Who said anything about what was(n't) an Amiga? I don't class my MSI motherboard as an Amiga, but it still runs AROS and AmigaOS3.1, so I still get to use my Amiga-centric programs in an Amiga-centric enviroment. Sure, it's not quite as nice as the real thing, but my real machines are on sabatical until I move to the next house, except one which I'm leeching all the files off to do some nostalgia releasing.
And, honestly, if you don't think OS4/MorphOS/AROS are Amiga, then you are not considering the identifying quantity of such a title: the user that operates them.
Amithlon is an Amiga, because the user is an Amigan and the software utilises the hardware through a familiar set of libaries and a logical, easy-to-identify with file structure which does not obfuscate important infrastructure. If you don't like the 'Format' dialogue, just replace it. The 'Info' window not providing enough interoperability? There are many replacements. Everything can be changed to suit the intended application by supplementing the original components in a system-friendly manner.
These things, combined with religious zealotry, are what makes an Amiga what it is. The (re)actions of a lot of people on this site only prove that ALL of the machines which claim to be successors to the Amiga are Amigas themselves.
Finally, the 'Classic' Amiga line is not dead. I still use it, as do many others; there are any number of hobbiest projects attempting to replicate and/or propagate the humble design of those ex-Atari geniuses we constantly seem to forget.
benJamin
"Objection! Badgering the witness!"