It's not my fault if they base their business model on trying to restrict what I do with what I buy after I buy it... And it's not my fault that clones will hurt their business; it's supposedly a free market, that's the whole point is to promote a situation where one business can hurt another.
Not selling boxed copies of OSX might be a good way, though how that affects upgrades I'm not sure.
I don't totally disagree with you, I just don't agree with a company being able to control or limit what I do with a purchase after I make that purchase. Be it Apple, Microsoft or anything else that has DRMs and licenses and such.
If that means a non-upgrade OSX for $399, I think that's a GREAT idea, even for Apple. Imagine a world where there's a legitimate alternative to Windows without being tied to a single hardware vendor and their crazy pricing. The computing world would be better for it.
Clones may not push Apple to be more innovative, but it could push Apple to be more competitive. Or even if it doesn't, so what? Again, free market, no one gets special protection just because.
The question to me is should the OSX license be allowed to restrict people from installing the software on whatever they can manage to get it installed on. I say it shouldn't. I think your car analogy was perfect
