... only because Charlie Miller is better at weaponizing his exploits than the people who were going after other systems. He is able to package an exploit so that it can be deployed in seconds. The guy is good.
Real world: There has not been one successful self-replicating pice of malware in the wild for nine years of OS X. There have been many attempts, but the best we've seen is supposedly pirated software downloaded from P2P sites that contained malware that required the user's permission to run.
Whatever the reason, be it architecture or some supposed obscurity, the real world fact is that you are safer on a Mac.
So let me get this straight. Charlie Miller is so good he is able to attack a system and make it fall faster than any other system. Even though the system he is attacking is "inherently secure" (as stated by you) and the other is just dumb old windows.
He is so smart that not a single person in the world can attack windows faster than he can attack the "inherently secure" system of OSX. Three years in a row!
Something isn't adding up.
Oh and in 2010's contest he was able to get read and write access where as the windows system attack only got read access. Didn't Charlie also attack windows as well? Why didn't he get write access to windows as well?
That is flat out wrong and couldn't be further from the truth about security. We can do the starbucks test and see which system is able to get online without issues :-)
But seriously security by obscurity is not any type of real security. Anyone who understands security will laugh at your statement.