.. is making the same mistake as Apple did in the early 1990s. Then, they opened up their OS to clone makers and *lost* market-share. Why? Because the clone makers were, to a greater extent, crap at building clones. So they performed worse than Apple kit and put people off using the Apple OS. Also, a clone-builder sale meant a lost hardware sale for Apple but there were not enough OS sales to make up for the lost hardware sales. So Apple started on the long slide to potential bankruptcy that only ended when Jobs went back there and promptly killed the clone program.
So, if Apple does as the author suggests and allows people to virtualise MacOS, all that will result in is lost hardware sales. Since Apple is still partly a hardware company, they gain nothing out of the deal (the MacOS store income is, let's face it, paltry compared to the iOS app store income) and won't replace that with extra app store income or software income. There is no commercial reason *at all* for Apple to do this and a whole host of reasons why to not do it. Unless, of course, they charge the same for the Mac emulator as they currently do for a top-spec Mac and, if they do that, they'll get zero sales of the emulator. As to Hackintoshes - why should Apple assist those who make it easy for Apple to potentially lose hardware sales?
So I see the chance of Apple doing this about equivalent to the chance of me strolling around on the moon in shorts and t-shirt. And it makes me sad that an El Reg columnist has so clearly missed learning from history.