Posted 10/17/2008 at 08:55:49am

So they don't have the money, staff, or tuime to make XBox games work with the 360, but they're going to make 360 games work with all Microsoft consoles to the end of time?  Are they expecting a very slow game release schedule in the future?

Posted 10/10/2008 at 07:05:57pm

How is that encryption?  Sounds just like checking to see if someone opened your mail when you get it from your mailbox. 

Posted 10/10/2008 at 10:51:56am

1.  They are offering BluRay already, without a cost increase.  If the percentage of people using BluRay is low, they don't need to increase the fee because they don't need many BluRays.

2.  Yes, you're right, they are flexible.  However this doesn't change the fact that their REASON for the price increase isn't justified.

They can expand their business model all they want, but they aren't expanding their services to the people who are already paying.  You want more services, you have to upgrade your plan and pay more anyway.  Telling existing customers that they need to pay more for what they are already getting is exactly why Blockbuster's service is unpopular.

Telling me I should be thrilled that they can buy more movies without a price increase?  I'm sorry, but that would only be appropriate if their subscriber base has remained unchanged since they started their operation.  You don't think they can afford new titles because they have more customers paying them now?

Posted 10/09/2008 at 11:38:23pm

Ok, so $1 for each of 8 million customers.  Lets say half of them pay the dollar. That would be $4million dollars. Netflix says they have 800 BluRay titles.  If they have 1000 discs or each title, at the $5 - $6 more a BluRay supposely costs, you are looking at $4 million to $4.8 million dollars.  So within 2 months, all the BluRays you have been getting up to now for a dollar less would be paid for.   So then what?  Are they going to add 800 more titles by the end of the 2 months?  Highly unlikely.  Nor are they going to replace the DVD library with BluRay, not least of all because the large portion of their library does not come on BluRay.

I think these are pretty conservative estimates.  They may have more than 1000 discs per title, but they also likely get their bulk movies at less thatn $5 -$6 more per disc as well as they have more than 8 million customers and more than half are likely to pay the $1.  The cost of BluRays alone does not justify this monthly fee hike.

Besides, $1 a month would be $12 a year, which is the cost of a subscription to this fine magazine.  Would you really want to give that up to watch Jumper or Harold and Kumar on BLuRay?

Posted 09/24/2008 at 10:14:18am

"The data also has brought to light another peculiar trend: usage of Google’s browser shoots considerably in the evening and wanes during working hours."

People use Chrome in the evening at home, but not when they are at work or school during the day, when they likely can't.  How is this peculiar?

Posted 09/04/2008 at 02:20:31pm

Wouldn't it be an interesting turn if that is why they have a six core?  An eight core with two bad cores?

Posted 08/06/2008 at 03:23:04pm

$10 for three hours or less? $13 for more?  They might as well just fold another five dollars into the ticket price and make it free to access.  Surely enough people would NOT take advantage of it that they would still make their money and they would have the added bonus of saying, "Hey! Free WiFi!".

Posted 07/18/2008 at 08:54:48am

The King is dead, long live the king.

Posted 07/07/2008 at 11:11:31am

What would they watch in these "electricity-deprived" areas?

Posted 07/01/2008 at 04:41:13pm

Those letters you refer to aren't plea bargains.  If you get one of those letters, you haven't been charged with anything, they are just trying to scare you and you are unlikely to be facing a ten year prison visit.