iTunes Still Well Ahead of Amazon MP3 Store

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/16/itunes-still-well-ahead-of-amazon-mp3-store/)

Reuters reports (http://uk.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUKTRE4BC1TZ20081213) on the latest data tracking digital music downloads. Specifically, they look at Amazon's MP3 downloads after a full year of sales. According to their data, Amazon remains a distant second to iTunes: Major-label sources say that they had hoped the company would have fared better than it did. Amazon has yet to release any sales figures for digital music, and it did not respond to interview requests for this story. But Piper Jaffray financial analyst Gene Munster estimates that Amazon will sell 130 million tracks this year -- a paltry sum compared with the 2.4 billion songs iTunes is expected to sell in 2008.This brings Amazon's estimate to only 8 percent of the digital music download market share without any major gains. This lack of success could influence record labels in their ongoing negotiations with Apple. Amazon MP3 offerings have been seen by music studios as a way to reduce Apple's foothold in the digital download market. Unlike Apple, Amazon has had access to DRM-free song licensing from all of the major record labels. The labels are still hoping that Amazon will gain ground over the next year.

The labels are said to be (http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/news.php?id=26953) demanding more concessions from Apple as they negotiate for DRM-free music in the iTunes Store. Possibilities include variable track pricing and watermarking of individual tracks.

Article Link: iTunes Still Well Ahead of Amazon MP3 Store (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/16/itunes-still-well-ahead-of-amazon-mp3-store/)

[FrankieTDouglas]

Any online music purchases I make are from Amazon. Higher quality, cheaper prices, and absolutely no DRM.

[joeconvert]

I love the lack of DRM in the Amazon store and the quality isn't bad.

I just don't get how the studios are allowed to operate like this. I mean what if Microsoft decided to not sell HP Windows 7 because they though they had too much market power and only Dell will be allowed to have it...

[sososowhat]

This brings Amazon's estimate to only 8 percent of the digital music download market share with any signs of gaining.
How can Amazon be at 8% when 130 Million tracks is just 5.4% of iTunes alone?

It must be more like 5%. Without any signs of gaining.

[talkingfuture]

2.4 Billion tracks is an astonishing number

[mogzieee]

Well, iTunes has been around for longer. :cool:

[Small White Car]

On the one hand I like that Amazon is all high-quality DRM-free files.

I want to see more of that.

BUT I am kind of happy they are doing poorly because it gives Apple the power to say to the labels: "Look, we're still in charge, here's what we want to do." Hopefully Apple can squash some of the sillier changes they want made to the iTunes store. (It's also great to see the labels attempt to undermine iTunes (by favoring Amazon) failing on them. You gotta love that.)

Now, if they can make iTunes 100% DRM-free (with music anyway) then I certainly wish Amazon the best and would love to see them take a large part of the market at that point.

But here and now, today, I'm kind of glad iTunes is still so powerful.

[zelmo]

If Amazon has the track or album I want, I'll buy from them first for better quality, cheaper and DRM-free music.
Here's hoping this lack of market inroad makes the labels think twice about shutting iTunes out of the good stuff. If iTMS offered the same quality/price, I'd probably never look to Amazon or anyone else.

[alexbates]

I think Apple could stop them if they soon turn iTunes into all iTunes Plus and DRM-free.

[Rojo]

This comes at absolutely NO surprise.
At the end of the day, people want ease of use and something they're familiar with. Amazon may be cheaper and better quality, but their selection just isn't as good, and it's just a bigger hassle than getting stuff on iTunes.

Hopefully this gives Apple the leverage to demand DRM-free music from ALL the studios, and higher bitrate. I don't think Apple's going to ever get lower than 99 cents per track, but I'm fine with that.

[fendol]

Second that.

But will the average user be bothered with the DRM, he might just think since it's from apple he'll get it from apple, though the DRM does bother me and I favor Amazon here:apple:http://www.seoagora.com/img/589/d08l1104oulu/smiley2.gif

[OddyOh]

iTunes works in Canada...Amazon Music Store does not. My choice is made for me. :(

That said, I much prefer the iTunes interface to any other music store I've tried. The stupid PureTracks.com store (Canada's only other option), doesn't let you remove songs from your cart...I had to restart my shopping in another browser. Lame? Yes.

[Furrybeagle]

This comes at absolutely NO surprise.
At the end of the day, people want ease of use and something they're familiar with. Amazon may be cheaper and better quality, but their selection just isn't as good, and it's just a bigger hassle than getting stuff on iTunes.

Hopefully this gives Apple the leverage to demand DRM-free music from ALL the studios, and higher bitrate. I don't think Apple's going to ever get lower than 99 cents per track, but I'm fine with that.


Downloading from Amazon is surprisingly easy if you use their downloader. It imports straight into itunes, along with album artwork. In fact, previewing and searching works FASTER for me on Amazon than on iTunes (but that could also be my connection).

