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

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 87
    BTW, I used and downloaded from Amazon... pretty good experience! Also, I found lots of artists/bands that iTunes doesn't have (especially in the 80s music). I'll be using this regularly from now on.
  • Reply 22 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?



    Dude, just.... stop. You're embarassing yourself.
  • Reply 23 of 87
    xamaxxamax Posts: 135member
    Alansky, I see your point!



    It's the first time I read a negatively biased article on AppleInsider and it also incurs on technical incorrections: 256 Kbps AAC is far superior to 256Kbps MP3, be it the VBR variety or not, which is comparable with 128Kbps [or so we were told when they sold it to us]. If 256Kbps AAC iTunes Plus tracks are 40% higher in price, they're probably even higher than that in quality. [ppl correct me if I'm wrong, thanx]. And 128Kbps AAC is equivalent to 256Kbps MP3 so it's a tie there.



    Still, I guess 256Kbps MP3 is good enough quality for most people and, hey it's (not free but) DRMless. And Amazon is a really competitive and intelligent contender which I tend to regard far higher than MS, mobile phone makers / operators [yes, even Vodafone+HTC] and any other computer maker [even Sony].



    Please take note that Amazon's catalog is far smaller [and, dare I speculate, outdated?] than iTunes' and only a few songs are 89cents. Contrary to Apple's consumer defending practice (!) [after all what Apple wants is to sell iPods & iMacs, isn't it?] which puts EVERY SONG @ 99cent or @ $1.29 [Plus], Amazon seems to have different pricing for different albums/songs.



    I will remain faithful to AppleInsider as my mandatory reading but they must be really careful not to enter this negativity wave that's going around - whom is it serving?! I guess we all know the answer!
  • Reply 24 of 87
    i dont have a problem with competition the least bit... but... I'm stickin with itunes. I like it. its convenient, easy to use... I can get almost everything I need there and if i cant, i can wait. hehe...





    Good luck though to amazon.
  • Reply 25 of 87
    I just may have to buy some music from Amazon. Despite what Apple says, not all of the Capitol catalog is available in iTunes+ format. Two examples in my protected-AAC collection are The Tubes' "Best of" album and "Freezeframe" by the J. Geils Band. Both of these are available in MP3 from Amazon. I'm sure I'll find others, especially since my musical tastes are mostly from the 1960s-1980s.
  • Reply 26 of 87
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    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.



    The key determinant for me on whether to use the Amazon store for Universal tracks is what message it sends to Universal. So I'd buy the EMI songs that are 89 cents. I wouldn't buy any song over 99 cents. So the question is should I buy a Universal song that is 89 cents (that would cost 99 cents for the DRMed version at iTunes)?



    I'm thinking the answer should be yes because this will convince Universal to drop DRM. But would it also convince Universal to pull out of iTunes completely, thus forcing me to use two different stores? Would it also embolden other studios to pull out of iTunes, leading to even more variable (and most likely higher) pricing, once iTunes is crippled?
  • Reply 27 of 87
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post


    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.



    VBR is definitely a good thing. I think Apple uses CBR - constant bit rate for their music downloads. As you suggest, for the same codec, encoder and bitrates, VBR should be better because it allocates the bits where needed, it should provide a consistent quality all the way through, rather than high quality during the simple segments and low quality in more complex segments. It's not nearly as important of a consideration as with video though, a lot of finished video products use VBR to maximize quality for a given amount of bits or to reduce the file size.
  • Reply 28 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by britwithgoodteeth View Post


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



    It's 'candy-arse' not 'candy-ass' to a proper Brit, what! Right, pip pip, cheerio. :-)
  • Reply 29 of 87
    eckingecking Posts: 1,588member
    Wow this actually looks promising.



    What I wonder is what universal gets out of this? I mean they felt they were getting screwed by itunes, so they turn around and sign with amazon and sell tracks for cheaper with no protection? Wtf, why?



    Amazon must make no money off this deal. Because I can't see Jobs saying no to those things if that's really what Universal wanted. They must have said "no DRM and cheaper? Sure, but lower price by removing your cut from price, not mine."
  • Reply 30 of 87
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member


    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.




    APPLE GOT 0WN3d!!



    Wow. Screw itms!
  • Reply 31 of 87
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by XamaX View Post


    It's the first time I read a negatively biased article on AppleInsider and it also incurs on technical incorrections: 256 Kbps AAC is far superior to 256Kbps MP3, be it the VBR variety or not, which is comparable with 128Kbps [or so we were told when they sold it to us]. If 256Kbps AAC iTunes Plus tracks are 40% higher in price, they're probably even higher than that in quality. [ppl correct me if I'm wrong, thanx]. And 128Kbps AAC is equivalent to 256Kbps MP3 so it's a tie there.



    You are wrong. 256Mp3 is nearly indistinguishable from 256AAC. It certainly isn't distinguishable with human ears, at any rate.



    128 AAC is probably somewhere around 160mp3 w/vbr.



    By ANY measure, 128AAC is crap compared to 256Mp3. It is NOT a tie. Just listen on a good sound system (note:not crap computer speakers or car stereo). Most people can tell really easily. I can easily tell between 128AAC and 192Mp3, I'm trained to hear digital sound errors though.



