Slashdot Mirror
Amazon MP3 Vs. iTunes Music Store
Ali writes "As discussed here recently, amazon.com has launched a public beta of Amazon MP3, a digital music store that provides DRM-free downloads of over 2 million songs from 180,000 artists and 20,000 labels. In comparison, Apple says the iTunes Store now contains over 6 million songs. Here is a head-to-head comparison."
I still like getting the actual CDs. Better quality, fewer restrictions, less chance of me losing it, etc. With Prime I get them in a couple days, which is fast enough for me, then I convert them to FLAC for later conversion to any other format I desire.
"Better to be vulgar than non-existent" -Bev Henson
When will people get a fucking clue that the MP4 files that iTunes sells are not an Apple proprietary format? It's the codec developed to replace MP3. It was developed by the same freaking people who developed MP3. You know you can buy songs without DRM from iTunes? Thirty cent price jump for 256 kpbs MP4 (theoretically superior quality to 256 kbps MP3) with no DRM for individual tracks. No price jump if you buy the whole album. And reportedly Amazon's terms of service don't allow re-downloading of transfer of ownership.
iTunes Plus is DRM free. However, it's unknown how many titles actually are offering using it (only EMI still and not all those titles) and the price is a little higher. The quality of a 256k AAC encode vs. a 256k MP# Amazon encode may be somewhat different, but at those bitrates it's probably basically indistinguishable.
Sometimes though buying it from the iTunes store is simply more convenient... but I sure wish they'd hurry and expand iTunes Plus.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Whatever, I ain't payin 30 cents more for tracks that don't even have DRM. That's whack.
Frankly, I prefer the company of nitwits.
The problem with that, and maybe with the whole amazon gig is the profit margin issue. My impression, perhaps I'm wrong, was that apple was pocketing less than a dime a song for itunes music store. I suppose that varies a lot with the rate songs are sold since there are many fixed costs. If that dime a song margin is accurate then amazon must be running on fumes since they are underselling Apple. Presumably this is not too server lite either since I'm guessing the songs are watermarked with your ID and then MP3 compressed. So assuming amazon is not getting a better deal than apple it's hard to see how these low rates will last. Recall the record companies wanted apple to 1) share Ipod revenues with them and 2) raise prices on new releases. Given that I'd say either the record comapnies have decided to sell music for less (ha ha ha) or these are teaser rates. Does anyone think Amazon is giving them a cut of music player sales.... So it makes not sense for the record companies to move away from apple to accept even less (unless they were incredibly freakin' scared). So getting back to the CD shipping. That would mean even less profit perhaps or perhaps they could charge $1 for the instant album download option.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
"If I search for "Oasis", there's no easy to way to separate the albums titled that from the artist."
Amazon would be doing you a favor if they returned results to another artist.
There is one area where the author misses the underlying strategic implications of the recording industry's willingness to sell DRM-free songs through amazon.
" No DRM. No consumer likes DRM, and although Apple hasn't yet released any statistics on how the DRM-free tracks from EMI have sold in comparison with the DRM-encumbered versions of the same tracks, Amazon has done the right thing by eliminating it across the board. Hopefully Amazon's move will give Apple some leverage with the music labels to make more DRM-free tracks available."
He's got it backwards. This deal gives the record companies a strategic advantage in its pricing battle with Apple. Allowing Amazon to sell DRM-free songs but variably-priced would be best interpreted as the record companies giving Steve Jobs the finger. Only one of the major record companies has allowed Apple to sell DRM-free songs and then only at a premium price.
Of the battling parties, it is the record companies who have gained leverage with this move, not Apple. The message to Apple is clear: allow variable pricing and we'll let you sell DRM-free tracks. Keep insisting on fixed pricing and we'll only let you sell DRMed tracks.
However, they lock out Linux users. While I can apparently buy indivual songs, I can't buy an album without using their downloader which is Windows/OS X only. I don't feel like booting into OS X just to download some mp3s.
For now I'll stick to eMusic and DownloadPunk (albums are downloaded as a zip).
"The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
End The FED. -
Don't get me wrong. My ears probably don't care, really, and I'd be transcoding to Ogg Vorbis as soon as I got it.
But I still don't want to be locked into a single lossy format forever, even if I was buying it in today's best codec.
This is one reason I plan to start buying and burning off FLACs from Magnatune in the near future. Their full-length mp3 samples are fine for previewing/freeloading, but if I'm going to actually pay money for the music, I'd like the freedom to change to tomorrow's super-high-compression/quality format when it comes out. (Plus, supporting indie artists on labels with cool business models is nifty too...)
