This is all true, and the interesting thing to me is that I don't think it's intentional. That is, it seems to be the natural result of steady innovation without special effort being made to keep things stable for those who want to avoid innovation.
Should they make that extra effort? Sure, arguably they should. Apple's philosophy has always been to look forward, not back, though, and things like supporting 32-bit code on 64-bit architectures require a lot of effort for little perceived gain.
Then again, that effort means people can jump off of the circular treadmill, so maybe it's worth it.
You might be right about it not being intentional (putting aside the argument that lack of choice is itself a choice), but I would argue that putting in the effort is their responsibility as a part of the larger goal of sustainability.
In this case Apple says they want their products to be completely sustainable, and yet they are choosing profit over sustainability by putting fences on either side of the circular treadmill.
I largely agree. I guess I would just say that every decision comes at a cost, and maintaining compatibility usually comes with a small performance cost, exactly the sort of cost Apple least wants to pay on their new devices.
Should they make that extra effort? Sure, arguably they should. Apple's philosophy has always been to look forward, not back, though, and things like supporting 32-bit code on 64-bit architectures require a lot of effort for little perceived gain.
Then again, that effort means people can jump off of the circular treadmill, so maybe it's worth it.