[Macworld]

Post your comments for Netflix surges past Apple for lead in online movie biz here

[hhhofer]

This is not hard to understand. Apple's pricing structure is confusing as best, there seem to be no rhyme or reason as to which movies can be rented and which can only be bought. Their rental prices are already high when compared to alternative offerings, and often you will need to pay $10 or higher because because the movie can only be purchased.
Another problem, as I see it, is that streaming a movie, especially in HD, can be a very slow experience. Unless you have super high speed internet, it takes up to an hour before you can start watching, where Netflix is almost instant gratification.

This is one area where Apple need to improve if they want to be competitive.

[snagitseven]

hhhofer, on 04 June 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

This is not hard to understand. Apple's pricing structure is confusing as best, there seem to be no rhyme or reason as to which movies can be rented and which can only be bought. Their rental prices are already high when compared to alternative offerings, and often you will need to pay $10 or higher because because the movie can only be purchased.
Another problem, as I see it, is that streaming a movie, especially in HD, can be a very slow experience. Unless you have super high speed internet, it takes up to an hour before you can start watching, where Netflix is almost instant gratification.

This is one area where Apple need to improve if they want to be competitive.

Not sure what you mean. I have an Apple TV connected to my iTunes account through my standard Comcast ISP. If I rent an HD movie, it takes less than 5 seconds before I can start watching. No glitches or pauses and a great picture in 1080p. Faster than an Amazon VOD through my TiVo. If you rent through iTunes on your computer, it must download first which can take awhile but not streaming through an Apple TV. This is because the movie is usually destined for a portable device.
BTW, the movie studios control which movies can be rented, not Apple.

[chrishutcheson]

Now if they could just get working on better Canadian content.

[scottfeldstein]

hhhofer, on 04 June 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

This is not hard to understand. Apple's pricing structure is confusing as best, there seem to be no rhyme or reason as to which movies can be rented and which can only be bought. Their rental prices are already high when compared to alternative offerings, and often you will need to pay $10 or higher because because the movie can only be purchased.
Another problem, as I see it, is that streaming a movie, especially in HD, can be a very slow experience. Unless you have super high speed internet, it takes up to an hour before you can start watching, where Netflix is almost instant gratification.

This is one area where Apple need to improve if they want to be competitive.

Netflix also has "no rhyme or reason" about which movies can be streamed and which can't. it's the content owners who screw that up for everyone, not just Apple. I have no idea if their rental prices are high. Compared to what? Are there a lot of other online movie rental outfits out there? And I echo a previous reply: there's nothing slow about it. It's at least as good as Netflix performance-wise and looks a lot better, too.

The main thing Apple needs to improve is to get the content companies to offer more content. And the NFL.

[Macnutjohn]

"Another problem, as I see it, is that streaming a movie, especially in HD, can be a very slow experience. Unless you have super high speed internet, it takes up to an hour before you can start watching, where Netflix is almost instant gratification."

Amen! I pay $40 a month for wireless internet (my ONLY "broadband" option where I live, other than even more expensive satellite), and I know from experience how painful streaming ANYTHING can be most of the time. Until true low-cost high-speed internet becomes available to the majority of folks, I don't see subscription internet TV/movies becoming the norm. I do have both Netflix and Hulu Plus available to me thru my Wii and my BluRay player, but I don't plan on using either anytime soon. I'll be sticking with physical media for my movies, thanks anyway............

[Stewsburntmonkey]

snagitseven, on 04 June 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

Not sure what you mean. I have an Apple TV connected to my iTunes account through my standard Comcast ISP. If I rent an HD movie, it takes less than 5 seconds before I can start watching. No glitches or pauses and a great picture in 1080p. Faster than an Amazon VOD through my TiVo. If you rent through iTunes on your computer, it must download first which can take awhile but not streaming through an Apple TV. This is because the movie is usually destined for a portable device.
BTW, the movie studios control which movies can be rented, not Apple.

At least last time I rented a TV show from iTunes I could play it while it downloaded, but iTunes doesn't give you any indication it is possible to play the video before it finished downloading. My guess is most people never realize you don't have to wait for the download to finish to start playing, which would certainly hamper user adoption of the system.

[hhhofer]

scottfeldstein, on 04 June 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:

I have no idea if their rental prices are high. Compared to what? Are there a lot of other online movie rental outfits out there?

I can rent a DVD movie for $1 at redbox. For some people, this may not represent a viable alternative, but for me it does. It a 75% savings over what Apple charges for newer movies, and I can easily live with the lower image quality when sitting 10 feet from my 32" 720P HDTV.

[bonaccij]

My biggest problem with Apple is that you have to rent every movie. I'm not even really sure how they can compare these two things... Apple is mostly current movies and it is 100% rentals. Netflix is mostly older flicks, but as long as you can see it on your Apple TV you can stream it with your monthly subscription - which - feels free... They are totally different business models. I just don't get it. Why are they comparing these two?

[fastlanephil]

I don't watch a lot of movies but when I do they have to be good movies. iTunes seems to have have the best selection of quality cinema. Netflix's streaming service may be generating good revenue but in my opinion it's selection of decent movies is pretty poor. It seems we are in an economic, cultural decline and our choice of media reflects this.

[AKMacMan]

I wonder where Amazon's streaming service sits at? To me their service seems like a scaled down version of Netflix. Also I agree with others in this discussion, Apple's pricing structure for rentals is a completely different beast compared to Netflix's. With Apple's service you pay for each show you want to watch, which can add up fast compared to Netflix's $7.99 a month subscription. While I know Netflix doesn't have the latest up to date movie and tv show offerings (for the most part anways) their price point is a great value in comparison to Apple, so there is little wonder as to why Netflix is beating them, in my opinion.

[whitedog]

It's true that Apple and Netflix don't compete directly for streaming content. So the article's comparison is mostly hot air. They serve different markets with different content. If Apple really wants to put pressure on the content providers to simplify and streamline the delivery process - and make it more user friendly - they could buy Netflix. That seems to me to be a more reasonable proposition than some of the other acquisition proposals floating around. For this to work well, however, Apple would have to get over it's phobia of Blu-ray. Blu-ray remains the best way to view high definition content in your home on a flatscreen TV. Technical limitations in broadband, including bandwidth caps, insure that this will remain the case for the foreseeable future.

[vaughner]

I don't rent movies anywhere. I buy everything I watch. Since I got my second gen appleTV and now the third gens, I don't even have cable service anymore. (Aside from Internet) I love buying the TV shows and movies on iTunes. I have an appleTV on all 5 TV's in my home and I can watch anything I want, anywhere I want. And best of all, I own it. I can also say this... I know by calculating bills that I get more for my money buying what I watch from iTunes. I don't watch a lot of shows or movies, but for me, the cost of cable wasn't worth it. Oh, and I NEVER see a single commercial. I love that too. I would rather pay for my shows and not have to deal with commercials than pay MORE for cable service, not own what I am watching, and have to deal with 5 mins of TV and 5 mins of commercials.

Just my 2 cents. I encourage everyone to calculate what a monthly cost over a year would be to buy what you like to watch instead of lease it from your cable or satellite company.

[Raymondo17]

If Apple would promote AppleTV from its "hobby" status, they could rule the world, or at least the living room. They already have the infrastructure in place to offer unlimited functionality to an AppleTV that could handle apps. An entirely new revenue stream would be born, along with untold happy programmers.

Being extremely satisfied with my recent purchase of a 52" HDTV set, I'm not sure I'd rush out and buy a new Apple television set, regardless of its bells and whistles. But a new AppleTV that had expanded functionality using apps, as well as new sources of content (like Pandora), sign me up!