If they were better for the average consumer, they'd be taking off. They're not.

Earnings announcements, and, especially, forecasts, are irrelevant to my point.

One need not be conversant in technology to understand that MSFT's "dominance" is withering away quicker than Bob Dole's erection. One need only look at its most recent earnings report

If one actually reads the latest earnings report, one might actually find the following:

"Microsoft net profit tops forecasts; shares rise"

here

Methinks you didn't actually read my comment other than the two sentences you pulled from it. I think we pretty much agree other than the fact that you think Apple truly has a superior product. Apple has a more popular product but there are better ones out there in my opinion.

Either way I think it's these other better products out there's responsibility to prove to the mainstream consumer that they are better, not the government's.

It's far ahead because of its technology and features.

While Apple's competitors were relying on the government to bail them out, Apple was busy developing new products that are truly killer — like 8 GB of storage and a color screen and 20 hours of battery life in a music player smaller than 2 books of matches.

The reason it's so far ahead is because it's better — and Apple's not going to just sit on its laurels and wait for the competition to catch up.

iPod could be beat by another product, if another product can convince consumers that it is better.

Sure, but it's unlikely that product will come from Europe — or that Apple will go quietly without vigorously competing.

Both of those practices, according to the Eurocrats, are "unfair." When Microsoft, Apple and other successful US innovators develop better products that leapfrog beyond others' catchup efforts, the Eurocrats often try to restrain further development. Attacking Apple's DRM and forcing them to create a "format" that "plays on any device" (an impossibility — is Apple going to make sure it works in my old Atari Falcon030, which can play digital music but not Apple's format?) is designed to force Apple's resources not into creating better products, but into subsidizing competitors who cannot keep up.

There's nothing stopping Creative, Sony, et al from launching their own stores — and, in fact, they have. Their stores are also proprietary. Apple's just getting targeted because they've been "unfairly" producing vastly superior products, and will continue to do so.

I think that's antithetical to Kip's post, if I'm understanding him correctly.

In my opinion, if iPod is truly so far ahead that a competing (and better product) CANNOT win, then perhaps the anti-trust laws are necessary after all. I don't think that's the case though. iTunes sales are slowing rather dramatically. Dramatically enough to make Apple and analysts who follow that particular industry sit up and take notice. The fact is that Apple made legal digital music "easy" for the non-techies of the world but as digital music has become more commonplace, people are deciding there may actually be better ways to get their digital music, and Apple's iTunes store is seeing declining sales (they're just at the beginning of the decline so they're not in too much trouble yet). Now granted your statement was about the iPod which hasn't shown the drop-off that iTunes has experienced, but the same principle applies. iPod could be beat by another product, if another product can convince consumers that it is better.

One of the funnier things about the iTunes Store is that Apple doesn't earn much profit on it. It's designed to drive iPod sales, but at this point, the iPod is so far ahead that a competing format cannot win. And the recording industry isn't going to support an end to DRM.

As for Microsoft, they should deal with the lawsuit from their competitors by announcing that Vista releases will go forward on schedule — in the rest of the world — and that Vista is being cancelled in Europe due to regulatory issues. XP will be the only MS OS sold there, and express regret that this "unfortunate decision" had to be taken in light of the EU's "constant regulations targeting our businesses."

Given the overwhelming market share of XP, Microsoft still makes money in Europe, and the Eurocrats can explain how customers are "better off without a monopolistic product" — even as European enterprises lag their competitors.

So then it's safe to assume your answers to my questions would be: "No" and "No"?

Not at all: It's safe to assume that I think your post is a giant non sequitur. No more, no less.

"Forcing a company to sell a product that it doesn't want to sell and that customers don't want to buy…" sounds like a pretty good set of analogies to me.

Why you think your examples are relevant escapes me, however.

"No" and "No"?

If "don't do business with Apple if you don't agree to their policies" is the answer, then most of your post, bad analogies and all, seems like quite a non-sequitur as well. Why get into the power plugs and media format stuff? You could have simply said, "iTMS customers voluntarily entered into an agreement. If they want to listen to their music on a non-iPod device, they can use some of the software out there that allows them to do this as long as they are aware they open themselves up to a tort for violating the iTMS service agreement."

By the way, what do you think would be fair compensation to Apple for violating the iTMS terms of service? DVD Jon might be liable for quite a sum if Apple could somehow prove that $X of iPod sales were lost because of his software. But what about someone who just used the software to listen to his collection on a non-iPod portable? What damages should she be liable for?

I'll grant that what DVD Jon did is likely a violation of the iTMS TOS — or at least would clearly be a violation of the current iTMS TOS. I'm not sure if those same terms applied back when he developed FairPlay. Then again, Apple isn't solely relying on tortious remedies to contain the PlayFair genie that's been let out of the bottle. They've cited the DMCA when trying to get FairPlay software removed from web sites. So it's not just a matter of an agreement between Apple and their customers. There's also an issue with how Apple markets the iTMS and how it conflicts with the actual Terms of Service in the fine print. They're not selling ownershp of songs (despite what they say when contrasting themselves with something like the Rhapsody service). They're selling licenses. And it's why I've never hitched my digital music wagon to their star.

In addition, as far as I know, Real Networks violated no agreement with Apple when they released their Harmony technology that allows their music to be played on iPods. They bought an iPod and figured out how to get their own DRM-protected content to play on it. I only brought it up because I thought it was another interesting angle to look at in terms of the "cassette/cd" analogy you were trying to push.

Still pretty content with my decision to NOT buy an iPod.