Amazon one-ups iTunes Plus with MP3 store, exclusive music

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Posing one of the more serious challenges to Apple's continued success with iTunes, Amazon's MP3 store has opened its doors and claims more unprotected tracks with lower prices.



Considered a public beta, Amazon MP3 marks a departure from both Apple's store and Amazon's own Unbox video service in only selling songs that are available in the unguarded MP3 format -- allowing virtually every music phone or portable media player to support its content without limits to CD burning or file copying.



While the concept of an MP3-only download store is far from new, the online retailer was keen to stress that its service was designed to lure users accustomed to the ease of use of stores built into music software, particularly iTunes. A custom program known as the MP3 Downloader runs in the background for both Mac and Windows users and seamlessly transfers songs bought from Amazon MP3 into either iTunes or Windows Media Player if they are present on the system, the company said.



But the real attractions may be the price and the catalog. Although every song is encoded at higher quality as an MP3 at 256 kilobits per second -- as high as Amazon's rival Wal-Mart and slightly behind the 256Kbps AAC files of iTunes Plus -- songs are no more expensive than at most stores, selling for 99 cents each. More than half of the music in the collection sells for 89 cents per song, according to Amazon. In contrast, an iTunes Plus song costs $1.29 when bought outside of an album, or more than 40 percent higher.



And though Amazon MP3 launched with just a third of the total songs, cresting at 2 million versus the 6 million of iTunes, the company was able to claim a greater number unrestricted tracks through a deal with Universal Music Group that saw the label's entire catalog on sale in MP3 format.



According to a previous report by Electronista, Universal had negotiated deals during the summer with Amazon, Wal-Mart, and other online music stores to sell its collection in unprotected formats for several months and test the success of DRM-free tracks. The deal was notable at the time for excluding Apple, which Universal claimed was a "control" in an experiment.



Amazon may have gained the advantage due in part to its flexibility in negotiating rare album deals. Among other artists, the Seattle, Washington-based firm has successfully obtained the rights to sell downloads from the British rock group Radiohead -- a band well-known for publicly refusing to allow its songs to be sold individually, insisting that customers instead buy the full album. Amazon MP3 sells all the group's albums and singles only in complete form and appears not to share Apple's highly-publicized insistence that every average-length song be available for a separate purchase.



In spite of the seeming advantages, however, Amazon's prospects for growth are less than certain after the launch. To date, neither Sony-BMG nor Warner Music have agreed to sell their catalogs without copy protection. Universal's DRM-free experiment is also set to end in January and may reduce Amazon's catalog substantially if the major label believes there to be little advantage to removing DRM from its digital library.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 87
    Sounds pretty good. I wish Amazon luck. It's better to have music on many good stores rather than just one store.
  • Reply 2 of 87
    Another attempt that looks good on paper but with fate with the rest of them....when will they learn
  • Reply 3 of 87
    mactelmactel Posts: 1,275member
    Well good for Amazon! At 89 cents a song, I might just buy a few songs a year like I do on iTunes. Glad to support a local company.
  • Reply 4 of 87
    I tried a download - Missing Persons - Words - it's availble at 256k on both itunes and amazon - oddly - the amazon download is slightly smaller than the download from itunes (7.7MB v. 8.4MB) - the download process is not as simple as the itunes interface - but it does automatically dump the song in itunes and the cover art comes accross as well. I think the pricing competition will be great for consumers. I can't hear a difference between the two downloads (not surprisingly since presumably they both originated from the same digital library) - of note, however, is the coverflow from Amazon is brighter and looks better...
  • Reply 5 of 87
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Amazon understands your music store is nothing unless it works with the iPod. iTunes needs competition. This will be another example to the record labels that DRM isn't necessary. Looks good to me, I will likely use it.
  • Reply 6 of 87
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by daratbastid View Post


    Another attempt that looks good on paper but with fate with the rest of them....when will they learn



    What is it Amazon has done wrong that you feel they should learn? This is not the same as "the rest of them"--they are burdened by Microsoft WMA DRM that isn't even compatible with itself!



    It's a good deal, and integrates automatically with iTunes and iPod. I'll buy some music in support of DRM-free non-Microsoft downloading.



    Finally, a good option so I can shop from two sources instead of one. That needn't be taken as any kind of slam against iTunes. In fact, I hope this reinforces Apple's push for the removal of DRM, and even brings iTunes songs down in price.
  • Reply 7 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by onceuponamac View Post


    I tried a download - Missing Persons - Words - it's availble at 256k on both itunes and amazon - oddly - the amazon download is slightly smaller than the download from itunes (7.7MB v. 8.4MB) - the download process is not as simple as the itunes interface - but it does automatically dump the song in itunes and the cover art comes accross as well. I think the pricing competition will be great for consumers. I can't hear a difference between the two downloads (not surprisingly since presumably they both originated from the same digital library) - of note, however, is the coverflow from Amazon is brighter and looks better...



    Amazon uses variable bit rate while iTunes Store use constant bit rate.



    /Adrian
  • Reply 8 of 87
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zandros View Post


    Amazon uses variable bit rate [VBR] while iTunes Store use constant bit rate.





    That's something iTunes would do well to emulate.





    .
  • Reply 9 of 87
    gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    I'm going to download Katie Lied by Steely Dan when I get home to see if it properly finds and merges into my library. Can't complain about the price (7.96).



    I assume that pricing will ultimately sort itself out between the various vendors, and differentiation will occur based on user experience and catalog. I'm not sure how the need to deal with multiple stores will play out, but I suppose its unrealistic (and probably not even desirable) for there to be a complete one-stop-stop record store.



    The win for Apple, however, is that they're sucessfully forcing labels to remove DRM in order to make the competitors iPod compatible.



