Replies

I’m a huge intellectual property fan, though, let’s face it, Apple’s hardware is a bit spendy.

More than happy to buy the Genuine OSX if it’ll run on a clone.

The trouble is that intellectual property has an instrumental justification - Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the authority
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
That purpose would not be accomplished by merely allowing Apple to sell OS X licenses without vindicating Apple's right not to sell OS X licenses on terms unfavorable to Apple.
The business model of Microsoft is to support and lead the "clone of the IBM PC" market, with its rich variety of hardware configurations, making only software. You wish that Apple competed head-to-head with Microsoft in that market. I agree that it would be nice for the consumer if Apple were to successfully do that; competition is freedom for the consumer. Full stop.
But Apple has chosen a different business model. Instead of making its money on software, Apple - tho not in the business of efficiently making hardware, is also fundamentally not a software company either. Apple is a systems design house. It not only develops the software, it designs the software in the context of its design of the hardware. So what you buy from Apple is the entire system, with not only its OS X software but its elegantly styled hardware which works for that software because the two were designed by the same entity, namely Apple. Because they control the entire system, Apple has the authority to make the system work - and is able to vindicate the customers' expectation that it will work. For the customer there is no separation of responsibility from authority. You go to the Apple store, you buy an Apple system, and any problem is an Apple problem. Cut and dried, no argument. Nobody tells the customer, "That's a software problem, go to Microsoft" or "That's a hardware problem, go to Dell." Let alone both.
And Apple is not a software company in that its objective in upgrading its OS is not to make big buck selling OS licenses. It does charge for them, but the primary objective of OS upgrades is to sell systems - on face value, hardware. Even at $129, an OS upgrade isn't a super cash cow for Apple to sell, and Snow Leopard especially makes the point when its announced price is only 29 bucks. What Apple gets out of it isn't so much the money for my upgrade, it is the reputation for selling you a system which is good and will get better. What they are after isn't so much my $29 as it is your $1000 when you see how good the system they offer you is, and you realize that the next upgrade of the OS will improve your system, rather than obsoleting your hardware with bloatware and driver issues.