In the second half of our iTunes movie rental debate, Christina takes the "Con" position on extended-duration rentals, and in the process will probably draw ire from all the parents out there.

Let me start by saying that I'm not opposed to a rental extension period. As a single, non-breeder with no plans to join the Momfia (as coined by Michael Rose), I'm not immune to things happening that interrupt my 24-hour viewing window for a movie; that's life. Let me also say that I completely sympathize with the struggle that juggling kids and a job must entail and I appreciate that finding uninterrupted time to enjoy a movie can be difficult.

But while I would gladly welcome the opportunity to add a few hours onto the rental time (or another day), I have a small problem with the basic argument that it is impossible for parents (or anyone for that matter) to find the time to watch a movie within a limited time frame. These arguments strike me as pretty unrealistic for what will happen 95% of the time and while I have no problem criticizing Apple's rental model on a number of levels, the rental duration is not one of them. In fact, I would argue that the options we have now are significantly better than they have ever been in the past.

More than twenty years ago, my parents were able to rent videos and watch them in the 24 hour window (and this was when video rentals were, with inflation, probably $10 a night and the late fees were insane -- often far more than just renting a title for another day) without a problem. In the early 1990s, when Pay-Per-View was all the rage, people were able to adjust to sitting down and watching a movie, despite the fact that flexible start times didn't exist until the late 1990s (meaning that if you ordered the movie at two minutes past the start time, the movie started two minutes in, and in the OLD school days, you couldn't even order from the cable box, you had to call an automated number, which could delay the time it took for the film to arrive on your box). Plus, there was no option to pause or rewind a movie on the fly. If Little Johnny needed a drink of water, your recourse was to either record the movie on your VCR (but you would still have to wait for the entire movie to finish recording before you could rewind) or you would wind up renting "Cliffhanger" four times in one month at $5.99 a pop (which my own family did do, not because of bedtime hijinx but because we were really bad about telling one another when we were renting something).

Again, I appreciate that finding time to watch something can be difficult for parents, but I find it hard to believe that the behavior of even young children has devolved the level that stealing some time to watch a movie is impossible. And really, if you can't find 24 hours to rent a movie, either consider buying it for $10 or rent the DVD from Netflix. If an emergency does come up, well, spending another $3 or $4 isn't the end of the world. It's less than half the price of one movie ticket.

I hardly see why Apple (or any company) should have to answer for parents' inability to get their kids to stay in bed. Do things come up? Absolutely, but that goes for everyone -- not just parents -- but the idea that there is absolutely no way a movie can be viewed within 24 hours because your kids have such erratic bedtime issues seems to be a problem the family might want to address, not Apple.

In the first half of our iTunes movie rental debate, Mike stakes out the "Pro" position on extended-duration rentals with an appeal on behalf of tired, stressed parents everywhere.

Let me just say it: there is a perfect market for iTunes movie rentals. It's the same market that Netflix or VOD sales addresses, the same audience that prefers (or is limited to) staying at home rather than a night out at the movies. You know who we are -- the stroller patrol, the breeder bastion, the Momfia... the parents. We crave entertainment, and we're willing to pay for it, but our evenings are squeezed to the point of nonexistence. By the time the offspring are fed and watered, tucked away in their beds, we might only have an hour or two's worth of 'we' time to enjoy a feature film. If someone wakes up and needs 15 minutes of settling back to bed, well, forget it. With the 24-hour watch time limitation on iTunes movies, tomorrow night, when we might have another chance to view our movie, it's too late.

Thus, opinionated folk such as David Pogue, Rob Griffiths, Glenn Fleishman, and our reader Marshall (his open letter to Apple is reproduced at the end of this post) all concur that some form of extension past the 24-hour limit makes great sense to parents and great sense to Apple's rental market. I join my voice to theirs, and offer this modest proposal: Add a $0.50 surcharge for a 6-hour extension, or $1 for a 12-hour bump. Make the extra time optional -- you'd still have to decide and pay for it at rental time, not add it on after renting the movie, as the DRM challenges of a shifting finish line + multiple playback devices are probably too much to handle. I bet that parents of young kids, or families with variable evening schedules, would fork over the extra spare change to extend their rental times, and let's remember that those couple of quarters are pure profit (it costs the same in encoding and bandwidth for a 36-hour movie to download as for a 24-hour movie). I'd gladly take the extra time for free, but if you've got to add a modest surcharge I'll swallow my pride.

Give me a 36-hour rental and I promise this: I will buy an Apple TV and I will start renting movies on it. That's $225, cash on the barrel, plus what I'll spend on the flicks. Who's with me?

Who could've imagined that hell would freeze over and C.K. would lose it all in the same day? Check out his It's on! post. Did you notice his "Of course, the real key to this would be if Apple would just go ahead and release a version of OS X for PCs" line towards the end?

Granted we're still at ground zero in terms of this Boot Camp news, but I can't think of resulting a conclusion/speculation that I couldn't disagree more with. It's great that Apple's allowing all those Mac users to run Windows for an app or two that doesn't work in Mac OS X yet, but I really don't think Boot Camp signifies Apple's first step towards 'fighting the PC revolution' using anyone's hardware but their own. Aside from the 'Apple is a hardware company' business model argument, it would undermine both their business and engineering practices on a number of levels.

Apple licensing out Mac OS X to run on anyone's hardware would unleash the very stability and management nightmares that they've been trying to avoid by controlling both hardware and software. This scenario is very much like what would happen if they opened up the iTunes and iPod platform: look at Microsoft's 'Plays for Sure' attempt at helping iTunes' competitors. Napster's own CEO has publicly stated that, more or less: it sucks.

In the context of an industry where anyone and their mother can slap together parts for PCs with crazy glue and duct tape, Apple's model of controlling the hardware that their stellar software runs on has far more of a purpose than simply gouging people's bank accounts; and even the age-old whine of "but Mac/iPod hardware is more expensive" has been thoroughly discounted.

Please, readers of TUAW, I beg you: don't listen to C.K. He's clearly lost it. Let's all have a moment of silence for our fellow blogger in hopes that he can find the strength to regain his sanity.

I'm giving up on "the debate."

While I think Apple is a great company, I love their products and I won't touch Windows unless under penalty of death (or bouncing a rent check), I just can't be one of their soldiers anymore. I am happy as a camper to answer genuinely interested questions, but I can't fight those "PCs do this, but OS X does that" battles anymore.

If my brother's only (silly) hangup is that he can't install OS X on his own hardware (because apparently, GeForce cards are faster this week), or fellow classmates don't understand that two-button mice have worked on Macs since OS 8 (and maybe earlier), then that's just the way it is. If my friend is happy with wireless networking that comes and goes with the wind, and DVD drivers that get uninstalled when a printer is plugged in through a *shudder* parallel port, then who am I to argue?

During such a positive and prosperous time for Apple, I'm sure they could still benefit from enthusiastic users who can brave the questions of the unknowing masses and quell the unfounded myths, but I just don't have the time or patience to fill those shoes anymore. I've fought the fight, and I've even helped quite a few pessimists find their way, but I'm going to have to leave the position for the sake of my sanity and my productivity.

So today, I pass on the torch to the next set of champions who can help clear the clouds and pave the way for Apple and their (mostly) rockin' products. I'm sure you all will do them proud, as plenty of others have before you.