OSNews

He never mentioned Apple losing money: just that, with the OS being partially costed with the hardware purchase, that the natural price of the OS without the hardware associated with it (Apple-made hardware, for the TUE) would naturally cost more: Psystar is living off the back of Apple with their shenanigans, and that's the crux of the matter, and if, for some weird reason, despite all the European legal "rights" claimed that you believe make sense (but, this is the US, and we don't do things in exactly the same way here, so what goes in Europe, unless the laws are identical, means absolutely nothing) somehow get into this case in the US and forces Apple to ignore what Psystar is doing, then Apple would want to do what the OP is stating: raise the price for those that purchase it for non-Apple-made machines, and reward legitimate Mac owners with a price discount for upgrade copies. Since Apple is in no way close to having a monopoly in PC hardware anywhere in the world that I'm aware of, there's no chance that they wouldn't be able to do this, if, for some reason, the court ruled that Psystar had a legal leg to stand on in the US.

Microsoft has always wanted to sell their OS for every Tom, Dick and Harry machine, as they've never been a PC manufacturer selling their own PC hardware: that's just their business model, and it seems for the most part, that has worked out rather well for them, regardless of whatever things they've done in the past. It's very unlikely that any court is going to force Microsoft to abandon their business model and tell them they can only sell their OS to run on a machine that they manufacture, not even getting into other things that could pop up.

By the same token, Apple's model is to do an all-included model of hardware + software, and that's how they're competing against everyone else: it is also similarly unlikely that (at least in the US, not sure about the idiot EU authorities) the court is going to order them to change their business model. What Psystar is attempting to do is force Apple to change their business model, with no agreement of Apple of wanting to do that, by reselling OS X as though they were acting as general third parties for Microsoft's OS for generic hardware.

Of course, I realize this is all rehashing the issue, but it is apparent that it has failed to sink in as to how things really are. All the evidence from the past indicates to me that Psystar is going to end up on the losing end of this battle, and deservedly so. Why on earth should any company want to have their brand tarnished by having part of their product associated with officially unsupported, officially unrecognized machines, where Apple may find themselves the brunt of complaints for resolving functionality issues between the part that they create (OS X) not working with the part they have no control of (the PC that Psystar provides) and that's not remotely right. There's more to this whole thing than just whether or not Apple makes money or as much money on the sale of the OS that they develop, when used by a third party without their permission: there's also the dilution of brand and related things, and it seems you're conveniently ignoring this, pointedly.

You are engaging in a totally selective rewriting of history.

MS-DOS would only work 100% correctly on IBM branded PCs until Digital reverse engineered the BIOS.

MS would make almost certainly make PCs if antitrust legislation allowed them too.