    But from my quick glance at it, it looks way less sucky that the other non-iTMS wannabes I've seen.
  • Reply 10 of 87
    First of all, Amazon may claim that more than half of their tracks cost $.89, but a little browsing through the site suggests that most tracks by well-known artists are $.99 and up! Many longer tracks are priced at $1.94 or even $3.87.



    Second, Apple's AAC format is superior to MP3 and results in smaller files. Amazon's FAQ explicitly states that most tracks are encoded as VBR, not 256kbps. One would have to perform an A-B listening test to determine the audible difference between 256kbps AAC and VBR-encoded MP3.



    Third, the article admits that "Amazon's prospects for growth are less than certain after the launch," yet the headline boldly claims that "Amazon one-ups iTunes Plus..." Could you run that by me again?



    I sincerely suggest that AppleInsider consider changing their name to AppleOutsider. The decidedly negative spin that infects more than a few of your articles may pass for "objectivity" in your neighborhood, but in mine it's called "Apple-bashing" and has no place on a site supposedly dedicated to news about Apple and Apple products.
  • Reply 11 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alansky View Post


    I sincerely suggest that AppleInsider consider changing their name to AppleOutsider. The decidedly negative spin that infects more than a few of your articles may pass for "objectivity" in your neighborhood, but in mine it's called "Apple-bashing" and has no place on a site supposedly dedicated to news about Apple and Apple products.



    I sincerely suggest that you stop being such a candy-ass.
  • Reply 12 of 87
    I wonder if this will be more popular than unbox? On second thought, it would have to be.
  • Reply 13 of 87
    I didn't actually download anything, But I was listening to previews of songs from both iTunes and Amazon, and there is a distinct difference in quality.

    I'm hoping that Amazon just has lower quality previews because they definitely sounded "muddier" than the iTunes preview versions of the same songs.

    Does anybody know anything about this? I'm just hoping that the preview on Amazon is not representative of what you get when you buy.
  • Reply 14 of 87
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alansky View Post


    Amazon's FAQ explicitly states that most tracks are encoded as VBR, not 256kbps.





    Funny... this is what I got from Amazon when I was there:



    Quality: Our MP3 tracks are encoded at 256 kbps, which gives you high-quality audio at a reasonable file size. This means your music sounds great and downloads quickly.





    Also, VBR and 256 kbps are not really an 'either-or' proposition... go into your iTunes Preferences... you'll find that you can import tracks using a setting of 256kbps, while using VBR. Also, you can use VBR with not only MP3, but with AAC as well.



    The 256 kbps is a baseline bit rate... with VBR, the bitrate is allowed to go up or down over the course of the track, depending on the complexity of the music. All else being equal, it does seem to yield better audio quality than similar bitrate tracks that do not use VBR.



    That said, AAC (what iTS uses) is a better codec audio quality-wise than MP3, as you mention, so that may offset the audio benefits of Unbox using VBR... 256 kpbs MP3 VBR prolly sounds about as good as 256 kbps AAC.



    Far as file sizes go, VBR files of a similar (baseline) bit rate tend to be slightly larger than 'plain' MP3s or AAC files, but probably not by enough for most ppl to care about.



    .
  • Reply 15 of 87
    Aside from your "candy-ass" opinion, "brit-teeth," what is your reaction to the clear misrepresentation about songs being priced at $.89? THEY ARE NOT! Some are . . . but NOT ALL. Is that your clear and balanced spin?
  • Reply 16 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by britwithgoodteeth View Post


    I sincerely suggest that you stop being such a candy-ass.



    Sometimes you hit the nail squarely on the head, Brit. (not often, mind you)...
  • Reply 17 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by VinitaBoy View Post


    Aside from your "candy-ass" opinion, "brit-teeth," what is your reaction to the clear misrepresentation about songs being priced at $.89? THEY ARE NOT! Some are . . . but NOT ALL. Is that your clear and balanced spin?



    Hmmm. Let's see. There seem to be two possibilities here:



    1) AI misread/misunderstood the pricing info;



    2) AI has a secret, anti-mac agenda that they've been promoting over the past how many years.



    Which do you think it is, Einstein?



  • Reply 18 of 87
    Kudos to Amazon for offering a competing store which everyone (Mac/Windows) can use (unlike Walmart's latest offering). More kudos to them for doing what it took to offer Radiohead albums. Apple shouldn't walk away from good content, and I bet they follow suit fairly quickly in offering Radiohead content.



    Kudos to AppleInsider for pointing out that Amazon had managed to secure said content - I hadn't seen this reported anywhere else. Nice work.
  • Reply 19 of 87
    Hey, I've been loyal to the iTunes store almost since day one. I have *never* bought music online with anything else, but I just bought my first track today at Amazon. I think it's a very significant offering.



    Amazon can get by with the 89 cents downloads because they offer variable pricing (some songs/albums more expensive). So it's really cool I think to have this option, if it's a new release I want right away, I'll get it from iTunes since it's cheaper. If it's a catalog purchase I'll buy it from Amazon. I just want the best buy!



    I'm not about to stop giving iTunes gift cards since they have a larger catalog.
  • Reply 20 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ryukyu View Post


    I didn't actually download anything, But I was listening to previews of songs from both iTunes and Amazon, and there is a distinct difference in quality.

    I'm hoping that Amazon just has lower quality previews because they definitely sounded "muddier" than the iTunes preview versions of the same songs.

    Does anybody know anything about this? I'm just hoping that the preview on Amazon is not representative of what you get when you buy.



    I did download (purchased) from both sites and I can not discern a difference in the audio quality of either track - they sound identical to me.
Sign In or Register to comment.