'Interpreted' in V8 really means compiled with no optimisations.
Apple has 7.68% of the desktop market and 15.42% of the mobile market. They can pull a lot of stuff without getting into trouble because they don't have anything like the market share required to exert undue influence on the market. When they have larger shares, for example in the online music distribution market a few years ago, they do get investigated.
Your comment makes as much sense as complaining that your corner shop doesn't get into trouble for doing things that would be the target of antitrust investigations if Walmart did them. Apple is a highly profitable niche player, but still a niche player. They can't use their dominant position in one market to gain prominence in another because they don't have a dominant position in any market and haven't since the iPod.
From what I've heard from ex-Nokia people, it wasn't just senior management that lacked direction. They had internal teams all developing complete stacks in isolation and competing for resources. Elop wasn't completely wrong: making them all focus on a single platform was probably the only thing that could have saved Nokia, and Windows Phone wasn't a completely ludicrous choice, as they did want something to differentiate themselves from the competition and there weren't any other significant Windows Phone vendors to compete with.
Pushing ahead with Linux + Qt might have worked, but only if they'd fired about 90% of middle management and reorganised the teams. Even then, there would likely have been a lot of resentment from the various teams that had their work discarded in favour of another's. Remember that Nokia didn't have a Linux + Qt platform, they had several, all with mutually incompatible frameworks built atop Qt, none of which was compellingly better than the others.
It's a shame that the Qt on EKA2 project was killed. The EKA2 kernel was a much better fit for mobile devices than Linux (it still amazes me after all of Google's investment how few of its features Android has), and Qt would have given them the base of a modern development environment that would have competed well with other platforms.
They had a rough go with Qt/Maemo, then they changed course, to a dead end street.
Was Maemo ever Qt? I thought they changed the name when they switched it from GTK to Qt. And there you see the real problem with Nokia: a complete lack of direction. They had, in EKA2, a beautifully designed kernel for mobile applications, tied to a userland and userspace APIs that were designed when 1MB of RAM was an insane quantity reserved for the most expensive of phones. So, the first thing they did was try to shoehorn Linux into a phone. Then, having replaced the one good bit of their stack with Linux, they had a load of competing projects to provide a replacement UI, leading to a plethora of short-lived APIs, just as everyone else was realising that third-party developers are the key to a successful platform.
Promptness is its own reward, if one lives by the clock instead of the sword.