Also, how exactly will the help apple get more DRM free tracks? If anything, won't it show the studios that people don't care about quality and drm? I'm just not seeing the connection (I don't mean to be flaming... I'm genuienely curious).

[theBB]

Almost all of the songs I am interested in is the same price. There were a few songs on Amazon that did not sound very good when I listened to the previews, so it made me a bit leery of buying from there, but it could be just simple paranoia. Anyways, I much prefer iTunes interface.

I am not against watermarking, but variable prices just mean higher prices. I don't trust the labels. They will kill the goose that lays golden eggs as soon as they get a chance.

[Saladinos]

DRM doesn't bother most people on iTunes. If you had an MP3 player other than an iPod, you wouldn't buy songs from the ITMS anyway. Hence we can assume that most people who buy from the store either don't have an MP3 player, or have an iPod. In either case DRM doesn't make a huge difference.

I think Apple's right not to give in to the record labels. Flexible pricing is just a hassle. A like the flat pricing model - it ensures that I'm not going to be ripped by corporations who charge more because they can. Flat pricing is what made the iTunes store the best.

[yeroen]

I'm still irritated that, as an American, I can't buy mp3's from either Amazon.co.uk or iTunes UK (although you used to be able to).

There's lots of more obscure stuff that's only available on the UK stores, and if I want it I have to shell out $30 for the import CD.

Just saying.

[slu]

I love Amazon's store. I do not love the selection. It is very easy and whoever said it is a hassel obviously has not used it. I get everything I can from them. I don't use iTunes for anything with DRM. I'd rather get the CD.

As someone else said, I don't see how this gives Apple any leverage over DRM. If anything it shows most people don't care or know about DRM.

[TyWahn]

I'm less concerned about DRM than sound quality. I can't believe Apple is still selling mp3s at 128kbps.
I ALWAYS check Amazon first for this reason alone. There isn't a good reason not to.

[Le Big Mac]

Also, how exactly will the help apple get more DRM free tracks? If anything, won't it show the studios that people don't care about quality and drm? I'm just not seeing the connection (I don't mean to be flaming... I'm genuienely curious).

I imagine the thinking is that if Amazon doesn't succeed, the record companies have to play ball with apple. Right now, the cos. are trying to give Amazon advantages (no DRM), but it's not working. If it works, then the record cos. could say "stick it Apple, we'll sell on our terms" but not if Amazon doesn't work.

Not sure how it plays out, but that's one way I suppose.

[wordmunger]

I always check Amazon first due to lack of DRM. But iTunes is a much slicker store experience. If iTunes offered more DRM-free music I'd switch back.

[JPark]

This comes at absolutely NO surprise.
At the end of the day, people want ease of use and something they're familiar with. Amazon may be cheaper and better quality, but their selection just isn't as good, and it's just a bigger hassle than getting stuff on iTunes.

Hopefully this gives Apple the leverage to demand DRM-free music from ALL the studios, and higher bitrate. I don't think Apple's going to ever get lower than 99 cents per track, but I'm fine with that.

I'm a bit surprised. Amazon provided seamless integration with iTunes even on the Mac. Their tracks are cheaper, DRM-free, and higher quality. Since they came around, I haven't bought a single DRM-locked track from anywhere. If iTunes has it as a Plus track I might get it there. Otherwise I get it at Amazon.

I would guess that ease of use is a big part of iTunes' continued dominance, but I think perhaps brand familiarity and customer confusion are another big part. For the longest time you (mostly) had to shop at iTunes if you wanted your tracks to work on your iPod. That's no longer the case, but I don't think the word has gotten out.

[yayaba]

I'm a bit surprised. Amazon provided seamless integration with iTunes even on the Mac. Their tracks are cheaper, DRM-free, and higher quality. Since they came around, I haven't bought a single DRM-locked track from anywhere. If iTunes has it as a Plus track I might get it there. Otherwise I get it at Amazon.

I would guess that ease of use is a big part of iTunes' continued dominance, but I think perhaps brand familiarity and customer confusion are another big part. For the longest time you (mostly) had to shop at iTunes if you wanted your tracks to work on your iPod. That's no longer the case, but I don't think the word has gotten out.

Well for me it's just about convenience. I know using the Amazon downloader probably isn't that hard but for me I just don't want to deal with it. I just load up iTunes, hit Music Store, find what I want, and download it. I have an iPhone as a portable music player so the DRM doesn't bother me and I don't really care about sound quality that much (my 2.1 speakers were $15 from Office Max).

I don't think the average person can tell the difference between sound quality between iTunes and Amazon. Kind of how like people can't tell the difference between 480i stretched and 720p (I sure can though!).

[slapppy]

The labels are sure bent on trying to destroy iTunes. To single out Apple from allowing to sell DRM free content, seems like an illegal tactic to to.

[jonathanbruck]

I think apple already watermarks itunes plus tracks: open one in a text editor and search for your name.

