Apple is a hardware company. They make money selling computers and other gadgets. Those computers and gadgets happen to run software, but that isn't what they make their money from (it's akin to a loss leader, even if it might not actually lose money).

Those customers you speak of, who stay away from the Macintosh because of the price; how much more money do you think Apple would make from them if they chose to buy a clone sold by another manufacturer? And how much money would they cost Apple in effect by taking advantage of software development subsidised elsewhere?

Killing the clones was (from a business point of view) one of the smartest things Steve Jobs did when he returned to Apple, and I can't see that decision ever being reversed.

Right. Compare the price Apple charges for a full version of OS X Lion ($29) to what Microsoft charges for a full version of Windows 7 (~$300 MSRP for the full monty, though you can get it for $250 at Amazon and other places), or the price Apple charges for Xcode ($5.00 or free, depending on the phase of the moon) compared to what Microsoft charges for Visual Studio Professional ($590 MSRP).

They used to license the OS and there were "clones" available. We has some at school, they were fairly ugly looking desktop cases. That was one of the first things Steve Jobs cancelled when he returned to the company.

Things have changes quite a lot with iTunes and the app store, but Apple did make their money as a hardware vendor, allowing them to practically give away the OS. Obviously it worked because they have so much money they don't know what to do with it!

Within the realms of legalities and liabilities, Apple does "let" you buy and install OS X on any machine. Supporting a broad range of hardware is a whole other rat's nest. And nothing's stopping you from installing third-party hardware and its accompanying driver on your Hackintosh, this does work.

That said, my Hackintosh days ended with the realization that the hardware was as important to me as the software.

Hackintoshes are not allowed by the license agreement:

"2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time."

I think you're quoting a rather old EULA. Here's the one I have for Lion:

  2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.  
  A. Standard and Preinstalled Apple Software License. 
  Subject to the terms and conditions of this 
  License, *unless you obtained the Apple Software from the 
  Mac App Store*, on Apple-branded 
  physical media (e.g., on an Apple-branded USB memory stick)  
  or under a volume license, 
  maintenance or other written agreement from Apple, you are
  granted a limited, non-exclusive license 
  to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software 
  on a single Apple-branded computer at any one time. For 
  example, these standard single-copy license terms apply to
  you if you obtained the Apple Software preinstalled on 
  Apple-branded hardware.

Apple's boutique image would evaporate and its fabulously high profit margins would plummet precipitously, and the share price would be dragged down with them.

We could argue endlessly about whether it would work or not, and how it might affect the industry. But it's not really realistic speculation. Regardless of whether it might work or not, it just wouldn't serve the interests of the company's owners or operators.

I don't think there is any reason for Apple to do this. They make their money from hardware, not software. In years/decades past, people could make the argument that growing their market share by supporting PCs might somehow make them more profitable in the long run... but these days I think it's quite obvious they are doing just fine on the profitability front.

Sheesh. How many times will this analysis be proposed. Anyone with the slightest interest in following Apple knows that Apple will never do this for the simple reason that they don't care a crap about the low end market.

The Apple experience is only possible when Apple controls the hardware and software and can provide the strongest linkage between them.

It doesn't care a crap about the low-end consumer market. But what about offices? Macs are currently limited to 'creative' industries - where people use MacBooks to browse the web from their desk, but often have to use windows for office work and the servers are windows.

Mac might be interested in snatching Windows from the corporate desktop. As the corporate desktop moves to the web and mobile devices it might be in Apple's interest to have them on Mac rather than people having to use Win8 tablets because that's all that works with the Windows corporate stuff.

A deal with a single HW maker to have a single Mac corporate desktop (possibly thin client iOS) only for bulk corporate customers isn't going to dilute their boutique image too much

It would ruin their business, and reduce Macintosh to a much inferior operating system. Their software is subsidized by their (seemingly more expensive) hardware.