You cannot legally obtain OS X without purchasing an apple computer as far as I know and last time I checked, they cost a hefty sum which is not a justifiable purchase in many economies.
If Canonical is able to produce an OS on par with the popular proprietary offerings free of cost then good on them and good on the community. If they fail to produce it, then bad on them but there are still many alternatives available no?
I don't understand why so many people are faulting Canonical for the vision they have. If you do not agree with their vision, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, there is no need to vilify them like they are responsible for clubbing baby seals or stealing first born children. People keep screaming that Ubuntu is taking their freedom when no one is forcing them to use Ubuntu.
It takes leadership to deliver that vision and that is what Canonical is offering to Ubuntu. Leadership.
There are many community developed distributions and a few more pop up every week while some die. This has been going on for many years, yet it has amounted to little with regards to making the Linux desktop mainstream. Why fault Canonical for diverging from the norm (Which obviously hasn't been working out)?
If Ubuntu's direction isn't your cup of tea then use another Distro. Many are doing just that. There is no need for slander.
With regards to the Wayland/Mir fiasco. For what Ubuntu wants to offer, Wayland may not fit well. Not that it is technically inferior to Mir. In fact it may be technically superior to Mir. It is certainly more complete at the moment. But let's say for example, Ubuntu adapts Wayland. 8-10 months down the road, they need to change the way Wayland works to accommodate some changes in their product offerings. How do they accomplish that? Do they force changes on Wayland that disrupts every other distro using Wayland. I doubt that would happen as such disruptive changes would be rejected upstream. What are their other options? Forking Wayland and maintaining the patches? Doable yes! But it may be better for them to have their own display server that they can integrate with their offerings and change when they see fit to do so without needing the blessing of the established oligarchy of Wayland devs.
Wayland may be ideal for a desktop distributions that do not change much over the years. However, the mobile consumer space that is fast to evolve might require a more flexible solution (Flexible meaning disruptive changes can be made as the market dictates).
Some people are behaving as if Wayland is the golden torch of Linux, as if everything will magically get better as soon as Wayland is adopted. Nothing much will change when Wayland is adapted. Linux wont magically see a higher adoption rate on the consumer desktop. X is not the reason linux isn't more popular in the consumer desktop space and Wayland will not solve that problem (Is that even a problem?). The only thing that will happen is that Distros will have a better graphic stack available alongside X.
You may never hear anyone say "Oh, I'm going to buy an computer with OpenSUSE preinstalled because it is using Wayland". Of course you may never hear someone say "I'm going to buy this ubuntu Computer because it us using Mir". However, you may hear someone say "I'm going to buy that Ubuntu phone because I can also use it as my desktop computer when docked".