That would make perfect sense to me. They don't care about the Mac, and haven't since the iPhone. Originally, products like the iPod were designed to sell more Macs -- but with the decoupling of iTunes from their "operating system" and the insane pace of iPhone sales, they realized that the real money wasn't in Macs. It never was, but it took them a long time to realize it.
I think the signs are already there. They get rid of Aperture thus shunning the "I got a DSLR a year ago, now I'm a photographer" crowd, and not long ago, the whole FCPX debacle showed the video editing world how much Apple gave a crap about them and their industry. Recently, DJs were taken aback by the lack of ports on the new MB -- because they knew that those stupid dongles would break very quickly and need to be replaced constantly as all Apple cables must be.
Nope, Apple would rather continue selling to mass market nubs who won't complain about features on their iPhone. Corporates are too much work, they have requirements and those requirements can't be dictated to them by some egotistic nutjob working at an art gallery that thinks it's a computer company.
I liken it to skeuomorphism -- trying to make the screen look like paper. Why? Makes no sense to be blinded by a monitor turned spotlight. The only place this scheme makes sense is on e-ink readers which won't cause eye strain because they aren't backlit.
2. the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc.: The record industry is beset with piracy.
If I were to subscribe to a definition of this word that includes copyright, I'd probably go with the Cambridge dictionary -- mostly because it adds an important caveat which makes it valid;
[...] the act of illegally copying a computer program, music, a film, etc. and selling it: software/video piracy
I doubt any of the pirates to whom the original definition applied would've considered an act piratical if it didn't involve profit.