[sgibson]

Regarding "Amazon has higher quality".

If you look at the iTunes+ that is currently DRM free it is 256kbps AAC compared to Amazon's 320kbps MP3. Given that AAC is a much more efficient compression algorithm I would still say that iTunes edges out Amazon for the quality of the DRM free tracks, though probably not on the 128kbps, where it is merely comparable. As you get toward the higher bitrates most people will stop being able to hear the difference, either due to equipment that is unable to audibly display the differences or their personal threshold for perceptual differences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding#AAC.E2.80.99s_improvements_over_MP3

[hexonxonx]

I think apple already watermarks itunes plus tracks: open one in a text editor and search for your name.

But once you convert those tracks into MP3 or any other format, your name is gone.

[JGowan]

I love Amazon's store. I do not love the selection. It is very easy and whoever said it is a hassel obviously has not used it. I get everything I can from them. I don't use iTunes for anything with DRM. I'd rather get the CD. Use "Requiem" - I De-DRM'd my 900 song iTunes collection in less than an hour. Just drag the song file onto the droplet icon and poof -- there's a DRM-free copy right next to the original. Couldn't be easier.

[RichardI]

Jeeze. Amazon better quality and cheaper? Do they sell downloadable music in Canada or can I get it from Amazon.com? I thought Apple's quality was the best there is. It's not?

I download individual songs (I never buy albums), then burn them onto a compilation CD and I've had no problems at all with DRM - why is that an issue? I guess I should be re-thinking iTunes?

Rich :cool:

[ChrisA]

Any online music purchases I make are from Amazon. Higher quality, cheaper prices, and absolutely no DRM.

You are right about cheaper prices. Recently I ordered four CDs from Amazon. One of them was priced at only $1.99 the more expensive one was a double CD for About $12. I don't see any reason to buy MP3 tracks.

[colanutnm]

Of the Amazon track I have a few top out at 256kbps, but I'm not seeing the 320s that are being mentioned. I like Amazon well enough, but their UI is awful and there is no shopping cart for digital tracks (at least one I can easily find).

How hard is it show me a list of tracks by an artists and let me sort on things like Album then Name rather than most popular or price (WTF, price is the last thing I would sort on :confused:).

In all fairness I have an eMusic account so I don't buy a lot. Though I have a few iTMS tracks saved up in my shopping cart (all iTunes +). Some day I may spend some real money there.:o

[Loge]

I think apple already watermarks itunes plus tracks: open one in a text editor and search for your name.

That's not a watermark, it's metadata; it is viewable in iTunes.

[Cleverboy]

The REAL losers here continue to be the record companies. It's still laughable to me to read post after post of people sounding like they're blaming Apple for the state of DRM on iTunes. It's the record companies. Check Amazon all you like, but while people want DRM-free, people truly LIKE iTunes... so in the end, the record companies are giving Apple a longer and STRONGER strangle-hold on the market, by allowing the continued sale of music that LOCKS people into iTunes, instead of what Apple is requesting... namely to remove all DRM from iTunes music entirely. Apple has offered non-DRM options to all of their partners, and while it seems blindingly obvious that the record companies should JUMP at the chance to not have their music "shackled" to iTunes, they continue to live under the delusion that if they totally go "DRM-free", they will be leaving money on the table somehow as piracy will increase.

Apple has done a great job of making it "difficult" to do much with music in the way of simply marching around to all one's friends, and redistributing all of your tracks. Apple has actively locked down the library file on its media devices. FINE. That's the trade off. You can't use Apple devices to redistribute the music you've added to your library. FINE. But, iTunes "music sharing" feature is a great way for a limited amount of listeners to "share" music without "redistributing" it.

The record industry needs to BACK OFF of their DRM stance, and let Apple free its customers to use their music however they like. The NEXT stop should then be the movie industry, and allowing people to "RIP" their DVDs freely and jukebox them.

~ CB

[Macrimonious]

Any online music purchases I make are from Amazon. Higher quality, cheaper prices, and absolutely no DRM.

I completely agree. I buy a lot of music and I only buy full albums. I stopped shopping at iTunes about six months ago.

If you're still buying music from the iTunes store it's because you either haven't tried/discovered Amazon yet, or you're a complete Apple fanboy and you want to pay MORE for a LESSER product just to give Apple the business (they are sitting on over 25 BILLION in cash, FYI).

I agree the interface of the iTunes store is slicker, but with the Amazon MP3 downloader, they are both very very easy to use.

Besides the higher quality and zero DRM (honestly do you need more reasons to switch?) Amazon has great specials every week. For instance, the top 50 albums of the year for 5 bucks apiece. Every Friday they have new deals.

My recommendation: if you love the iTunes store so much use it to search for and discover new music, but when it comes time to make the purchase click over to Amazon and buy it there. There's a good chance you'll save a few bucks AND get a better product.

PLUS: The reviews at Amazon are much more comprehensive and reliable.

/end rant.

