You say it's a strawman, and for some odd reason you get modded insightful for it. But please, humour me: how, exactly, is it a strawman to point out that Apple sells hardware, and is under no obligation to ensure that the software it creates specifically for that hardware works on 3rd party hardware?
because that's not what i'm complaining about, and i don't think anybody here is. it is a strawman to say that we are arguing that. we aren't. we are arguing that it is not nice of apple to intentionally modify their product so that it won't work on intel atom processors. we do not expect apple to ensure that their software works on intel atom processors, and i don't think anybody here as argued that, but i may be wrong.
of course, it is not clear that apple has deliberately changed osx binaries so they won't run on intel atom processors. they may just need some instructions which intel atom doesn't implement, in which case it would be quite nice for apple to say "btw, we changed our compiler to optimise for this and that, so intel atom no longer works." rather than leave others in the lurch. of course disassembling the update should soon reveal if this is true or not, or if apple has introduced some code to deliberately make sure os x doesn't run on intel atom processors.
There's no legitimate reason--ethical, legal or otherwise--that Apple should be obligated to continue supporting a processor they don't use in any of their own products.
And once again i must repeat myself. nobody is asking apple to do this. you are arguing a strawman here.
How are they obligated to ensure that their product continues to work on a processor that they do not support? Why are they obligated to ensure the OS X hackintosh community can continue installing OS X on Atom-powrred netbooks?
they aren't and they aren't. but that's not what this argument is about.
the problem is that it is a generally not nice thing to do. many people (i am not one of them, as i would not sully my hands with os x) have quite happily installed os x on intel atom powered products and (presumably) enjoyed using the hardware with this operating system. for apple to deliberately disable their systems from working is just not nice. what harm is it doing apple? why do they have to say to these (presumably hundreds if not thousands of people) "we don't like what you're doing so we're going to make sure you can't!"? it's just small-minded, egocentric behaviour which would get a reprimand if a child did it.
The government has always acted in its own interests.
oh, citation needed big time. maybe this is true in some communist/fascist dictatorships, but i really do like to believe (and i see evidence that supports this belief) that in first-world countries with constitutions and functioning legal systems, the government is mostly a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
panic: can't find /