    Edit: I verified that Amazon does indeed use 256--another site said so
  • Reply 32 of 87
    You guys need to wise up. Amazon is selling its soul to compete with Apple. Universal's goal is to destroy Apple so it can charge whatever it wants and give you the music in whatever format it wants. Business as usual. To achieve this goal, Universal is willing to take a hit now by giving Amazon better rates and a better selection of DRM free music then Apple. Moreover, Universal has said it is experimenting with DRM free music for only a six month period. Finally, there is no competition, as Universal isn't given Apple any DRM Free access to it music.



    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...ermarking.html



    At the end of the day if Amazon succeeds at Apple's expense, consumers will lose. Apple may have its own interests at heart, but those interests coincide with consumer's interests. I will download free music and copy CDs before I buy any music from Amazon.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nagromme View Post


    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 33 of 87
    No kidding? Universal has been pulling music from iTunes, and giving Amazon better rates. Six months from now if more people think like you, you will have only one option: music embedded in Microsoft Windows Media format. Universal wants to be able to raise rates at will, and Apple is standing in the way. If you want what's best for you in the long run, get your music anyplace but Amazon. Universal is giving now to hurt you later.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    BTW, I used and downloaded from Amazon... pretty good experience! Also, I found lots of artists/bands that iTunes doesn't have (especially in the 80s music). I'll be using this regularly from now on.



  • Reply 34 of 87
    Resist the poison. I have nothing against Amazon. I use it for books, and products all the time. However, you are supporting Universal when you buy music from Amazon. Universal is sucking you in now to hurt you later.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheBum View Post


    I just may have to buy some music from Amazon. Despite what Apple says, not all of the Capitol catalog is available in iTunes+ format. Two examples in my protected-AAC collection are The Tubes' "Best of" album and "Freezeframe" by the J. Geils Band. Both of these are available in MP3 from Amazon. I'm sure I'll find others, especially since my musical tastes are mostly from the 1960s-1980s.



  • Reply 35 of 87
    How ironic that their best selling single for today is "1234" by Feist.... Yes, the song used for the iPod nano commercials
  • Reply 36 of 87
    I agree. More importantly, supporting Amazon is voting to support Universal's attack on Apple. Apple wants easy to understand pricing, and voiced supported for DRM free music when companies like Universal loudly said no to DRM free music. After APple forced its hand with its deal with EMI, Universal took all its DRM Free music to Amazon's play yard in a clear attempt to undermine Apple at your expense.



    Moreover, in six months if Universal blows Apple a significant blow, you may see music encoded in Microsoft Media Format on Amazon instead.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alansky View Post


    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 37 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    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 (?)



    Yes, indeed, you can get Unguarded in the MP3 format.
  • Reply 38 of 87
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GQB View Post


    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.



    What label has Apple forced to go off DRM?



    Certainly not EMI. They announced it a while ago, and are doing it because their sales are down, and they want to try this. They are also the smallest of the big labels.



    The indie's have been offering DRM-free music onsites other than iTunes for years.



    Even Universal may be doing this in an attempt to snub Apple, and break their power over the industry.
  • Reply 39 of 87
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by XamaX View Post


    Alansky, I see your point!



    It's the first time I read a negatively biased article on AppleInsider and it also incurs on technical incorrections: 256 Kbps AAC is far superior to 256Kbps MP3, be it the VBR variety or not, which is comparable with 128Kbps [or so we were told when they sold it to us]. If 256Kbps AAC iTunes Plus tracks are 40% higher in price, they're probably even higher than that in quality. [ppl correct me if I'm wrong, thanx]. And 128Kbps AAC is equivalent to 256Kbps MP3 so it's a tie there.



    Still, I guess 256Kbps MP3 is good enough quality for most people and, hey it's (not free but) DRMless. And Amazon is a really competitive and intelligent contender which I tend to regard far higher than MS, mobile phone makers / operators [yes, even Vodafone+HTC] and any other computer maker [even Sony].



    Please take note that Amazon's catalog is far smaller [and, dare I speculate, outdated?] than iTunes' and only a few songs are 89cents. Contrary to Apple's consumer defending practice (!) [after all what Apple wants is to sell iPods & iMacs, isn't it?] which puts EVERY SONG @ 99cent or @ $1.29 [Plus], Amazon seems to have different pricing for different albums/songs.



    I will remain faithful to AppleInsider as my mandatory reading but they must be really careful not to enter this negativity wave that's going around - whom is it serving?! I guess we all know the answer!



    There isn't that much of a difference between VBR 256 MP3 and the non VBR 256 AAC Apple uses. Whether you can hear it or not depends on what you are listening with, though I doubt it's that noticable.
  • Reply 40 of 87
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ecking View Post


    Wow this actually looks promising.



    What I wonder is what universal gets out of this? I mean they felt they were getting screwed by itunes, so they turn around and sign with amazon and sell tracks for cheaper with no protection? Wtf, why?



    Amazon must make no money off this deal. Because I can't see Jobs saying no to those things if that's really what Universal wanted. They must have said "no DRM and cheaper? Sure, but lower price by removing your cut from price, not mine."



    Those are the interesting questions, aren't they?



    It makes me feel as though Universal is simply trying to take business away from Apple, and is willing to either just break even, or even to lose money for the time they think it might take.



    Or, this might be an actual test for them. How would they know, if they sold these on iTunes? Since iTunes is so much bigger than anyone else, they might not learn much from it. But, by going with a new, therefore small service, they can see if it works. If they do good business, then they know the model works.



    I'm beginning to think that with the download business more mature, more variable pricing might be a good thing?as long as it really is variable, and not just front loaded to raise the average price much.
Sign In or Register to comment.