No. The difference is that Adobe was actively planning a transition (32 to 64, for something like Photoshop, was seriously unlikely to have been a matter of simply re-compiling), and instead of working on a sane transition (to Cocoa) the waited around hoping that they'd be able to take an easier way out using a tool that Apple had announced their attention to be a temporary stopgap SEVEN YEARS AGO.
That's got nothing in common with Apple still slowly but surely working their way through transitions to Cocoa.
And Apple is not banning cross-compilers. That's not the point. If you really wanted to, you could probably manage to coerce Xcode into using Compiler Foo (as long as it were just acting as a C-foo compiler). And the license wouldn't necessarily bar that (at least not the parts that people are currently up in arms about). They are specifically trying to stop other companies with a penchant for underhanded lock-in tactics from getting their proprietary languages and translation/compatibility layers into Apple's own proprietary device ecosystem. Which is totally reasonable, given that Apple is the one who put the R&D into it. It may or may not be a good idea (I think it is, given the examples of history), but that's not relevant to a question of whether it's "fair" or legal.
People keep framing this like Adobe is some sort of open paragon of virtue. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth, particularly in their current incarnation. Adobe used to be about creating really interesting and useful tools; now their management (though I doubt the engineers like it) are about enhancing lock-in and embrace-and-extend.
)
