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>