oops, I just realized I never replied to this message.

A few short points:

On monopolies: Apple and MS are not monoplies - in the technical sense (i.e. where there is one - and only one - firm in the market).
They arte oligopolies which have monopoly-like powers to set prices and hence have (over a period of years) a monopoly-like
rate of profit. This is a consequence of the strategy of product differentiation which relies heavily on advertising creating brand loyalty.
And Apple has brand loyalty - millions of fanatical customers who will buy anything Apple sells and believe all of their
advertising copy. It's not because they have a superior product - any more than Coke or Pepsi have a superior product. The
consequence of brand loyalty is that consumers don't say 'I need a new XXXX (computer)'; it's that they say 'I need a new YYYY
(Apple)'. Once consumers say that, then the seller (Apple) can jack up prices basically without regard for what other firms
are selling (often, similar, almost identical) products. What consumers end up paying a premium for is often simply a name
(a label).

On paying for apps: actually, the only software I've purchased in the last 5 years or more was Sea Clear - and was only
because of the nominal price. In these days of Open Source software, the trend is not to pay. This trend will continue.
Only Apple spendthrifts will spend money on apps that they could otherwise have obtained for free using a different platform.

On consumer spending: well, consumers are influenced by many factors other than just quality. For example,
fashion. Apple is good at fashion - and glitz and (especially) self-promotion. I give them credit for that. What I
won't do is infer simply because large #s of cionsumers are buying their products that they are better products.

Jerry