[wordmunger]

That's not a watermark, it's metadata; it is viewable in iTunes.

Either way, I don't care about that. The reason I don't want DRM is not so I can share it illegally. The reason I don't want DRM is that I still want my music to work 20 years from now when Amazon and Apple are out of business. I can still listen to CDs I purchased in 1985. I should be able to listen to my music purchased today in 2028.

[uva25]

Its purely an education issues. Most users don't see the ramification of buying DRM music as they are happy with Ipods and Ipod docks. Try to play your music on a Sonos/whole house system and opinions would change. I refuse to buy DRM music but most of my friends who are only mildly into music don't know the difference.

[dukebound85]

i remember when apple sold its 100 millioneth song. just a couple years ago


point is dont count out amazon because of its measly 130 mill songs a year as anything can happen

[rowley]

The amazon store has just opened in the UK, and I have still bought from iTunes. Its convenient.
I do see Apple ditching DRM soon, it's the natural progression, people will stick to iTunes. When they do, a lot of others will fade away.

[theLimit]

I don't buy downloadable music from either store. I either buy CDs or lossless files from the artist's website (ie. Nine Inch Nails) or buy the CD on the Amazon Marketplace for $4-$12 shipped. No quality issues, no DRM, no recording industry bull.

[igxqrrl]

I buy exclusively from Amazon. I no longer buy from the iTunes store.

The primary reason is the DRM. Secondary reasons:

* The iTunes interface is terrible. It is way too cluttered, and too difficult to see large numbers of results. The Amazon store lets me use browser tabs, and easily see results.

* Apple is too much of a control freak. This has become very apparent in the way they handle the iPhone app store, but has also been apparent in how they run the music store.

* I like to see some competition. So all else equal (which it's not, see above), I'll buy from the underdog.

[buccsmf1]

ive been able to slowly convert everyone around me to amazon. F drm......

[OrangeCrush]

Good: Amazon DRM free tracks are nice, as is the iTunes integration.
Bad: The Amazon interface needs a major overhaul--it's not a pleasure to explore; more like type exactly what you want and hope they have it. Because of the Amazon interface, I find myself still buying from iTunes.
Ugly: Why isn't it antitrust that the record companies require different resellers to play by different rules? Doesn't seem fair.

[Loge]

Well I just downloaded my first album (since it was £4.99 on Amazon, instead of £7.99 on iTunes). Interface is OK but it didn't add it to my iTunes library even though I had that option selected.

[SleepyHead157]

i've bought a couple of tracks of Amazon, it's not that hard, although it doesn't look like it's going to give Apple any competition. Apple has the leverage no matter what other company the music industry chooses to favor.

[amplifyfitness]

Good: Amazon DRM free tracks are nice, as is the iTunes integration.
Bad: The Amazon interface needs a major overhaul--it's not a pleasure to explore;

Amazon has some great deals on whole albums that beat iTunes pricing often enough for me to bite. They (Amazon) seem to lack a fluid way of finding albums and artist that I seek out actively.

iTunes definitely changed the industry. But I also think it is a good thing that Steve-o has some competition every once in awhile. For my dollar, Amazon is the closest thing iTunes has to competition.

[twoodcc]

well, glad that itunes is still doing well. i do hope that amazon puts more pressure on itunes so we'll get DRM free everything on itunes

[CrackedButter]

I've never once used my browser to find music on Amazon. I default to Apple all the time (rarely i do go to Bleem), its just easier to get around and find what I want. DRM or not, I'm still going to buy from Apple.

If Amazon made an app which was more elegant than the browser I'm using I might give it a go.

[FrankieTDouglas]

Flexible pricing is just a hassle. A like the flat pricing model - it ensures that I'm not going to be ripped by corporations who charge more because they can. Flat pricing is what made the iTunes store the best.

That doesn't make sense. I never pay more than 99 cents for a song, and often pay less for certain songs with Amazon. If anything, you're spending MORE in iTunes.

I refuse to buy off iTunes now because I typically work alone in a lab setting at my school while editing photographs. I like to stream my laptop to one of the lab's bigger towers with loud speakers, but none of my iTunes DRM tracks will play this way unless I authorize any computer I happen to pick to be my loud jukebox. Now THAT is a hassle.

[wordmunger]

That doesn't make sense. I never pay more than 99 cents for a song, and often pay less for certain songs with Amazon. If anything, you're spending MORE in iTunes.

You think Amazon would have prices that low if there wasn't competition from iTunes?

[BrokenChairs]

The only problem with this report is that it doesn't seem to mention that the music from Amazon is not available to people who don't have a national Amazon site (ie me an Australian cannot purchase mp3s from any Amazon site) yet has access to iTunes. I contacted Amazon (US site) many months ago about the possibility of opening up their store to overseas people and they said they were looking into providing services abroad, but gave no guarantee it would work.

However, given the choice, there is more music I would purchase from Amazon than iTunes at the moment.

