This whole argument seems a bit silly. If you've got a product in the marketplace, you want to differentiate it as best possible so customers have a clear reason to choose yours. Unfortunately, in Linux distributions, the differentiations are subtle (despite what those of us close to them may wish to think). Fedora is clearly positioned as the bleeding edge--a distro which gladly opts for new/shiny/gee-whiz (with undoubtedly some input from Red Hat as to what things they'd like to have a bit more field-tested) over stable and easily supported. That's cool and seems to work for almost everyone.
If you want a more stable and supportable distro that's Fedora-like, you have the RHEL option (or CentOS, by proxy).
I've been amazed at the number of folks that have chosen the wrong distro for the wrong job simply due to their distro "religion". I used to work at Cisco where they ship most of their Linux-based products on in-house built distributions or variants of "known good" distros: largely RHEL or CentOS (e.g., CallManager boxes, ACS Express, etc.). However, some of their acquired technologies worked with Fedora and so they were immediately in the Fedora-based appliance game (e.g., NAC Appliance).
Can you support/harden/run a Fedora box for the long-term? Sure. Is it more work than doing it with another distro? Absolutely.