>>"Note also there is a lot of overlap between iOS and OS X, so now we have a vuln that might also affect iOS 9.0, 9.0.1, 9.0.2, 9.1 so we should add another four to that list, so is that nine exploits for Apple?"
The site doesn't differentiate between micro-versions, so iOS 9.0, 9.0.1, 9.0.2, etc. aren't going to rack up multiple counts for a vendor for the same issue. Though a vulnerability that was present in both iOS and OSX would of course count double so yes, there is a penalty for providing a broad range of software. Actually that's a count in MS's favour as they have 405 products listed on the database to Apple's 105. So if anything, the issue you highlight benefits Apple much more.
But the useful way to do comparisons, is by product. So for example you can compare Windows 8.1 with OSX:
http://www.cvedetails.com/product/26434/Microsoft-Windows-8.1.html?vendor_id=26
http://www.cvedetails.com/product/156/Apple-Mac-Os-X.html?vendor_id=49
You can see that 8.1 had 151 vulnerabilities in 2015 and OSX had 384 in the same period. That's why I called this article FUD. There's a very significant difference and the article makes no attempt to actually examine it, it just lists a lot of attacking questions in an attempt to dismiss the entire comparison - how do we know MS don't hide vulnerabilities? how do we know their vulnerabilities aren't more severe? what if Apple is being penalized for having the same vulnerability in multiple products? That's the essence of the article. There's no attempt to assess, only to discredit. As you can see from my response to your own post, it's actually not that hard to look into these questions and get a feel for whether or not the attack is justified. Instead the article simply does a pre-emptive attack trying to cast uncertainty and doubt on the findings.
No fear though, more trying to reassure if anything. So lets call it Reassurance Uncertainty Doubt (RUD) rather than FUD. These findings might not be what they look like (despite the fact that they probably are), so let's dismiss them.