Plus, I never really believe statistics anyway:
Homer: Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14 percent of all people know that.

[uricmu]

I don't really think this is surprising.

Especially with the current economy, more and more people are buying non-iPod MP3 players. All the Sansas are more popular than one would expect, and I'm not even talking about the plethora of generics that you can find in any walmart and target. Plus more and more cars support MP3.

Hence, when I buy music, I only buy MP3s from Amazon. Not only do they have great deals (e.g., the new Killers for 4$ on day of release), but it's DRM free high quality MP3.

My iTunes bought stuff, on the other hand, I can't get on my Sansa or my car.

[rockosmodurnlif]

I find I've been going to Amazon by default. I can listen to track samples one after the other without having to click on each one. I can find not only cheap prices for digital downloads but also used CDs. And the album reviews are actually useful.

I haven't bought from iTunes since 2006.

[OldCorpse]

For me all of them are worthless. I want lossless, which means usually FLAC. And NO DRM. So both Amazon downloads and iTunes are out.

I did buy a FLAC download recently (the new Eno/Byrne collaboration), but there's just not much of that available out there to buy. That leaves getting the physical CDs - most I buy used from Amazon, but not only. Many folks I know use bt for FLAC files, which also comes out cheaper - I don't do that, but there's this question: what to do if you want a particular piece of music that's just not available to buy ANYWHERE, so it's bt or nothing? Questions, questions.

[VoR]

I'm surprised there's music you want that you can't buy from anywhere?!
I'm not interested in mp3s either, I'm after lossless drm free music that I can play with/on whatever I want.

I'd be very surprised if people are using itunes for anything other than convenience, but I find it strange that people would want to pay more for less compared to amazon.

[Michael CM1]

Regarding "Amazon has higher quality".

If you look at the iTunes+ that is currently DRM free it is 256kbps AAC compared to Amazon's 320kbps MP3. Given that AAC is a much more efficient compression algorithm I would still say that iTunes edges out Amazon for the quality of the DRM free tracks, though probably not on the 128kbps, where it is merely comparable. As you get toward the higher bitrates most people will stop being able to hear the difference, either due to equipment that is unable to audibly display the differences or their personal threshold for perceptual differences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding#AAC.E2.80.99s_improvements_over_MP3

You've got your numbers a little wrong. Standard Apple tracks are 192k AAC, Plus tracks are 256k AAC. Amazon is 256k MP3. I don't think Apple has sold 128k tracks for a while.

[OldCorpse]

I'm surprised there's music you want that you can't buy from anywhere?!

What??!!?? Are you kidding me? There are heaps of albums out of print and not available anywhere. Just like with films. And just like with books. My man, do you have the slightest notion how the world works? My guess is you're about 9 years old :) All kidding aside, there is more music unavailable than available for sale. A ton of those unavailable albums are on bt, ripped from private copies people have, various vaults etc. But a lot of it cannot be sold because they're rips from masters where it's sometimes not even any way to tell who owns the rights anymore. Anyhow, point being, without bt, we'd all be a lot more poor in choices. Of course, if all you listen to is Britney Spears, you may be surprised to hear that there's music out there you can't buy from anywhere, and only can get from bt.

[VoR]

Strange response :)

Well, my guess is you're 19, wear baggy jeans and own an ipod!
To answer your moral question the wrong way, I'd stick to the donkey and usenet for quality, quantity, safety and variety.

[batchtaster]

I either buy CDs or lossless files from the artist's website (ie. Nine Inch Nails) or buy the CD on the Amazon Marketplace for $4-$12 shipped. No quality issues, no DRM, no recording industry bull.

With a CD, the recording industry bull comes pre-installed.

[OldCorpse]

Strange response :)

Well, my guess is you're 19, wear baggy jeans and own an ipod!
To answer your moral question the wrong way, I'd stick to the donkey and usenet for quality, quantity, safety and variety.

Maybe I misunderstood you. Anyhow, I'm surprised - I understand your point about usenet, but you lost me with donkey... that's about the opposite of "safety"... of course, I may be confused. I always thought bt was safer than any p2p, BWDIK. Regardless, there's stuff I can't find anywhere - and I mean CDs which were issued like only 10 years ago or so... I tried to buy 'em, and you get "out of print, sorry". And they're not on any of the... ahem... "sharing sites" I've looked at.

PS. No iPod here (I like lossless, remember?), as the capacity simply is not there (160GB doesn't do it at all). And no, baggy pants are so 90's :)

[MagnusVonMagnum]

The labels are said to be (http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/news.php?id=26953) demanding more concessions from Apple as they negotiate for DRM-free music in the iTunes Store. Possibilities include variable track pricing and watermarking of individual tracks.


