Are Rule changes the cause for Ferrari decline?

Fernando Alonso’s win in Germany has all but ensured his championship victory. The performance of Ferrari and McLaren [the lack of it] also signals a likely constructor win too for Renault. When this happens, it will signal the end of an era in F1: An end of the long rein of domination by Ferrari and Schumacher.
However, many are claiming that this result is unfair, as the rules were changed to handicap Ferrari and advantage other teams.
On the contrary, the rules should have strengthened Ferrari and not weakened them. Here is why.

Ferrari had developed their car to a pinnacle - but the room for improvement for other teams was higher and they were just beginning to gain ground - when the rules were changed.

If you say that the rule changes were aimed solely at Ferrari - then it should be clear how the changes affect Ferrari more than other teams or help other teams more than Ferrari - having done this exercise on the rules after 2002 - a number of times now - the reality is that the overall result was either neutral or actually in Ferrari's favour.

Let's take a look at when the decision was made for the rule changes: end of the 2004 season. The three major changes that took place were:
1) 2 race engines;
2) One set of tires for qualifying and the same set for the race;
3) Aero changes (a general summation, but I trust you get the point).

Now let's look at what Max was seeing while he was coming up with these rules:
1) Ferrari had the best / reliable engine on the grid;
2) Bridgestone was more durable, and infact seemed to improve with wear;
3) A team was needed to test the effects of the aero changes he had in mind (whom did they pick to do the testing . . . that's right, Ferrari).

And which team was it that wanted V8 engines? And what engines will we have next year? Yes, you guessed right. It is Ferrari.

Ferrari already had the most reliable engine in the history of F1 when a rule was brought in to reward reliability - so who does that favour? Ferrari more than anyone else!

Single lap qualifying - well, let's see - drivers with proven records of being consistent and able to do near their best immediately (MS) - versus others who often needed a few shots to do their best (JPM, less experienced drivers).

When tyres became an issue - guess what - the scrutineering rules were changed - and it certainly was teams other than Ferrari who were affected.

On paper, the rule changes SEEMED to favour Ferrari. Unfortunately, someone dropped the ball and the other teams (mainly Renault and McLaren) upped their game.

It's long been said that rule instability is better for teams with more technical resources, as they have the ability to respond to the changes. Rule stability is better for the smaller and less technically equipped teams as they have a chance to catch up. Ferrari is not exactly one of the teams with poor technical resources- - the teams most able to deal with rule changes are those with the most resources. And if one team is already on top of key rule changes (such as for engine reliability) then it lets it focus on other changes.

I'm not saying that all the rule changes have advantaged Ferrari against the other teams, but certainly they've done relatively well out of them. It has just happened that this year, they dropped the ball. If Ferrari has had bad results this season, it has nothing to do with the rules. It just means that other teams did a better job than them. Period.