In fact that's not much different than many existing cross platform applications that have a platform agnostic core with a layer of platform specific UI code on top.
While you didn't use that phrase yourself, the implication that it could be applied to Apple's offerings reeks of co-option to me--I think Gruber's right about that, since Apple appears to focus on providing the best experience for each individual device (and devices from other vendors aren't even an issue for them--why should they be?). That said, however, I think you're right in that it would certainly be sensible from their perspective to make it easier for developers of one of their platforms to pick up development for their other ones.
Historically Next/OpenStep ran on Windows and there were always rumours that Cocoa for Windows (aka Yellowbox) would be released. And there was GNUStep, which was an independent open-source clone of OpenStep. I wonder if they have maintained Yellowbox in the same way as they maintained the Intel version of Mac OSX?
Meanwhile, Apple's Windows UI strategy with iTunes is to mimic the Mac as much as possible - presumably to try and ease things for people if/when they switch.
But the net effect is that their Windows software is just awful - proof that one UI to rule them all doesn't work.