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."
eMusic is certainly not a mainstream music retailer. They don't sell you MP3s the way the grocer sells you a melon. You have to sign up for a month and you're allowed to download a song a day, roughly, although nobody does that. I can go to Amazon and spend 89c on a single song and never return. At eMusic, I have to pay $9.99 at least and then I have to remember to cancel it if I don't want it any more.
They're so close to getting it right though; why not, when you order the CD from Amazon, allow you to download the MP3 while you're waiting for the 'couple of days' shipping?
Wow. I wonder if this place has ever heard of eMusic.
Your comment was the first time I'd heart of it (or perhaps I'd read of it in passing before, but this is the first time it registered.)
So, I went to go see what how their selection is. Guess what, can't do anything without signing up for a trial (and giving them name, address and a credit card number.) You really think I'm going to do that when I have no idea what bands they even carry?
Plus the "deal" seems to resemble those old shady Columbia House ads my parents would never let me sign up for. $10 for 30 downloads a month. Not sure what it costs to buy more than 30, and of course if you don't choose 30 songs you're still out the money. Sorry, but that doesn't work for me. Buying music is an impulsive thing. I don't want a steady stream of 30 songs to pick a month. I want to buy things on a whim, some times no songs a month, some times going on a tear and buying dozens or hundreds when I discover a new band or genre.
And of course, if they don't have what I want, I'll have to get it elsewhere-- while still paying them their monthly fee. And I guarantee they won't have everything I want. Fuck that.
Maybe this has something to do with why no one has heard of it? Sounds like a pretty crappy business model to me.
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.
You need to seek professional help, my friend.
Oh come on now.
With this offering, Amazon has done more to make Linux a first-class citizen in the online music space than maybe any other company to date. That's hardly "lock[ing] out Linux users."
Read my blog.