I've been reading some of the comments here, as a new security researcher I find that some of your comments are victim of misconceptions that might be easily cleared up with some insight. For example:
Seems a fair amount. How much are they supposed to pay a bunch of guys in their jammies in their parents basement with one hand in their pants?
For one, you might've been right if we were talking about security research from 20 years ago, when it wasn't taken so seriously. However, modern security research is a business in and of itself. It takes a lot of knowledge and training, but more importantly it takes resources. Most external security researchers will not have access to the source code of these applications or OS features that they are probing for vulnerabilities.
Most groups that actively search for vulnerabilities apply techniques like 'fuzzing' where they dedicate hardware to constantly throw input at an application or API until it breaks, and then the researcher figures out if that break is exploitable. These breaks appear in the forms of application crashes and kernel panics. Most kernel level vulnerabilities would sweep the top of the bounty range, since that would allow for access to a system beyond that of an administrator or super user. Getting back to the point, Apple Hardware does not exactly come cheap, and to compete with a lot of the top end researchers like Google's Project Zero, you're going to need a significant investment to even get started.
When any company considers how much to pay out, the company must analyze how frequently bugs are going to be discovered that are significant enough to be rewarded, how much a vulnerability in this particular application or device would be paid for to malicious actors, and what damage to the company would a complete outbreak of an exploit targeting your product would cause to the company's image. If vulnerabilities are going to be frequent, its best to not offer a bounty and to have a team work in-house to discover them - because you will be flooded by submissions from amateur researchers grabbing low-hanging fruit. If vulnerabilities are going to rare and deal high damage to the company's image, as is in Apple's case which champions their security, then the payout needs to be significant enough to compensate researchers for their investment of both time and resources.
I hope this clears things up for readers.