I've read Grocklaw. BoycottNovell, you're no Grocklaw
AAC is not really open, but it's a standard and pushed by the same people that made MP3 (it's the audio part of mp4), so it is at least as open as mp3. For this particular comparison amazonmp3 sells non-DRMed music for about 40% less than itunes, so that is a better comparison. As far as I know OGG is the only really 'open' standard. I'm already being rated as a troll in an earlier post for implying that all music that itunes sold is tied to ipods and you're f***ed if you ever try to switch away from apple manufactured players. For joe-blow users I think that the added steps to make itunes music work on a non-itunes player are enough to effectively lock them into ipods forever.
non-DRMed music was available before itunes existed. I think the first non-DRMed music I bought online was from TMBG in the late 90's or early OO's (before cable modems and DSL was commonly available), after their 'major' label dropped them. At the time downloading the music from the internet was being pushed as 'bring-your-own-CD,' and the bandwith requirements were huge and it took the better part of a day to download it. non-DRMed music continued to be around for indie music and smaller labels.
With regard to Apple & the music labels...I think that Apple's executive management has many people in common with major branches of the entertainment industry, so it's very complex to try to say which are which. The issue of DRM is tied up in the disputes between Apple (which was rapidly becoming the only stylish way to sell musich) and the major labels.
The point is they're trying to tag it "my piracy is still justified."
No, the labels aren't scared, they're pissed off that Apple has the ability (and the gall) to stand up to them and tell them what to do.
As such, I think you're missing an essential part of the strategy: The labels put MP3s on Amazon in an attempt to drive customers away from Apple, with the result that if enough people switch then Apple no longer has the clout to stand up to them. After that the next time the contracts are negotiated they raise the rates everywhere and require everyone to use whatever brand of DRM they see fit.
Goodbye DRM-free iTunes. Goodbye DRM-free MP3s.
As much as I like Amazon, I like Apple's stance on the subject more. I'm sticking with iTunes.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
No one reason, I reply stroking the Van Dyke beard that looks so rakish with a black turtleneck (it has fully grown back in since that regrettable incident with the calipers, thank you for asking).
For a full analysis of my shopping habits, perhaps it is better if I quote from my ten part, 3,400-word blog post on the subject, which can be found carefully archived at my site, DaringTurdball.com.
"When I see a new car ad on TV and just have to 'run out' and buy the music playing in the background, there are few things I like to put in order first. You might call them 'ducks,' and say I am getting them 'in a row'--but just make sure it's a digital row, and that the ducks are all downsampled audio recordings. Ha, ha--or should I say, Quack quack!"
"One, I don't want too high a bitrate. High bitrates are known to use up A.R.S.E. (Auditory Response Synchronization Energy), a finite resource found in the resonant bones that frame the auditory canal. In layman's terms, higher bitrates wear out ears faster. You only have so much A.R.S.E. Why splurge?"
"Second, I take the 'fidelity' in high fidelity seriously. That's why I want to lock down my music as securely as a 13th century feudal lord securing his wife's genitals before he rides off to the Crusades. Doing so requires strong DRM so that my musical 'honey pots' don't end up getting 'stirred' by any other portable music players. I like knowing my songs are safe and won't be getting roughly used by a Zune on the side."
"Third, like most Americans, I don't want to pay too little. Everyone knows there's a direct relationship between price and quality. I like knowing my song has received that extra special touch of attention, even if it's just someone leaving on a light for it at Apple. Who knows? Maybe while it was waiting to be downloaded, The Steve walked by and gave it the old 'thumbs up' or even a 'peace sign'!"
"Adequately priced low-bitrate songs belted down with high-quality DRM so that they won't fall out of my iPod: yes, it's what I call a musical 'match made in heaven'--thank you, iTMS!"
I have been looking at all the stores and they fail with most of the music I want, but then again so does the walk-in stores, even allofmp3 doesn't carry the stuff I'm looking for.
(Norwegian eurodance circa 1995-2005 is impossible to get)
There are some pluses - such as there being a downloader for linux (java based), the website being clean and simple to use, and the id3 tags being clean (artist, album, year, genre, BUT no cover).
Personally I think they should make a minor change to their business model. I pay $10 for 30 songs per month. Instead of limiting me to 30 songs, if I go over 30, immediately start another "month" (another 30 songs, another $10). That is, I can download as much as I like, and its about 33c each for each block of 30. With a min of $10 per month. If I commit to one of their higher plans, I can buy songs at a cheaper rate.
That would dramatically increase revenue as I am sure a lot of people like to buy albums, but keep hitting the 30 songs per month limit. They'd cycle "months" much more quickly. However it could reduce profit as people are less likely to fail to download their limit (Think: their best result is when I download nothing in a month).
Anyway, just my $0.02c worth.