3. Some claim that Hyperion has to cover high development costs, in a small market, and that justifies milking money from the mainboard manufacturer, on top of charging customers for supplying the OS. Considering that the mainboard manufacturer has had considerably higher development costs, I don't see the moral justification for the software side charging the hardware side. One side gets an OS, the other side gets a platform, costs and benefits are evenly split, and the money comes from the customers alone.
First of all, your statement is erroneous in the sense that we are only charging a per unit OEM royalty. We will determine whether or not it is economically feasible to undertake support of a given platform and a manufacturer might or might not want to induce us by guaranteeing a minimum number of sold copies.
Furthermore, your statement betrays a lack of insight into commercial policy and economics. The consumer always ends up paying the bill whatever license scheme is put in place. The distinction between what the hardware manufacturer pays and what the consumer pays is therefore completely artificial.
Let's not fall victim to the same delusions that have people claiming MSN messenger and IE are free of charge. The consumer ends up paying for it through other products.