Watermarking is even worse than DRM as it can potentially affect the audio quality (if I am to understand "watermarking" as it has been used in such things as DVD-Audio). And 256 kbit encoding is hardly DVD-Audio quality. Heck, it's not even 16-bit CD quality and those tracks aren't watermarked (shakes head). The industry just keeps coming up with more and more bad ideas. Worse yet, if I buy my music from Amazon.com, I get DRM free music with no watermarking, but if I buy it from iTunes, I get either DRM or watermarking? I guess that means I'll keep buying from Amazon. Are they going to call the watermarked tracks, iTunes +W? I'd want to know if it's watermarked or not ahead of time so I know not to buy it.

[Saladinos]

That doesn't make sense. I never pay more than 99 cents for a song, and often pay less for certain songs with Amazon. If anything, you're spending MORE in iTunes.

I refuse to buy off iTunes now because I typically work alone in a lab setting at my school while editing photographs. I like to stream my laptop to one of the lab's bigger towers with loud speakers, but none of my iTunes DRM tracks will play this way unless I authorize any computer I happen to pick to be my loud jukebox. Now THAT is a hassle.

Yes, and price pressure from iTunes is not a factor in Amazon's low prices. Those corporations just love you too much to make you pay more.

In specific cases, DRM can be a hassle. One easy workaround is to grab a 3.5mm - 3.5mm male to male cable and connect the output of your laptop to the microphone input on the tower. Or just plug the speakers in to your laptop. Or use VLC to stream the audio over the local network.

[Loge]

if I buy my music from Amazon.com, I get DRM free music with no watermarking, but if I buy it from iTunes, I get either DRM or watermarking?

Files from Amazon may contain watermarking, although not containing any personal information. I haven't seen any reports about the effect on sound quality.

http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/09/some-of-amazons.html

[MacFly123]

On the one hand I like that Amazon is all high-quality DRM-free files.

I want to see more of that.

BUT I am kind of happy they are doing poorly because it gives Apple the power to say to the labels: "Look, we're still in charge, here's what we want to do." Hopefully Apple can squash some of the sillier changes they want made to the iTunes store. (It's also great to see the labels attempt to undermine iTunes (by favoring Amazon) failing on them. You gotta love that.)

Now, if they can make iTunes 100% DRM-free (with music anyway) then I certainly wish Amazon the best and would love to see them take a large part of the market at that point.

But here and now, today, I'm kind of glad iTunes is still so powerful.

I love that the music labels are eating it. I think it is hilarious and was so obvious that it amazes me the people running them are being paid what they are when I could embrace future digital models better than them pretty much lol.

They are idiots just like Hollywood! I hope iTunes stays on top forever :D Now lets go after the higher bit rate and DRM free with a vengeance Apple :)

[CrackedButter]

I don't really think this is surprising.

Especially with the current economy, more and more people are buying non-iPod MP3 players. All the Sansas are more popular than one would expect, and I'm not even talking about the plethora of generics that you can find in any walmart and target. Plus more and more cars support MP3.

Hence, when I buy music, I only buy MP3s from Amazon. Not only do they have great deals (e.g., the new Killers for 4$ on day of release), but it's DRM free high quality MP3.

My iTunes bought stuff, on the other hand, I can't get on my Sansa or my car.

I don't think so somehow, look at Amazon's mp3 most popular list, John Gruber of Daring fireball was pointing out that in the top 25, 21 spots were occupied by Apple.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/electronics/172630?ie=UTF8&ref%5F=pd%5Fts%5Fe%5Fnav

Spots 2 and 3 are occupied by the expensive iPod Touch as well. Spot 14 is occupied by the first non-apple mp3 player so go figure.

[rstansby]

We should send a message to the record labels by boycotting amazon digital downloads. Apple is on our side in this one. Variable pricing and watermarks will not help the consumer.

[VoR]

What about boycotting amazon and apple until there's even cheaper prices and lossless audio?

[castlema]

This is the sort of discussion that is seen for all matter or products. "Why do people by DVD players when they can get Blu-Ray?" "Why do people by CDs when vinyl sounds so much warmer?" "Why do people by point and shoot cameras when they can get the EOS-1 Ds Mark III?"

For most, it's price. There is a limit to what people will pay for some (to them) minimal increase in quality. They are content with "good enough". Most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a 128kps MP3 and a 256kps. A goodly number would not be able to tell the difference between a lossless file and a compressed file. To them going to the extra effort and expense, no matter how minimal that might be, is just not worth it.

Apple has succeeded in many areas by convincing people that spending more money on their product is worth it because the user experience is better. The digerati loudly proclaim that there are better things out there but the masses don't care. It's not worth it to them to give up that user experience.

I do use Amazon some but that's because of my dangerously high consumption of diet pepsi. I can get many things I want from there using my pepsi points, but unlike the days when the promotion was through iTunes you can't access the entire catalog. I still use Limewire some for things I cannot get anywhere else. The most recent example was "Rum by Gum" by the Chad Mitchell Trio.

