Apple hundreds short of 1,000 movie promise

Ruh ruh, Macworld ran one last test as the month of February expired yesterday and found that contrary to Apple's claim that there would be over 1,000 movies for download by March, iTunes and the Apple TV have hundreds fewer flicks available than anticipated. The 91 (of 100 promised) HD movies and 399 total rental titles make up a fair chunk of the 770 some-odd rental and sale titles, which comparatively isn't all that bad a number when you look at the other download services, but Cupertino clearly has a ways to go before we all trade in our Netflix and Blockbuster memberships.

[Thanks, Jimi]

[s10 @ Mar 1st 2008 8:59PM]

Wow, you mean they are a few days or weeks behind? My god, that news is so important!
My whole world crumbles in front of me now, I have no idea what to do.

[zomg0t @ Mar 1st 2008 9:08PM]

calm down...

[Prey521 @ Mar 1st 2008 9:47PM]

Fanboi FTL. Stop you're whining.

[Ethan @ Mar 1st 2008 9:57PM]

If they didn't somebody would be posting a link to the news on another site internet shouting 'OMG ur apple fanboys' or something to that effect.

[metal @ Mar 1st 2008 10:24PM]

if a news article had to be interesting to everyone before it was posted, we'd have no news articles at all.

In other words, stfu. Just because you dont care doesnt mean someone else isnt interested.

[JOSE @ Mar 1st 2008 9:04PM]

not surprised...

[Aguiluz @ Mar 1st 2008 10:44PM]

Look at the picture closely.

"$3.99: Rent"

"$4.99: Rent"

So, what's the difference?

[BK @ Mar 1st 2008 10:56PM]

Look closer... Rent HD...

[Tiptup300 @ Mar 2nd 2008 12:51AM]

Its doesn't say HD, its just a way to get stats on how smart their customers are.

[Michael LaFramboise @ Mar 2nd 2008 1:05AM]

Tiptup300, yes it does say "HD" right next to the word "rent".

You fail.

[skulldriveshaft @ Mar 2nd 2008 8:46PM]

why do you want an AppleTV device anyways?

doesn't your Apple computer hook up to your TV already?

[Rick @ Mar 1st 2008 9:06PM]

We just picked up an AppleTV, the wife and kids are watching a movie now. I want to get Safari on it, and try some other hacks, but so far it's not bad. And we did cancel our Block Buster membership today.

[Ruben @ Mar 1st 2008 10:17PM]

As in your store membership? The one that you dont have to pay anything for (if its the standard membership).

Why the hell would you cancel something that is free itself, does absolutely nothing to you except just exist there in case theres the chance you want to watch a movie that Blockbuster has and you cant get elsewhere and of course occasionally sends you coupons for 2 rentals for the price of one, except just to make the point that Apple TV has replaced your need for Blockbuster.

This statement seems right out of an Apple script for marketing.

[BowserUSC @ Mar 1st 2008 10:27PM]

Calm down, Ruben, you fucking douche. Maybe he's talking about a blockbuster mailer subscription similar to netlfix.

It's one thing to be an apple fanboy who won't listen to reason, another to bash someone because they sound like they could like an apple product.

You're an asshole.

[Ridley @ Mar 1st 2008 10:38PM]

Ruben obviously has been living under a rock for the past three years. Blockbuster has had an online rental service that has been cheaper and offered better value (because they allow you free in-store coupons and allow you to trade in your online movies for in-store movies as well).

So he just cancelled a $18–20 a month service since he bought his Apple TV. That's his point Ruben. Read, investigate, think, then type you cornhole.

[Ruben @ Mar 1st 2008 10:46PM]

No, not under a rock; in Canada.

If he was talking about the subscription service, then i do apologize.

And your telling me to be calm? From reading your comment, it seems like theres now holes in your walls from the anger my comment caused you.

[Jack Storm @ Mar 1st 2008 11:28PM]

riiight

[Grant @ Mar 2nd 2008 12:49PM]

"No, not under a rock; in Canada."

same thing?

[Raheem @ Mar 1st 2008 9:15PM]

omglies.

[DarkLeaper @ Mar 1st 2008 9:19PM]

Those citrus hating bastards!

[Aguiluz @ Mar 1st 2008 10:46PM]

Citrus?

[Derek @ Mar 1st 2008 9:21PM]

It seems Apple is having problems with release times lately. They need to either work harder to get things done, or set better time frames for releasing the product(s).

