Sorry, I had to laugh.
Part of the blame for Itanium losing the 64-bit bandwagon could be pointed to Microsoft, for not having Windows ready for it when it became available. Or for delaying the launch - it's silly to launch a processor without an OS to run it on.
Having Windows support for your hardware is paramount to any desktop computer company since the early 90's (with the notable exception of Apple). Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC (as in PReP) desktop systems are not dead because x86 systems were a better price/performance choice: they are dead because Microsoft pulled the plug on NT for them (and Linux was not ready to take its place at that time). That's also why all our computers are remarkably alike from the inside. It's not that Microsoft is open - it's that they have computer makers cornered.
Today I can get a non x86 computer and expect all my userland to work (with the possible exception of Flash, Skype and parts of Eclipse). I could not do that in the 90s.
The Itanium is not an expensive server chip because Intel cannot build an Atom-like processor with the Itanium ISA (heck - it must be easier than do it with the x86 ISA). It's an expensive server chip because it won't run Windows 7 and Office.
I see very little competition in the development tools in the Microsoft space these days. Tool makers know better - if they make something that competes with Visual Studio, Microsoft will come after them in the next release cycle and it is not worth the pain to fight them. That's why every non-Microsoft development tool around is built for a niche. Or is free, a case where Microsoft will not be able to go after you. That could be a reason for the free language explosion we are seeing.
And thanks. The Psystar imbroglio is a statement of how evil Apple can be about competition these days.
It even seems that after stopping attracting the best and brightest, they started attracting former Microsoft minions...
Steve seems to think that the benefits of closed systems (standardised UI, fewer crashes) outweigh the costs (more expensive, less software). I don't have to agree to recognize that he's making a rational trade-off.
And that's a bad thing because? Who has the mainstream OS now with over 87% market-share? Even popular cross-platform applications that were first available for Macs (like Adobe Photoshop) are now more optimized for Windows.
Microsoft has always been more open ... you can install Windows on any hardware you want as long as it's compatible (and most hardware is, with the notable exception of ARM-processors).
The developer tools where a lot more competitive because Microsoft allowed competition from the likes of Borland. And the Windows API was free to use (as opposed to OS/2 for instance). And for end-users ... Microsoft has always been committed to backwards compatibility (at least for popular applications).
Microsoft can be called "evil" yes, because of their aggressive tactics regarding competition. But imagine what would Apple do in the same position ... and it's kind of ironic that many developers choosing openness went to Apple for that.
Apple makes money, yes, but they were on the edge of bankruptcy ... they should've learned a valuable lesson then (besides keeping Steve Jobs as the CEO).