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

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 87
    You don't trust Universal, yet your trust apple. Boy, you're one misguided soul.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post


    Absolutely correct except the problem is based on past experience, we do not trust Universal (or the other major labels). Because the customer's interest has generally been aligned with Apple's interest with regard to online content, Apple has served to block Universal and the other labels from gouging customers.



    Breaking Apple's iTunes dominance is really the only reason we can see as to why Universal is now willing to give up DRM and accept lower prices for six months. And in truth, this is the only avenue for them to do so.



  • Reply 63 of 87
    Yeah baby, count me in for lower prices. Let the price war begin.
  • Reply 64 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gumashow View Post


    Interesting. Amazon is offering a free download to test their site. The band's name: The Apples. Go to section #4 http://www.amazon.com/gp/dmusic/help...713832-1680115



    The name of the band is "The Apples in Stereo". Is it still that interesting to you?
  • Reply 65 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by palegolas View Post


    I don't know if it's been covered, but what about international users? Is this deal for ALL potential customers? Or is it only available in one region?



    Try buying a song/album and let us know.



    And here would be an excellent start :



    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...284244-1020939



    http://www.amazon.com/Herb-Alpert-Pr...071252-0684143



    http://www.amazon.com/Look-Around/dp...071252-0684143
  • Reply 66 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by britwithgoodteeth View Post


    The name of the band is "The Apples in Stereo". Is it still that interesting to you?



    Ironic, isn't it? I think the 'decider' at Amazon had a sense of humor.
  • Reply 67 of 87
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight View Post


    You don't trust Universal, yet your trust apple. Boy, you're one misguided soul.





    It makes sense to trust Apple more than Universal in this case. Why? Well, because:



    1. Apple doesn't make most of its money off of the music... it makes it off the sale of iPods.



    2. Given the above, Apple has good reason to have a lot of content available at a decent price for said iPods.



    3. Therefore, Apple is incentivized to keep music (and TV, and movie) dload prices reasonable. Universal is not. It's primary profit avenue is to have prices for content be as high as the market can possibly sustain.





    Get it now?





    .
  • Reply 68 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by britwithgoodteeth View Post


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



    Who asked you??? Somebody must have taught the morons how to read!
  • Reply 69 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


    You mean all those longer tracks that iTunes only sells as album-only, thus they aren't .99 cents on iTunes.



    For example the song "Echoes" from Pink Floyd's "Meddle" album:



    iTunes Price: Album Only (effectively $7.99, the price of the album)

    Amazon MP3 Price: $3.87 (Album price $7.99)



    How is what the article stated any different than all the times that iTunes prices have been listed as 99 cents per song and 9.99 for albums. Both of which are complete BS. iTunes song prices are 99 cents for DRM short songs, $1.29 for non-DRM short songs, and the price of the album for longer songs (but as a bonus you get the rest of the album for free). Likewise, most iTunes albums are 9.99, but lots of albums are more and some are less.



    What's better for the consumer? Having the option to buy the longer song at a higher price without needing to buy the whole album or being forced to buy the whole album for one song?



    Sorry, this may be AppleInsider, but you seem to think this site's name should be "Kiss Apple's A** at Every Opportunity".



    You can always tell who the morons are. They're the ones who see everything in black and white. Either you must agree with the Apple-bashers or you're kissing Apple's ass. Give me a break!
  • Reply 70 of 87
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    192 CBR AAC is about equivelant to 256 CBR MP3.



    But, there have been advances in MP3 encoding the past year and a half, so it's possible Amazon is using the new encoding. That would make MP3 CBR equal to AAC CBR, and MP3 VBR better than equal bitrate AAC CBR.



    Good point. The mp3 standard is far from static. Modern mp3 encoders are far superior to those from even just a few years ago.



    Part of the problem is that the mp3 encoder in iTunes isn't that great. In fact, it is downright ridiculed by audio transcoding snobs.



