I think "thieves" is probably not the correct term.
We have to consider that it is Apple's choice to subsidize the price of OS X. If Gillette subsidizes the price of their shaver with the increased cost of the blades (which they do) would it be "theft" for someone to purchase a shaver from Gillette and choose a 3rd-party supplier for the blades? No, it would not. If Gillette subsidized the shaver to the point at which it seriously compromised their profits, that would simply be a bad business decision.
Imagine the reverse situation where Apple sells an expensive shaver and subsidizes the price of the blades. Apple, in fact, has the cheapest blades on the market. So if I were to, say, mold a plastic shaver with the ergonomics I like/need, and which happens to fit Apple's blades, would it be theft for me to buy said blades? No, it would not. Just as Gillette would be stupid to subsidize their shaver to the point of seriously compromising their business, so, too, would Apple.
The other bit, however, is that Apple has an EULA which says that if you buy and use their blades, said blades must be used with Apple's expensive shaver.
Would it now be theft of me to mold my own shaver and buy Apple's blades? The action I am performing is identical to what I was doing before: buying the subsidized blades to use with a shaver I molded myself. The difference in the second situation is breaching a contract.
But... Does Apple really have the legal right to stop me from using their blade, for which I paid the sticker price?
Or... is it, perhaps, Apple who is out of bounds for having such an EULA?
As a Hackintosh builder/user, I respect Apple's right to sell their software, and I buy it at the price they ask, but I reject their EULA as a violation of my rights as a consumer. Companies should not be able to control the use of their products past the point of sale. Therefore, disabling Atom support is well within their rights, but repatching OS X to recognize and operate with the Atom motherboard I installed
in my late G4 Cube should be well within my rights.
I would rather Apple charge "full price" for OS X than impose unethical restrictions past the point of sale.