[BK @ Mar 1st 2008 11:00PM]

for one, i highly doubt they are not working at 110% over in cupertino.
The problem becomes, you set your deadline early as possible and miss it: people become upset. You set your deadline long: people are upset about the wait.

quite the pickle

[Joe @ Mar 1st 2008 11:57PM]

This one isn't Apple's fault - the studios are responsible for encoding and delivering the content. If it is not there, it is because the movie studios don't have their shit together. On a side not - delays in things like the iPhone SDK are fine by me as long as they get it right before delivery.

[L. M. Lloyd @ Mar 2nd 2008 4:53AM]

Yeah, yeah Joe, nothing is ever Apple's fault. Their first phone product was a flop, that was Motorola's fault. iPhone sales are dissapointing, that is AT&T's fault. Their iTunes store is locked to the iPod, that is the big, bad label's fault. Now they can't get enough movies, it is the Studio's fault.

In fact, I happen to know for a fact that you are completely wrong. The studios absolutely do not handle encoding their movies for distribution on the iTunes movie store. Hell, studios don't even handle encoding their Quicktime trailers on apple.com! Do you really think Apple would trust any other company to determine the quality of the video playing on an Apple service, for an Apple device? The movie encoding is handled just like it is for digital cable, and just like it is for Xbox Live. The studio provides a master, and the service encodes it to their internal specs, as they see fit. The problem here isn't some bogus "Apple wants to have the movies, but the stupid studios can't figure out how to encode them." It is the same problem the iTunes movie store has had from day one, which is that Apple wants such a large cut, and has such low market penetration in the video market, that the studios don't really have any great incentive to jump on the iTunes movie store bandwagon. The studios are making more money of cable licensing deals, DVD sales, and even Xbox Live rentals, so they aren't killing themselves to license content to Apple, just because Steve Jobs tells them to. If Apple TV rentals cannibalize DVD sales, or On Demand rentals, the studios loose money, because Apple takes a larger cut than either of those other two distribution channels do.

[mck @ Mar 1st 2008 9:24PM]

The fact that this stat was actually calculated tells me that people have to much time on their hands.

[Aguiluz @ Mar 1st 2008 10:45PM]

Yeah. Like us Engadgeteers read this blog a lot means we got a lot of spare time in our hands too. :)

[DrXym @ Mar 2nd 2008 9:17AM]

That or Apple is often so economical with the truth that people frequently check their claims. It's hardly offtopic or a waste of time either that it happens to be Macworld doing the checking.

[Raghav Sethi @ Mar 1st 2008 9:25PM]

Did anybody notice that now you can't actually BUY the movies if you want to.

[Backlin @ Mar 1st 2008 10:03PM]

I was waiting for someone to notice. I'd rather buy the movie myself. I bought the Simpsons Movie and watched it 5 times now. It's still classic.

[Reid @ Mar 2nd 2008 12:17AM]

FYI,

Just tonight I was reading an article in the Economist about movies online, that indicated that the Apple TV's lack of non-rental movies had more to do with the writer's strike and uncertainty about actors striking as well, than a lack of desire on the behalf of the studios.

So, buying movies may be coming to the Apple TV. Maybe.

not sure if this is publicly viewable:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10723360

[doctorSpoc @ Mar 2nd 2008 3:19AM]

that's weird... wonder why they did that?

you can buy them through iTunes though and sync or stream to AppleTV, iPod etc.

[Raghav Sethi @ Mar 2nd 2008 4:34AM]

But didn't you notice that in the Stevenote, buying was never even mentioned? It was only "Rent" and "Rent in HD".

[Gavin Seim @ Mar 1st 2008 9:26PM]

Cmon apple I'm all for video downloads but 5 bucks for a 24hout download! Get serious, you don't even have the overhead of a storefrom like a vid store. These things should be .49 cents

Poeple touted this as the death of netflix. What a joke! I'm even an Apple fan, cmon. Even my local Movie Gallery (who is expensive for a vid store) is the same price or less, and I keep it for five days.

Then we come to something like netflix and this whole Apple rental thing looks absurd.

[snitch @ Mar 1st 2008 10:06PM]

they're not after netflix, they're after direct tv & cable companies. Example Michael Clayton cost $3.99 on apple tv the same as DTV & cables PPV channels, but on apple tv your not tied down to a subscription, just watch it when you want and how you want to

[Temple @ Mar 1st 2008 10:35PM]

Never understood the appeal of Apple iTV, VUDU, or any other digital distribution service.

