Not quite sure where to put the info in this article on a scale of what can be justified.
It would seem that IF companies intentionally block or eliminate support and are selective about it, that's not exactly what I would personally call "incompatible". Unsupported yes. But it is then clearly at the discretion of - and in the control of - the respective vendor/developer that creates the product. A big difference over something that is just a "natural" (so-to-speak) incompatibility. When a product is forced into an unsupported status it can surely impede other companies' well being - perhaps significantly - and that should be frowned upon (at minimum).
Of course if the companies secure services for proprietary use in their own branded product line it is quite a different matter. It would seem that if a version of Microsoft Windows is to ever become (significantly) hardware tied it should be on Microsoft hardware. All they need to do I suppose, is make it worthwhile; Apple seems to be able to do that with MAC. <grin>
Who knows... this is likely to entail enough back-pressure to backtrack it, even if it occurs.
Time will tell.
But in the meantime, if you like the leading edge of hardware but not Windows 10, you may want to do a little more research before making the investment.
Comments and articles posted or linked here are for your interest only. We do not make any claims as to their absolute accuracy or their source. Please check with the respective poster should you have questions of that nature.