something in a year, would that adversely affect how you chose to spend the other 99.5%?