[pdjudd]

What about boycotting amazon and apple until there's even cheaper prices and lossless audio?
OK, so where are you going to get your content legally in which the studios won't be able to toss out the "See we need DRM to stop piracy" nonsense. In other words, bit torrent is not an answer I am going to accept.

And the studios still profit from CD's too before you mention that.

[VoR]

Why does a lossy track have to cost more than an encoded one? You can buy a cd for the same price as an album download. It's more convenient for customers and producers, I don't think there should be a price premium or quality compromise. If you're buying media I think it should be a 'full' original copy, I'll decide if I want to download a small encode or a large rip.

I'd also prefer not to have to re-purchase all my dvds on bluray (and then again when they bring out a 'better encoded' special edition, but what can I do? I'd prefer it if they spent more time authing their films to take advantage of higher bandwidth hard/software. I'd prefer it if I still didn't have to consider colour profiles/frame rate/region/etc with all this new technology. I'd prefer a lot of things - I think most of the industry is incompetent, which is more of an issue to me than watching their ideas on how to extract the most money out of people.

OK, so where are you going to get your content legally in which the studios won't be able to toss out the "See we need DRM to stop piracy" nonsense. In other words, bit torrent is not an answer I am going to accept.

And the studios still profit from CD's too before you mention that.

Don't get it legally/do without it for a while. Sony can root kit their cds again, get sued, cover it up and try another tactic - maybe this time it'll be my idea of value.

[pdjudd]

Don't get it legally/do without it for a while. Sony can root kit their cds again, get sued, cover it up and try another tactic - maybe this time it'll be my idea of value.

While it is perfectly, legal and possible, it fails on on the practical notion of things. You might get a small population of people organized, but it is going to be negligible as far as the population as a whole is concerted when you talk about music purchasing. People are going to buy music en mass regardless. Any kind of zero sum protest will never get felt by the music companies anyway - millions of either ignorant or uncaring customers will justify whatever the labels businesses - that's because they have exclusive access to highly desired content. Not purchasing it is only going to affect its perceived demand (especially with older content).

As long as the labels own the content that has high demand, a boycott like you propose is going to mean nothing to them. They aren't selling anything to you anyway.

By the way, I mentioned legal options, since piracy is only going to justify DRM more and make you look worse to them. Threatening to steal stuff is a good way to get the wrong kind of attention.

[VoR]

You're right of course, most people are ignorant and take what is given to them, my frustration is that we're being taken forward by an incompetent industry rather than educated purchases and complaints/questions.

I didn't propose it, I was just responding to the guy talking about amazon - asking why would you boycott one company and support another when neither have (what I think) is an ideal solution.

I wasn't threatening to steal anything, I also don't really mind the drm. Average consumer who has an ipod/itunes doesn't care as it 'just works', and everyone else (that isn't a media exec) realises that it's completely futile. If I want to use the media I've bought on all the different devices I have it's possible, just an inconvenient process of removing the drm.

It seems a bit silly to me that the best quality and most standard, 'easy to use' media is on the p2p networks - Maybe if all digital media was unlocked and 10x as cheap they'd sell 50x as much? Obviously the industry doesn't think so (what was that itunes thing?), I do (and would) - and I'm the only one that can speak for me.

[bankshot]

You've got your numbers a little wrong. Standard Apple tracks are 192k AAC, Plus tracks are 256k AAC. Amazon is 256k MP3. I don't think Apple has sold 128k tracks for a while.

Bzzzt, I'd say you're wrong! ;) At least in the USA. I have never seen a 192kbps track from iTunes. Looking in my purchased files from iTunes, 26 songs are 256kbps (iTunes Plus), and the remaining 286 songs are 128kbps (protected AAC). No other bitrates. This includes 44 songs purchased in the last month.

Looking at those numbers, the continuing deficiency of higher quality, non-DRM tracks in iTunes is why my order of preference for purchasing music is now:
CD from Amazon or similar for reasonable price
iTunes Plus
Amazon MP3
iTunes DRM

I always go for the highest quality (and least hassle) first, then move down the list if it's not available in that format.

Also, Amazon uses variable bitrate MP3s, encoded by LAME (considered one of the best, if not the best MP3 encoders for sound quality). My Amazon-purchased files range in average bitrate from 160 kbps to 278 kbps. Same target psychoacoustic sound quality, but some songs require more information left in than others to faithfully reproduce them.


Oh, and for people wanting lossless downloads, you do realize that even that is not truly "lossless," right? :p To put things in terms of lossy (MP3, AAC, etc) versus lossless (CD quality) is a bit of a misnomer, really. CD quality (44.1 kHz, 16-bit stereo audio) is still lossy compared to the original music that is recorded. You could do even better at 96 kHz. 24-bit, 5+ channel audio, or even more. I look at it as a continuous spectrum of quality levels: CD quality is near the high end for human hearing, but not the absolute top.

