perhaps so ...
then again, I think it's safe to say a fair number of the usual suspects that have the biggest voices in the press and around the 'net would probably write less than glowingly if that was what Apple elected to do.
Still, all else being equal, the odds favor Apple doing what Schiller said it would do. Given the importance and sensitivity of the question, it seems unlikely that Schiller would have commented without it having been discussed and decided at HQ.
I guess I see plenty to lose, and basically nothing to gain by creating a proprietary MoBo that won't run Windows. Why exactly would they do that?
My own guess is that while it won't happen now, it won't be far down the road before Apple has pre-install options for Windows and one or two Linux flavors. Ditto for letting OS X head out into the broader x86 universe with a blessing and a pricetag. They'll start with a "prohibition," which will, of course, be cracked in a matter of days, surreptitiously circumvented across a broad spectrum. Apple will haul a few egregious P2Pers into court and scorch them -- most likely one or more of the bittorrent sites that charge people for entrance to their seed stashes. And they'll probably nail a few average joe seeders while they're at it.
But ultimately, once the tide really gets flowing, and Apple has gotten a good idea of how to handle activitation and keys, etc., it will reverse course, let it be legitimate and start cashing in. This might or might not coincide with a major deal with HP, Dell or Lenovo.
That's when the game really changes.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
