I am constantly amazed by people who say that software (in this case OS X) "costs" nothing because the company has already made a profit on it. This is pure ignorance of accounting. Just because one can "print" copies for nearly free doesn't mean that it doesn't cost anything. Once you break even (i.e. you have covered the weighted head costs (salary plus overhead) of the developers and QA test teams, the costs of support, and the other overhead and shipping and various costs, it doesn't mean that (a) it's free or (b) you are supposed to give it away for free.
Microsoft doesn't start giving it's OS away for free once it's sold enough copies to break even. Why do some expect, nay, demand that Apple do the same?
I'm not a fanboy, but I am a fan. I have a Windows server in the garage, and use Windows and OS X all day at work. I hesitate to use (again) the ubiquitous "car analogy" so I'll try to put it another way: Just because many things are made from commodity parts doesn't mean that they should cost the same. The seller can demand any price they want, and whether it's by marketing and cachet (perceived value) or by demonstrable benefits, they can charge more then the guy across the street, they have the right to do so.
Who generates more profit, the owner of a hoppin burger joint that peaks at noon and 6pm, or the owner of the fancy restaurant that has expensive overhead and only does business during the evenings? Actually, they may both be making a good profit: Some people are buying good, but cheap food and others are getting their value from the dining experience. Good for BOTH owners, good for BOTH consumers. That's freedom of choice, in action.
