> And so I want these things--netbooks, phones--that don't exist. Well, fine. I'll make them. But then there are people out there who are actively preventing me

> And so I want these things--netbooks, phones--that don't exist. Well, fine. I'll make them. But then there are people out there who are actively preventing me from making them, and thus having the things I want. Not only is Apple saying "We don't care about X" but they're saying "we hate X and will prevent it from coming into being." It's being needlessly antagonistic. Two points here I've been mulling over for the past few days: 1) If Apple did nothing to prevent it (if there was no EULA restriction or DSMOS[1]), running a Hackintosh system would still mostly be about finding supported hardware or getting some unsupported hardware to "mostly work", and there would still be no promises that a point release wouldn't inadvertently hose your system. Honestly, aside from feeling better about breaking the EULA I don't see how it would be that much different. 2) Mostly speaking in regards to the Palm syncing with iTunes, but also in regards to Hackintosh systems, if Apple does nothing then they will be in a position will they will have to support these systems on some level. Taking the Pre as an example, who is the consumer going to blame when a future iTunes update breaks syncing? Who will they call for support? Consider, if the Pre syncing went on without interference with Apple and worked fairly well it would certainly be included in future devices from Palm, and a similar tactic would likely be employed by other device makers. All it would take would be a change in the iPhone OS or iTunes to piss off millions of consumers. You'd get PC World running "Apple update breaks millions of consumer devices" (or worse yet, something resulting in data loss), with single sentence somewhere at the end about how these features aren't actually supported by Apple anyway. Why would Apple allow this? They are already the target of some absurd outrage as it is. Not speaking to you specifically, drewcrawford, but it seems like most people don't want Hackintosh systems to be quietly accepted, they want them to be supported and tested. [1] While I run a few Hackintosh systems, I'm not sure what other intentional barriers are in place other than the DSMOS an the EULA.