[no_wizard]

I stilll somehow feel this could become a support burden. Also it'd kill their highest end Mac market

(I certainly am not saying that their inability to seemingly update these Mac pros or even have a decent iMac pro alternative is beyond what I mean here. I feel that pain)

I wonder however if they charge a fat sum for it like they did back in the day for Snow Leopard Server if the margin would supplant some of that

[toyg]

> it'd kill their highest end Mac market

But that's the problem - as you say, they don't really have or even want that market anymore. Their real high-end is now the laptops, which were never cloned even when they could be (because it's a humongous can of worms). Nobody in his right mind today would buy a Mac Pro or an iMac for computation, their value proposition in that area is ridiculous - they get bought by hotels, boutiques and architects for their design aesthetic. These people will never buy ugly clones or even know what a hackintosh is. There is nothing left that can be cannibalised by clones.

If Apple "liberalised" their enthusiasts' market, they'd gain huge goodwill, sustain their own ecosystem, make a few quid on licenses (nobody said they have to be cheap), and possibly even get software for free (think OSS drivers for devices they'd otherwise not have the resources to write or support). With all the telemetry they have today, they'd know at a glance things like popular architectures, OS performance on devices they've not tested, etc etc. And of course, the minute they see a market shift they don't like, they could pull it again. They certainly have a bit of cash they can burn on this sort of thing, sitting in those Bermuda accounts.

Maybe they could tie it to their developer accounts. I don't have one at the moment, but if I knew that it could give me an easy way to hackintosh, I'd be over it like white on rice.

[no_wizard]

Well I'm happy to try and reason this out.

One thing is for sure. Under no circumstance should they allow OEMs to make Mac hardware. I'd even go as far as to say to control for this all hardware that could be build by the end user (which could be a business or person I suppose) must be certified through the MFI program. If I was postulating a way for this to work, the only way I see it working is:

1) They charge yearly for the priviledge through either the developer accounts and deployment accounts (for businesses and individual devs) and direct sales. I would say to make up for any potential lost margin we are talking $400-700 for this. Just like back in the OS X server days.

2) I imagine all hardware will need to -no must need to- be MFI certified and likely I could imagine Apple not only getting their cut from that but perhaps every MFI part sold will have a hearse are chip that ensures authenticity and compatibility

3) this will never be something OEMs could partake in. As a stipulation for the MFI program I could see them stating that hardware can't be sold to OEMs only direct purchases.

In the most realistic scenario I can come up with that's how it would work. Even then I doubt Apple wants to or could otherwise make it viable. It could potentially do so much brand damage otherwise

[jacobush]

Not actively harming Apple no, in this scenario, but too much fuzz for them to care.