Old Argument Redux: Apple Should License OSX

"Let's face it: Apple isn't happy that it needs to deal with Psystar. And why should it be? The company is a costly nuisance that needs to be dealt with swiftly. But if the court battle lasts too long--or worse, if Psystar finds a way to win, Apple will be forced to deal with a slew of similar Mac clones that will only make maintaining its stranglehold on Mac OS X that much harder. That's why Apple should license Mac OS X to Hewlett-Packard and Dell, the world's top PC manufacturers. By doing so, it will be able to eliminate the threat Psystar and its clones create, since no one will trust an Open Computer from a no-name compared to Dell and HP. More importantly, it will expand its presence in the PC business and finally get to a place where it can compete on the same level as Microsoft."

In the year 2009, it's a miracle to me that people are still making this ridiculous argument.  Folks, here's the deal.  It isn't going to happen, and the reason is very simple.  Ready?

Apple is a hardware manufacturer, not a software company!

I really figured people would get over this idiotic licensing idea, but it keeps coming back again and again and again by people who are supposedly known and respected in the industry.  Reisinger's argument amounts to "this is the best way to get rid of Psystar."  As one commenter notes:

"Apple IS a hardware company. Microsoft is a software company. Apple only has OS X to sell their hardware, along with software like Final Cut Pro and Aperture. Please understand that it is all TO SELL THE HARDWARE. There is a reason it is a bit more expensive. Does apple sell software? Yes. Does Microsoft sell hardware? Yes (zune and xbox). Does staples sell food? Yes but it is an office supply store, not a grocery store.Apple is a hardware company."

Apparently it is obvious, at least to some people.