    I'd love to see a run-down of which online music stores are using which encoders and with which settings. But since 128kbps is good enough for most people, fat chance of that happening.
  • Reply 71 of 87
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


    Good point. The mp3 standard is far from static. Modern mp3 encoders are far superior to those from even just a few years ago.



    Part of the problem is that the mp3 encoder in iTunes isn't that great. In fact, it is downright ridiculed by audio transcoding snobs.



    I'd love to see a run-down of which online music stores are using which encoders and with which settings. But since 128kbps is good enough for most people, fat chance of that happening.



    True.
  • Reply 72 of 87
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:

    Part of the problem is that the mp3 encoder in iTunes isn't that great. In fact, it is downright ridiculed by audio transcoding snobs.



    I doubt Apple cares to advance mp3 encoding.
  • Reply 73 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    I doubt Apple cares to advance mp3 encoding.



    Double-True!
  • Reply 74 of 87
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    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





    Look: I just bought 4 songs, 2 of which I already had from iTms, I played them all in itunes and and they all BLEW AWAY the itms ausio quality, the UI needs work, but for amazon, this is a REV A, give it a few months.



    oh, and by the way, I am free to use these tracks for ANYTHING like screwing around with sampling and remixing, for my own use of course... and use on any device and such...

    I also like the $.89 price tag...





    iTunes isnt going to beat this if they keep DRM and the crappy 128K audio

    ...just buy any Pavarotti song in itunes and then from Amazon! OH MY GOD, the difference is night and day! My drivers don't make strange noises when he hits the highs, it just reproduces the sound crisply, indistinguishable from a CD.

    UPDATE: I have the iTunes 256K "start me up" by the rolling stones, I just bought it from Amazon: WOW, the dynamic rang that I always thought was missing in the itunes track is definitely there in this one, ITMS high end is like FM radio and this is like a CD...I dont know what encoder they use, but it is amazing!
  • Reply 75 of 87
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Looks like Apple may have to step it up, at least for the older tracks that Amazon prices at 89 cents.



    If I can get a 256 kpbs VBR MP3 for 89 cents, that's gonna beat out 128 kpbs AAC CBR at 99 cents.



    Apple, don't make me choose...



    .
  • Reply 76 of 87
    I already did... keep in mind that Amazon does not have many of the tracks that are available on iTunes.



    Then there's stuff you can't find on either service, only on CD or vinyl.
  • Reply 77 of 87
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Good points, but I do think I'll be giving Amazon at least a look-see in coming weeks for music dloads.



    I think I'd be fooling myself to think that DRM-free 256 kbps VBR MP3s at 89 cents aren't attractive. Of course, for the higher-priced songs, Amazon can go play in traffic.



    I'd like to think that if the Amazon effort shows any traction, Apple will respond. Not on the price front necessarily, but with a quality bump. Going to VBR AACs, an increase in bitrate, a Lossless option for a little more money, etc... any or all would be very nice.



    .
  • Reply 78 of 87
    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).



    There are some Dan tracks on there I've never seen before. Pretty impressive collection. And I agree Apple shouldn't fear some healthy competition.
  • Reply 79 of 87
    All this stuff with Amazon is great, but isn't the DRM free and cheaper downloads only for a limited time? If they are for a limited time, and the DRM they finally add is worse than Fairplay, will people still be excited? The only reason the labels are doing this is to break Apple's control over the market. Competition is good but I'd like to see the whole industry have no DRM or at least very liberal DRM.
  • Reply 80 of 87
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    What surprises me is that Jobs had promised that we would see at LEAST half of iTunes tracks being sold DRM-free by the end of the year, with no further word, so what is happining?. While that can happen, it astonishes me that all of the tracks that are being sold elsewhere, DRM-free, other than this new Universal initive, aren't already being sold DRM-free on iTunes. That just seems strange.



    I thought that all of those indie labels would jump on right away. That hasn't happened.
Sign In or Register to comment.