"Infamous" has nothing to do with scale. It's entirely based on how well known something is. This incident had worldwide attention almost immediately and for weeks. Many articles were written at the time, and followup articles since (some of which are linked here). By all definitions of the word, it tracks.
Yeah, it was embarrassing overreaction by Apple. It was just another iteration of the iPhone. This used to be a thing in the auto industry, with reporters trying to get pictures of new car styling. Now nobody cares. Same for phones. Version N+1 has rounder corners. Big deal.
Not all definitions. Mine may be a bit old school, meaning publicly disgraced. Yours is more modern meaning slightly embarrassing. Both share that fame means "being spoken of"
IMHO no one wants to be infamous, under the classical definition. Infamous people have a search warrant by the federal police. Infamous people are the ones your parents tell you not to interact with.
No matter how often the "no bad PR" mantra is spoken, Steve Wozniak isn't going to wear a t-shirt referencing what i would consider their most infamous security breach. He isn't gangster enough for a teardrop tattoo.
The definitions are irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is that nobody seems to have heard of the attack.
Something can’t be infamous (or regular famous) if nobody has heard of it, and that’s the issue people have with your claim.
It might be a “publicly disgracing” attack but that alone doesn’t make it infamous. It still has to be well known, and quite simply, the iPhone case is so well known that it’s practically impossible to beat.
