This is a really misleading article. I think people wanted to Apple to license it's hardware in the days of Macs. Then Apple stopped producing original hardware for the desktop/laptop and people wanted them to license their OS for the nearly identical hardware that other manufacturers were making.
The iPhone is a mobile device and lots other companies have produced their own mobile device and OS (or more likely heavily customized from another base). Microsoft itself have produced the Zune and Xbox. Palm has it's line. Nokia uses symbian, which it now owns.
Apple have made good hardware and software, but this is fanboy drivel.
Let me put it another way. Apple has stopped making unique hardware for the PC. Yes it sells PCs, but it doesn't innovate on the PC hardware anymore. It innovates on the cases and configurations, but these systems could all run windows or linux. Essentially Apple did start making its operating system for PCs, it just makes it a requirement that you buy the PC from them.
As for the iPhone and mobile market, any number of manufacturers have built hardware and software for mobile market. Apple simply did this by far the best.
Well, assuming by cases you include things like the magsafe power cord, which is undeniably brilliant and which I hope all laptop manufactures manage to miniskirt around the probable patents for. Or battery life for laptops which unless I'm missed something absolutely puts to shame all similarly-specced generic manufactures.
Actually the point I'm making was more directed at the article in question, not innovation at Apple in general. In that I don't think maintaining the exclusive relationship between hardware and software has been necessary for innovation. If it was there wouldn't be a need to specifically ban non-Apple PCs from running OSX. Expanding the point to the mobile market seemed dodgy when you consider the number of manufacturers that have their own OS. Game console manufacturers have also controlled the hardware and OS in their markets. I don't think it's nearly as unique as this article tries to make it.
Their value they offer is the UI software but they're determined to get their money from marking up hardware. Presumably they have figured out people are more willing to pay the same premium when it's a smaller portion of the total price (even when it means they have to replace an entire computer to do it). In the same vein, they charged cloners too little to cover the development costs of MacOS, which is why losing desktop hardware market share to the cloners (who were more efficient hardware producers) almost killed them instead of freeing them from the 10% ghetto.
The iPhone is a mobile device and lots other companies have produced their own mobile device and OS (or more likely heavily customized from another base). Microsoft itself have produced the Zune and Xbox. Palm has it's line. Nokia uses symbian, which it now owns.
Apple have made good hardware and software, but this is fanboy drivel.