U G L Y

Didn't anybody else get this survey from Apple about .mac a few weeks ago?

"Please take this survey.
Apple values your opinion and invites you to participate in a survey about .Mac. Your responses will remain completely confidential and results will be viewed only in aggregate. The survey should take 15 minutes or less to complete.

Thank you for participating.
Apple
If you are having trouble viewing images, click the following URL or copy it into your web browser: http://www.nqresearch.com/s/08007/cgi-bin/ciwweb.pl?studyname=AP20&a=ut4ro5gf2hb"

As part of my ongoing battle to convince my wife that dishHD is a good thing I put Legally Blonde on tbsHD this past weekend. I noticed immediately they pushing through unstretched content, but a number of times during the show the picture would freeze up though the audio would continue. Then after switching channels and back the picture came back but it was the stretched version. This same thing happened again the next day with Black Sheep. The difference was that when I cycled the channel the picture came back without the stretching. The weather was good both times so I don't think it was intereference.
Any ideas?

AppleTV needs 2-Day rentals for new releases (like new releases at blockbuster) and 7-Day rentals for Kids/Family Movies. Here's why.

People with kids will understand this:
I have three kids. When we rent a movie for them, they like to watch it 3-4 times during the week. Now as a parent I feel bad enough that letting them watch tv at all (since they should be outside playing), so cramming 3-4 viewings of a movie into a 12 hour day (yes my kids sleep for 10-12 hours/day) would mean that in order to get in the usual 3-4 viewing they would spend 6-8 hours of their 12 hours of awake time watching tv. That is just not good parenting right?

I propose rather than a 24 hour clock upon the first viewing that instead you get 7 days to watch the film up to 3 times (at least with kids/family movies). Most adults are not likely to watch any movie (Live Free or Die Hard, for example) more than 1 time in a month because we don't like watching the same thing over and over again. But the 2-day-watch-it-as-many-times-as-you-like plan would work for my wife and I on new releases (which usually are movies that we haven't seen because we rarely see movies at the theater anymore unless they are kid's shows).

sincerely,
desperately seeking hd entertainment

N8,
The point I am trying to make is that when someone goes to by a laptop and sees that they can spend $2000 for a 2.4 GHz 15" MBP or $2500 on a 2.5 GHz 15" MBP it is hard for most people to see a lot of value for that extra $500. It means Apple will sell fewer of the upgraded laptops because most people will just get the entry level model.

The option to upgrade the chip on the 17" PB/MBP _HAS NEVER EVER BEEN DONE!!!_ That is just a simple fact, as asinine as you may think it is.

@ BENDER

QUOTE:
"dochebag"
REPLY:
How old are you? The proper spelling is Douche Bag or Douchebag.

QUOTE (Bender):
"Should Apple just throw in a processor that Intel is selling for hundreds more for no price increase?"
"The fact is, these are the chips that Intel has created and priced to replaced the previous models that Apple has replaced, right down to the penny."
REPLY (antimatter):
1. Well here is the deal Bender, in case you hadn't noticed computer prices (at least w/macs) pretty much have stayed the same for the last few years while the speed of processors has increased, the amount of standard RAM has increased, hard-drive capacity has increased, etc. It is in fact the expectation of the computer buying public that updated models cost the same (or less even) as the outgoing lesser performing models.
2. For instance, the 17" Powerbook I am typing this on cost $2700 four years ago when I bought it in grad school and still today the 17" Macbook Pro starts at $2700. Yet, my laptop has a meager 1.5 GHz single processor, teeny-tiny 80 GB hard drive and came standard with 512MB of RAM, etc.
3. Additionally, in no time in the last four years has there been any OPTION to upgrade the processor on the 17" PB/MBP. It has been a de facto standard for years that the 17" was fully decked out. My question is why? Why is Apple nickel-and-diming people who drop nearly 3K on professional equipment? It seems out of character and it is a CLEAR departure from their previous convention, that is all I am saying.

Sincerely,
A Very Unsatisfied* MacHead (*though in general very satisfied and happy w/regards to this particular macbook pro update)

MacHead: Someone who has been using Macs since 1987 or earlier and thinks 'apple fanboys' are greenhorns.

1. $19 for the remote is totally lame after dropping $2,000-3000 on what PC Mag calls 'the [best] laptop in the world'. LAME.
2. Since when does the MBP 17" have to get upgrades? $250 for the 2.6 GHz processor!!! It has always come with the fastest available chip. LAME.
3. 15" MBP 2.4 GHz vs 2.6 GHz = $2,050 vs $2,750 (a difference of $700 for what? 256 MB extra video ram and .2 GHz) LAME.

In summary, the 2.5 Should not even be there. the upgrade should be from 2.4 to 2.6. Who is going to pay $500 for .1 GHz increase? Also, whoever decided to lose the remote should be fired (granted many people probably don't use them at all). At the very least there should be a $20 price DROP given they took the remote out of the former package. MultiTouch is cool, but I still feel bummed. Where is the love Apple? $18,000,000,000.00 in the bank and you can't throw in a remote that costs you $1.00 to make?

Sincerely,
A Very Unsatisfied MacHead

I voted for you guys for the webware 2007!!! Thanks for keeping it clean (unlike that other site ****odo).

seeing that 75% of the 50,000,000 or so HDTVs that were sold in the last 3-4 years are NOT 1080p, it doesn't make a lot of sense for Apple, MS or Vudu to invest to much sweat into pumping out that level of content at THIS time.

I can't believe they picked a gas-burner. The new KITT should be a technologically advanced vehicle not some retro-trash pony car. Where's the hydrogen fuel cell?
Should have used the Chevy Volt.