Maybe companies prefer their way, instead of what Apple imposes on them. After all, not all companies are tech companies, who can afford large teams of expensive devs to keep updating their SW. For non-tech companies, the less dev work they have to invest in SW, the better, as that frees up resources for their main business activity.

I for one if I'm the customer and the one spending the money I definitely want to be in charge, not be at the mercy of the manufacturer of product I spend money on to dictate how I should run my business, that I should invest more effort in keeping up with them.

Move fast and break things at the pace of their vendor, is not what most users and companies expect from their products and services.

Kinda similar to Rosetta 1 and 32 bit binaries on x86. I get their motivation but killing Rosetta 1 basically meant that all old games that came out in the PPC era couldn't be played anymore and killing of 32 bit binaries made the Apple logo in Steam useless. It's not like people expect that this works like how early win32 application still work on Windows. They could totally make the user jump through a bunch of hoops to get support for their old applications. But they didn't.

Windows has become a hodgepodge of code bases from a variety of time periods and philosophies, some of which leans on some ancient stuff that can’t be touched.

Hell, they had to skip Windows 9, just to prevent breaking 95/98 software from braking.

The average SW engineer here in HN wouldn’t know how fast they’d get to a keyboard to complain if they were to find a codebase like that at their job.

That’s not to say it’s necessarily bad, even if it can be cumbersome, it’s just to highlight the cost of maintaining that compatibility and a difference in philosophy.