All the issues you mention are certainly valid, but they would still require that Apple change its current strategies and corporate model. There would be many (many) lost jobs.

The licensing deals between Apple and companies like Power Computing, Umax and Motorola were similar, but I believe each had their own specifics. All three of those companies had adopted Apple reference hardware designs, but they also had their own designs. All operating system installations and bundles had to be licence through Apple. It was felt however that this model was impacting Apple's own bottom line and doing more to harm the Mac OS product differentiation than help it. The rest is history.

I don't know what kind of ROI Microsoft has managed since the summer of 1997 (when Bill showed up for the keynote). MS remains Mac OS' largest ISV (I believe Adobe is currently #2, but they might have swapped). Their Mac OS projects are probably profitable. And even though people hate to admit it, they still make the best (bar none) browser for Mac OS (9 or X).

I do think OS X for x86 would sell quite a few copies. It would have to make a significant impact to be widely accepted by ISVs. Some type of emulation layer though possible (DEC Alpha-based WinNT for instance) might not make for a very compelling solution. If Apple were thinking about that strategy for their current OS, it's something I have not heard even whispers about (not anything truthful anyway).

Things have been headed down much different paths a few times before. Macs with a dual-boot menu to select between MacOS and NT (CHRP - Common Hardware Reference Platform machines), Rhapsody for x86... So who knows what roads we may see being paved tomorrow.

Bruno