I had a feeling my early morning post about Dan Lyons and his Apple monopolymongering might engender some choice responses from some of you. But some of these posts might surprise you. Here's a taste:
From Mark: "As much of a life-time Apple fan that I am, I have to disagree with you about the recent workings of Apple...They are certainly leaning to be the bully that Microsoft became...I don't think they are Microsoft-like bullies yet, but they certainly are showing signs of falling into such ways with their oldest, most loyal fans like myself."
Brian writes: "Thank you to Jim Goldman for the article "Fake Steve Jobs and His Real Bad Argument." I think people like to jump to conclusions when it comes to Apple because there is so little else to go on. Apple is repeatedly termed a monopolist these days, but it's mostly just referring to their success and they seem to have little else in their vocabulary to describe it."
Payman says: "You have gained my respect not for what you said, but how you said it. Excellent work."
Norm addresses me as "Mr. Cramer." Ugh. But he does offer: "As an apple hardware user and stockholder, I am either shocked or confused by some of the stuff that I read these days...I see great company financial reports and the stock dives. I see a solid future and the stock dives. I see good products and writers complaining and going very, very far out on a limb to try to support their complaints. What is going on here? Where is the venom coming from in the articles from these writers, after all, they sure do not seem to be so upset when Microsoft does far worse?"
From Jason: "Thanks for havin' the cajones to tear down Lyon's "royal piece." I'm sure you will be getting some backlash from the MS-centric community but blogs like Lyons' really go out of their way to distort reality and for some reason, there is so much of it right now. Everyone wants to take Apple down for the wrong reasons, but will praise companies like MS for simplest and sometimes stupidest of reasons. Stockholm Syndrome at its finest."
Patrick says: "THANK YOU for writing this article. Unlike you, I do have a bias toward Apple, So I have had this very argument with friends and employees who surprisingly blame Apple for having created an inviting, easy and affordable ecosystem of products across several industries. You hit the nail on the head: 'Want to' versus 'have to.' Every time someone begins to grip about their 'lack of choice' and Apple's 'unfair business practices,' I will now be able to save my breath (or typing fingers) and steer them toward your article."
Ben suggests that Fake Steve "may be seeing something budding and is raising the red flag hoping to stop it..."
Peter writes: "Thanks for the fair and combative response to what's his name. Enjoyed reading it."
Jim says: "It's a very sick market where losers are perceived as winners and winners losers. Where customer selection is viewed as coercion and coercive practices make lackluster products the 'standard.' Where investors sell the good news and buy the bad. George Orwell and Lewis Carroll couldn't have conjured this dystopia."
And from Dave: "Hello Dan: I can't recall any socialized capitalism model that has produced an Apple, or a Google, or an IBM or GE...."
Great points all. Keep 'em coming! And thanks for writing in.
- Maria Bartiromo: The Hunt for Black Gold
Questions? Comments? TechCheck@cnbc.com