Josh Ong
The survey, reported by Engadget, questions consumers about their "satisfaction" with iTunes video purchases or rentals on the iPad.
Since the iPad currently requires iTunes video files to finish downloading before playback, one of the available answers, "Titles are available to watch instantly," is inaccurate. An instantaneous iTunes video feature is unavailable for the iPad at this time, but is supposedly in the works.
The timing of the survey is of particular interest, as it comes just days before Apple's annual September media event, where the Cupertino, Calif., company is expected to refresh its iPod Touch and iPod Nano offerings.
Apple is reportedly in talks with content providers to offer 99 cent streaming rentals of TV shows, which would be offered alongside an updated Apple TV, recast as the iTV. It remains unclear whether streaming video and the iTV set top box will be announced at Wednesday's event.
Although some industry insiders expect a cloud-based iTunes service by the end of the year, recent reports point to an iTunes update focusing on new features that are "social, not streaming."
Andrew Orr
Christine McKee
Sponsored Content
Wesley Hilliard
AppleInsider Staff
Amber Neely
9 Comments
The title of this article is a bit much. I think the survey is just noting that you have instant access to video, rather than needing to drive to the Blockbuster and/or get mail from NetFlix....
Yea could be like TV where you hit play wait like 30 sec and you get your HD movie streaming to you. Doubt they would ask about weather people want such a feature this close to the unveil.
This is a question about iTunes on the iPad, asking what features they already like. What the purpose of this question is for is to ask about iTunes as it already is, where if you purchase something off of the iTunes app, you get it instantly as opposed to having to either travel to get it or order it online and wait for a physical copy. I really don't think this is asking what you think it does.
With all the competition, I'd be surprised if Apple didn't do this.
If this story is indeed true, is there really a point to it? I mean, did you expect that people might say, 'no, we don't want it'!?