Now, I do (again) need to make one brief comment to bring us back to "the point" of this thread and maybe cool the anger down a little bit about all of this. It doesn't really matter, so long as we find a solution, but it kinda clouds up things a bit so please endure me for a moment.
Zirkens, I want to assure you -- I PROMISE -- and I have talked to enough people at Apple in the past 96 hours that I know -- that there has not been a single step intentionally taken by Apple with the explicit goal of "blocking" Snow Leopard from running on the newest hardware. None. No secret instructions, no hidden bombs in the software or hardware.
Did they take steps to try to support it? In the end, no. My sources tell me what Cathy surmised, earlier: they considered trying to get it running on these really new, revised machines (Mini, Air and iMac) and they experimented with it, but, in the rush to get Lion to market, with the focus being on having Lion "work" and run at the fastest possible speeds, they chose to not include the slow-downs and code crutches that it would have taken to support Snow Leopard in an environment that it wasn't designed for. They felt that it would have slowed down Lion a bit and would have led to other problems. And, it's contrary to a long-held Apple policy about new hardware not supporting old OS software.
Was that a mistake? Yes, I sure think so, but then I'm one of the folks who is whining because it's causing me some problems. Is orphaning some old software with a newly-released generation of machines often the "policy" in the computer world, from IBM to Microsoft and Apple. for most of computer history? Yes. Sometimes it's clearly the right decision, sometimes it's a big problem. And, there's always a howl. That's why Apple sometimes doesn't do it that way. Think about Rosetta or "The Classic Environment," etc. etc.
I appreciate the colorfulness of your calling Steve Jobs the "Gadhafi of the tech world." However, in this case, all that has happened is that the new Macs utilize a different CPU / chipset / code combination that is not so friendly for Snow Leopard. Lion is very, very different in the processes and views that it brings to OS X -- it's a huge re-thinking of what the OS needs to be and what it needs to handle in the future, and has quite different coding goals and paths. So far, I don't agree with it, but there is not a single employee of Apple who has said that they're heard or been told to "block every method" of running Snow Leopard. SL support is just not workable at this point on that new hardware; I promise you that if they had intended to block it, the halfway-running of SL that we've achieved so far would be absolutely impossible.
It would have taken a lot of re-writing of legacy code to support SL, and they didn't think it was worth it. Bad decision, maybe, but not an intentionally evil one, and I believe that it's being revisited in two ways.
As you point out, there are plenty of Apple employees who don't like -- even hate -- Lion. There are plenty of users who think it's a disaster. We'll know a lot more about that in a couple of months, after some fixes and modifications. I'm not going to defend Lion.
The reason Apple employees clam up when you ask them to solve the problem is not that they are "afraid" -- there is just, simply, totally, right now, absolutely nothing they can do to help you run Snow Leopard on some of the new hardware, and they're perhaps occasionally a bit embarrassed. The support chips and ancillary code just ain't there. It's like trying to fly an airplane when there's no air. Not gonna fly.
I do believe, and have reason to believe, that Apple is encouraging a couple of products like Parallels to make some "bridges" -- some air -- available that will allow SL to run quite well on these machines. It's contrary to Apple's usual practices, but, hey, they just revived sale of Final Cut Studio 3 because Lion / Final Cut X is causing problems and is leaving too many Mac users without a viable tool set. This will not be a highly expensive, complex "fix" (if you want to call it that) just a bridge to allow some new machines to do some things that they were not expected or designed to have to do. Apple is allowed some screwups in my world, whether I like it or not, and on balance I like where we wind up after Apple's humans make human decisions and then, sometimes, have to try to tweak and bend the things that they've just crafted, things that aren't perfect, so that they fit users' needs better in a situation that the Apple folks either didn't clearly forsee or that they had decided wasn't that important.
That's like the growling that I heard yesterday from a major politician who griped that the national weather forecasts hadn't gotten the path of the latest hurricane exactly right, and so money was spent in places where it wasn't essential and there weren't enough warnings in some places where it unexpectedly caused problems. I can guess that he's never written a big computer program, tried to raise a kid to be "exactly" like he wanted, married someone who wasn't perfect, or tried to guess a couple of days in advance where a hurricane would go and how strong it would be. That's what the Serenity Prayer is for. And why there probably needs to be a 12-step program for software coders / computer designers who against all history believe that they can somehow always get it right. Talk to the folks at H-P or RIM or Atari or Microsoft or, now, Google, or Apple....or....
Okay, I'll shut up, now. This decision of "no Snow Leopard on the newest Macs" was a mistake, unless there's something really big that we don't know. The situation is irritating. However, let's get back to finding a solution, please, and then accept and publicize and implement one when it's found. There are 12,000 friends dropping by who'll help us.
Cathy, with your wonderfully clear writing, now please tersely re-explain all the things that I just completely messed up.