Why would I want to purchase a $230(iTV)-$400(Vudu) device so that I can rent movies for 24hours (Blockbuster or Netflix is cheaper). Or to download a movie that costs the same as a DVD and be restricted by DRM be tied to the machine I purchased it on. For all the DRM whining about Blu-ray and DVD DRM I'm never restricted on when or what machine I play it on (or who I let burrow my copy of the movie).

[Kelmon @ Mar 2nd 2008 6:49AM]

Being able to rent what you want, when you want it, makes the price well worth paying. I've honestly never understood the appeal of mail order rental services since you need to decide in advance what it is that you feel like watching. Convenience is always king in consumer electronics as long as the other factors are "good enough" or better.

[roole @ Mar 2nd 2008 9:31AM]

I agree. At a minimum, they should have made it a 27-hour limit (which will allow you to restart watching at roughly the same time as you did the previous day).

[cashmonee @ Mar 2nd 2008 12:33PM]

I love when someone says the rentals should be a ridiculous price like .49! It clearly shows that you are a person with no clue.

@Temple: Netflix is great but it takes at least 3 days from the time you send a movie back to when you get it. Sometimes you just want to watch a movie now, and in that respect it costs about the same on Apple TV as it does to go to the video store.

Also, people forget that it does a lot more than allow you to rent movies. I can also watch podcasts, listen to my music, and watch my own tv and movie collection with it. I love my Apple TV. Makes it much easier to not have cable.

[Grant @ Mar 2nd 2008 12:55PM]

"Netflix is great but it takes at least 3 days from the time you send a movie back to when you get it."

Really? you must be far from a distribution center. If i get mine out for the first mail pickup i usually get it the next day.

[Seim Photography @ Mar 2nd 2008 12:57PM]

@ Cashmonee

First of all your wrong. There's a local movie store here that rents gallery titles for .49. Since download content has virtually no overhead why should we pay more.

My beef however is not against Apple TV. I have though about getting one for the sake of podcasts.

As to getting is right now there is something to be said for that, although sometimes you have to wait some time ti be able to watch it as you wait for the download. Not only that Apple'd download selection is pretty small, and they don't get movies on release day.

SO basically your saying you trade every other benefit for being able to sit on your lazy but and get a movie without leaving the couch. Cool enough, but for less time, and more money it's still a joke.

For 5 bucks I should be able to OWN the downloaded movie. Heck in china they don't even pay that much for a whole DVD LOL

[Sporkinum @ Mar 1st 2008 9:45PM]

We quit renting at Blockbuster years ago, and maybe rent a movie elsewhere once every 4 months. Blockbuster is still a great place to buy used dvds though.
Most of the movies we get now are from the public library for free.
The other thing is we torrent shows our cable doesn't carry, like stuff from the BBC or Showtime.

[electronicat @ Mar 1st 2008 9:46PM]

Since when does "by March" mean "by the first 2 days of March"? Seems to me like they have the entire month to roll out more rentals.

[Prey521 @ Mar 1st 2008 9:49PM]

Apples press release stated that they'd have 1000 by the end of February, so he's correct.

[Prey521 @ Mar 1st 2008 9:50PM]

Apples press release stated that they'd have 1000 by the end of February, so he's correct.

[electronicat @ Mar 1st 2008 9:55PM]

Oh... My bad. Not that I care about iTunes Movies that much. I still prefer Netflix for my rentals (even if they're not "on demand") and buying DVDs for the movies and shows I absolutely love. Just seems like a much better value.

[m @ Mar 2nd 2008 1:43AM]

@electronical: since when? an interesting question. according to the Oxford English Dictionary, sometime around the year 1350 AD: "On or before, not later than; within (a space of time)." sounds like they're late to me-- not that i care. i don't have an apple tv, so i'd just be watching them on my slide viewer anyway.

[Chris Aubeck @ Mar 2nd 2008 5:56AM]

@m

If "by March" can mean "within March, in March, not later than March," Electronicat is right, and Apple is not late. If you trace the word back to its Greek and Sanskrit origins, it meant "about,around," which is still the basic definition today.

[JD @ Mar 1st 2008 9:47PM]

"ruh roh" = uh oh.
"ruh ruh" = uh uh.

I believe you intended the former.

[Tim Ficke @ Mar 1st 2008 9:50PM]

lol i was thinking that too!