That's not really the problem. When the Original Xbox, PS2, and Gamecube were around for example, it was a proverbial three horse race
The PS2 had something on the order of 75% market share. The other 25% was split by 3 consoles.
but now that Microsoft pretty much dominate the console market
No it doesn't. I think today the console market is more equal than it has ever been.
Regular HMDI cables don't even fit in the back of the Xbox 360, no, instead we must buy the official Microsoft one (I actually removed over-sized plastic casing around the A/V cable so mine would fit).
I have a monoprice HDMI cable in the back of my 360 right now. o.O
No backwards compatibility: Why not? Would it be that hard to implement? Presumably it's to stop us all selling our 360's.
More than likely it has to do with the fact that a lot of people rarely/never use backwards compatibility. It's not about the difficulty to implement; I'm reminded of the saying that goes something like, "Anything is possible if you're willing to pay the cost." It's not just about difficulty it's about cost vs. benefit. As was also the case with the Xbox 360 they probably crunched the numbers and found adding a couple million to the cost of development would only add a small benefit to most users.
People always complain about this, but really after the first year of a console's release it doesn't matter that much. Some people care more than others, but most of the people that complain about it wouldn't use it in the first place.
Plenty of my friends like to trade games in for store credit, and essentially buy new ones with that credit. That won't be possible anymore, and the shops' business will suffer for it. You may not care, but it's Microsoft who'll be reaping what would have been their profits. Does no one see this as a bit too greedy?
If I had to guess they're using the steam model, in which case developers will see a good chunk of the profits. Obviously being a developer I'm ok with this.
From a consumer standpoint, those shops were rarely worth it anyway. If you're worried about greed, there is little that could be more greedy than used video game sales. Don't hide your distaste behind the greed argument, when it's already near it's peak.
Mandatory internet checks, or no single player gaming? Why must a console be dependent on an ISP to function? These services can experience intermittent problems, particularly weather related ones, and older consoles never required this measure. There's some real 'backwards thinking'.
2 things on this.
1. They've said single player games are fine and playable offline; internet verification is only needed to confirm the license for the game when you buy it and to verify that license intermittently (they've said every 24 hours in the past, but I feel like this is a moving target).
2. The internet is a big part of people's lives now. I can understand growing pains, but over the next 5-10 years the expectation will become that you have high speed robust internet with you most of the time and especially at your home. I can understand people being hesitant, but that is what's going to happen. That is not just a Microsoft expectation either; every tech company I know of is pushing towards the internet being an integral and near constant part of your life. I cannot fault them for designing their system around realistic expectations for the future.