Even the thought is hard to believe for anyone who's been watching Apple Inc. (AAPL) over the long run. Once upon a time, the company was presumed dead, while Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) continued its march to market dominance. Today, Apple's $180 billion market value is evidence of a new era. Though it's still behind Microsoft's $250 billion, the company's rapid ascent and substantial market presence make at least speculation of catching up to the Redmond giant worth a few minutes of thought.

Microsoft is currently the most valuable technology company in the world, according to a Reuters report. Even Google, Inc (GOOG), with its astounding brand recognition and position as gateway to the internet, is worth "only" $136 billion. Apple, which was once considered a computer company that sold into education and appealed to some graphics geeks, has reasserted itself as a major global presence.

With the Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) Tablet, newspapers doing what they should have done: thinking about the possible impact to their business and trying to find ways to mitigate it. This comes 15 years after the industry ignored the internet and a decade after it disregarded Google (NASDAQ: GOOG). Of course, unwilling to admit its salient and severe fallibility, the newspaper folks are saying that they don't want the Tablet to destroy print the way the iPod destroyed the music industry.

The newspapers are apparently worried that circulation could plunge, driving profits through the floor and jeopardizing their abilities to operate. They are concerned that properties like the New York Times Co.'s (NYSE: NYT) Boston Globe could wind up selling for a single-digit percentage of the original purchase price.

An interesting article from the BBC takes a look at how file-sharing web sites can actually make a music act more popular. In fact, the research cited in the article shows that the most-pirated songs tend to be those at the top of the charts.

Think of the potential impact of this on Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL). I remember the halcyon days of Napster and the likes, when you could go online and find songs from various artists (I even found Scruffy the Cat on Napster, not an easy task) and download as many as you want.

Well, when the RIAA and Metallica decided to wade into the fray -- sites like Napster were either summarily shut down or had to start charging for their services.

With the constant back and forth about the purchase of England's EMI Group PLC (LSE: EMI), how much does the often rumored and hoped for reissuing of The Beatles catalog factor? Certainly, if Warner Music Group (NYSE: WMG) or a private equity firm ends up the "winner" in the EMI buyout, the gain that the future release will make must be under consideration.

Of course, that could be the very reason the process has sped up and become so intense in the last month. As Paul McCartney's solo catalog went digital from EMI, his newest album was released by Starbucks Corp. (NASDAQ: SBUX) and fared better than any of his recent albums for EMI. Buyers must be thinking about that success for a former Beatle and what it can mean for the pending remastered Beatles albums. The persisting rumors now indicate that a release will occur later this year or in 2008, but will the buyout be finished before then? Warner has pursued EMI for over seven years to no avail because of regulation concerns in the European Union courts.

In any case, EMI is expanding the Digital Rights Management technology deal that the company made with Apple Inc.'s (NASDAQ: AAPL) iTunes Store to other companies. The new deal with PassAlong Networks follows similar agreements with Amazon.com Inc. (NASDAQ: AMZN) and creates new competitors for iTunes, but all three will sale the DRM-free tracks for $1.29. The DRM deal and the buyout signal that EMI is making gains right now, but will The Beatles release be a part of this growth or the products these developments are intended to benefit?

Something is happening out in the digital world, and it may spell some rough times ahead for Apple. Apple's recent love affair with the mainstream press and non-Apple users has centered around the iPod. The stylish digital media device for many means Apple. iTunes, available for PC or Apple is the reason the brand has taken a more prominent place in the stage.

In order to keep the hold, Apple has to keep providing a great deal of value in its selections. So far the music library has been expanding, and most of the companies are still very cautious. Apple and its similar Fairplay DRM licenses seem like a fair compromise to many. But to get to that involved a lot of hard feelings as record companies sued little old ladies and generated an immense backlash of bad publicity.

Apple has finally found a product, in the iPod, that is an unqualified profit monster. The company is morphing from niche hipster to provider of music to the masses. And as part of the transformation they're making moves that never before seemed possible, like using Intel chips and (horrors!) Microsoft software on their computers. New strategies indicate that Apple is willing to be creative and do some interesting deals, like the one where the Red Hot Chili Peppers are selling advance tickets to their upcoming tour through the iTunes store.

The obvious next step? Porn, says Mark Gilbert (no relation to yours truly). If iPod owners will watch films on their 2.5" screens, surely they'll watch movies of an, umm, more lascivious nature. It's a huge money business; if Apple could get just a sliver of that $20 billion in adult video sales each year, they might continue their finally-respectable growth. But is growth respectable if it's (literally) made on the backs of the naked and promiscuous?

I love profits and all, but for the same reason I wouldn't invest in cigarettes, I'd feel very different about an Apple (fruit of the tree of good and evil) sinking its strategic go-juice into porn. Mark Gilbert doesn't agree, with the (flawed) rationale: "A search on Google Inc. shows a bunch of companies willing to sell the content and software needed to view erotic material on an iPod. Apple may as well grab some of that revenue for itself." With this logic, you could justify anything. I, for one investor, will pass.