Of course, I do believe the above paragraph is pretty much a moot point: people may fool themselves into thinking they can hear differences between lossy (MP3/AAC) and CD (or better) quality; but I think the vast majority of people, using the vast majority of listening devices, can't truly tell the difference at all. If you want to test yourself, try a randomized double-blind test sometime. You might be surprised. ;)

[pdjudd]

Of course, I do believe the above paragraph is pretty much a moot point: people may fool themselves into thinking they can hear differences between lossy (MP3/AAC) and CD (or better) quality; but I think the vast majority of people, using the vast majority of listening devices, can't truly tell the difference at all. If you want to test yourself, try a randomized double-blind test sometime. You might be surprised. ;)

Exactly. Most people think they hear the artifacts. Nine times out of ten they are hearing things that aren't there, or have been told what to listen for from somebody else. Most people just cannot tell the difference. I happen to be one of them who just cannot tell the difference between lossless and lossy and really could care less about the snobs who either can or claim that they can.

[VoR]

Obviously a 128kbps encode is noticeable from one with twice the bit rate on anything but the cheapest earphones (right pdjudd?) but with a decent 256kbps copy I'm not sure I can tell the difference half the time and I still want to download lossless.
If I'm paying for music I'd like it to be as decent as possible.
I'm living in the future now and it's taken so long I don't really need to any more, but if I wanted to re encode a track/album/collection quickly I'd like to maintain some sort of quality. I'd also like to use digital media and not feel like I'm getting ripped off and making a compromise.

Oh, and for people wanting lossless downloads, you do realize that even that is not truly "lossless," right? :p To put things in terms of lossy (MP3, AAC, etc) versus lossless (CD quality) is a bit of a misnomer, really. CD quality (44.1 kHz, 16-bit stereo audio) is still lossy compared to the original music that is recorded. You could do even better at 96 kHz. 24-bit, 5+ channel audio, or even more. I look at it as a continuous spectrum of quality levels: CD quality is near the high end for human hearing, but not the absolute top.

Of course, I do believe the above paragraph is pretty much a moot point

Apart from that last quoted sentence, urrrr. I would guess most people (the few?) asking for lossless already know the blindingly obvious.

I'm not keen on any of the multichannel music I've listened to, but I'm not sure that's what you mean.

[SactoGuy18]

This comes at absolutely NO surprise.
At the end of the day, people want ease of use and something they're familiar with. Amazon may be cheaper and better quality, but their selection just isn't as good, and it's just a bigger hassle than getting stuff on iTunes.


I have to disagree with that! Remember, Amazon has a album downloader program for Windows XP/Vista and MacOS X 10.4 and later that automatically puts a playlist of downloaded music from the Amazon MP3 Store right into iTunes 7.6 to 8.0.x. That way, it's real easy to copy the downloaded music files right into your iPod. :)

[Babasyzygy]

How can Amazon be at 8% when 130 Million tracks is just 5.4% of iTunes alone?

It must be more like 5%. Without any signs of gaining.

Thank you, I was going to post the same. WTF is it with people who don't check basic math?

[LEgregius]

I buy music from Apple when it's DRM free, and I buy it from Amazon otherwise. I don't like anyone having such a huge market share, and I see Amazon as a good source of competition. On the other, Apple's market share gives it power to negotiate good things for us consumers since good prices and no-DRM are good for Apple too. Likewise, my gut reaction is to do the opposite of whatever the recording industry wants.

[pdjudd]

I have to disagree with that! Remember, Amazon has a album downloader program for Windows XP/Vista and MacOS X 10.4 and later that automatically puts a playlist of downloaded music from the Amazon MP3 Store right into iTunes 7.6 to 8.0.x. That way, it's real easy to copy the downloaded music files right into your iPod. :)

And yet Amazon hasn't had any impact on iTunes thats worth talking about. The fact remains that for the vast majority or music buyers, iTunes is simpler and more convenient for them.

[Patcoola]

apple is always going to be on top with itunes, since everyone has an ipod and itunes is so easy to use and is a wide spread name.

[SactoGuy18]

And yet Amazon hasn't had any impact on iTunes thats worth talking about. The fact remains that for the vast majority or music buyers, iTunes is simpler and more convenient for them.

I think even Amazon understands that and don't be surprised that Amazon is working on add-ons to iTunes 8.0.x and Windows Media Player 11 that allow for even faster processing of downloaded files as it goes into the playlist of these two programs.

[mkrishnan]

I think even Amazon understands that and don't be surprised that Amazon is working on add-ons to iTunes 8.0.x and Windows Media Player 11 that allow for even faster processing of downloaded files as it goes into the playlist of these two programs.

I hope that's not all their spending their time on. The download / integration speed is hardly the issue. That's after the commitment to buy has been made, and so it just isn't that salient, as its relative lack of mention in this thread would suggest. I think it's the clunky web interface for finding songs, which has no interface into iTunes (or the iPhone -- since I got my iPhone a lot of my single song purchases happen on it instead of iTunes) that is much more of a problem for Amazon.