>We're talking about a system that is in its infancy. This isn't >Sears. Would you rather have a somewhat responsible party, Apple, >available for redress, complaints, etc, or any tom, dick or harry >that could swing a franchise fee? Actually franchising works well for small companies who need or want to grow rapidly and don't have the physical resources to do it; or in some cases, where the business itself is very transitional (a big corp like Pepsi may start a franchise of yogurt stores, because the business may be a fad and overall exposure is defrayed to a bunch of individuals). Apple is actually closer to Sears, who doesn't franchise either; with over 14,000 employees there are lots of opportunities to leverage existing resources (marketing, PR, store design, regional management, finance, etc.). They are selling mostly their own products and those products are "dated". Franchising would create a whole new issue of quota inventories as mentioned by someone earlier; and would inhibit Apple's ability to keep new product launches secret. When I go into an Apple Store to buy something, they enter my name and information from my online user account pops up. They could never combine those sorts of resources with a franchise operation and still maintain integrity and security of your personal information (and thank goodness Apple takes security seriously). Bottom line, IMHO, is that not franchising is a good business decision by Apple. Forcing other retail distributors out with gestapo contractual tactics is a stupid business decision. Not having a definitive customer service training and follow up program -- including "secret shoppers" who evaluate service, is a slow death of a thousand cuts (look at how much bandwidth it has taken up on this list of solid Mac users!) -- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Mike Bigley Maineville, Ohio http://www.norbertrunning.com Please support an American Indian Elder & Medicine Man by visiting the above link. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>