Apple and Amazon?

[MacRumors]

The NY Post (http://www.nypost.com/business/135.htm) claims that Apple and Amazon are in negotiations:

Apple Computer and Amazon.com are working on a deal that will make Apple's popular new online music store available on Amazon, The Post has learned.

Early rumors had also named AOL (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/04/20030428174629.shtml) as a potential iTunes music store partner.

[groovebuster]

Looks as if Apple had to look for a new partner since AOL and M$ are snuggeling up lately...

groovebuster

[dernhelm]

This is a perfect idea. Apple can get windows users using iTMS without having to port iTunes. All they need to do is provide back-end access to Amazon, and bingo. This way they get the added user base with incredibly low development cost. And they still get the added benefit of having mac users have the "superior" user experience.

[Bengt77]

If you (think you) can't beat them, join them. Good strategy, if you ask me. Nothing wrong with teaming up with the big boys. If this will ultimately lead to the sheer domination of the iTMS, then so be it!

:)

[aub32]

Hope they up the data rate on the songs before hitting the general (PC) public. Some of the 128k songs sound watery.

[groovebuster]

I had the same effect and was wondring about it... since AAC was supposed to be so superior...

[Sol]

I thought iTunes was supposed to be the only way to access the Apple Music Store. Does this mean iTunes for Windows will not happen? Perhaps it means that Audio CDs will be purchased from the Apple Music Store via Amazon.

[AidenShaw]

What good is it to buy if there's no player for Windows???

I wonder what the plan is....

[RHutch]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
What good is it to buy if there's no player for Windows???

I wonder what the plan is....


Would it be easier for Apple to write a player for Windows w/AAC than it would be to provide access to the iTMS? Or could it be that the player part is done now, but the access part is not? So for now Windows users can get access through Amazon and play on the new player. Then later iTunes for Windows will be released with store access and player together?

Just wondering. I'm sure someone who knows about writing software can clarify this.

[Schlomo]

I was thinking the same thing. As far as I know, there isnt a windows MP3 player that supports AAC, most importantly, WMP, which I assume 80% of windows users never graduate from.

[solvs]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
What good is it to buy if there's no player for Windows???

I wonder what the plan is....

So far it's just a rumor that they're in negotiations, so nothing set in stone... yet. But NYT is a pretty reliable source (more or less, considering). We'll just have to wait and see how this plays out.

Should be an interesting journey.

edit: WinAmp is supposed to play AACs.

[reedm007]

Just to clarify, it's not the NYT, It's the New York Post... Which, I'd argue, is somewhat less reliable than the New York Times.

[soosy]

I think (hope) this means that you'll have an option to buy the physical cd along with the digital downloads. That would rock!!!!!! I've seen several people suggest this already.
The joy of immediate downloading along with full cover art and option to rip at higher rates/different formats in the future.

[billyboy]

"My gut feeling is also that any company involved with distributing iTMS will do OK, like an Amazon .... because the profits on the downloads are so good."

I wrote this on another forum 10 days ago and this sort of rumour makes me even more glad I bit the bullet a few weeks before that, ignored the stock market downer on AAPL and bought some Apple shares. At last they have a software and hardware mix (iTMS and the iPod) that can appeal to the masses, it is a highly highly profitable combination and there are few better prospects for distributing music media on a massive scale than Amazon.

I think the Windows version of iTunes will be for Amazon to handle on a licence basis. By launch time ahead of Christmas, the new format will be OK for Windows users right from the start and the marketing push for iPods I hope will be in your face and huge - something Apple dont seem to have been that good at in the past from what I have observed.

This association WOULD give Apple the kudos too in a doubting market place and WOULD at the very least consolidate Apple market share at a couple of percentage points higher. Big 5, Amazon, great stuff and the reward for being ballsy at sticking with innovation.

Edit. I changed will to would, as this is only a rumour after all!

[macnews]

Can we stop with the encoding debate?!?! For the true, hard core audiophiles ACC, MP3, etc. will NEVER be good enough for your tastes. They are all compressed formats and at least for the near future anything compressed will NEVER be as good as uncompressed. I have played many burned CDs with ACC and not a single person has complained about quality. I think to the average user (read 97% of the rest of the world) the ACC format is fine. More important items are doing things like partnering with Amazon and maybe AOL. Making it so you can by cheaper albums that have been around for years, giving discounts/specials, lowering the per song price are all more infinetly important than improving the compression rate.

Sorry about the rant but this drives me crazy.

[reedm007]

Just to clarify, it's not ACC, It's AAC... Which, I'd argue, is somewhat more reliable than ACC.

[pkradd]

Apple is already using Amazon.com's "one click" ordering system under license. I wouldn't think anything would happen until a Windows version of iTunes becomes available, even if then. Just speculation.

[aub32]

True, 97% of most users will not notice a difference in the encoded quality of AAC and MP3 encoded at a higher bitrate.

My argument is that some artists (U2, Coldplay, other larger artists) actually sound better than smaller artists that I've downloaded, such as Queens of the Stone Age, Earshot and Bloodhound Gang, for instance. Its as if they're encoded differently, although they all say 128kbit AAC.

Mac users should understand that 3% makes a difference, and if that 3% of audiophiles can hear lower quality, then it deserves to be addressed before being released to a larger (and far less forgiving towards Apple) audience.

[Vonnie]

In the first month Apple sold 3 million songs, in an us-only, mac-only market.

In a couple of months that market will be international and windows+mac. Possibly they will start selling 100 million songs in a month. They need alot more bandwith, alot more computer power, alot more marketing resources, alot more helpdesk-people..

Amazon is ideal to deliver all this, help marketing, help getting iTunes on windows computers, help with bandwith and resource problems,..

Amazon also has a big database on their customer preferences. If you like song X, you will probably like Y too. It would be nice if that stuff was in the iTMS too.

[Macmaniac]

Originally posted by pkradd
Apple is already using Amazon.com's "one click" ordering system under license. I wouldn't think anything would happen until a Windows version of iTunes becomes available, even if then. Just speculation.

Actually One-Click is Apples ordering system. Amazon is the only company that has access to it.

[pmcaleer]

Originally posted by Macmaniac
Actually One-Click is Apples ordering system. Amazon is the only company that has access to it.

Nope - it's the reverse. Amazon owns it, and Apple licensed it.

[Malic]

Originally posted by Schlomo
I was thinking the same thing. As far as I know, there isnt a windows MP3 player that supports AAC, most importantly, WMP, which I assume 80% of windows users never graduate from.

I have it on good word from "Rusty" of SomaFM.com (shameless plug) that WinAmp should be supporting AAC soon.

As an aside, he also tells me that SomaFM.com is very interested in supporting AAC streams and seriously looking into it.

...an idea which I am absolutely thrilled over!

[Malic]

It just occured to me - if Amazon is tied in with Apple TMS, and AAC/m4a/m4p as a result, could this spell the end of Real Audio use for album samples on Amazon!?

Ooooooo! Warm and fuzzy feelings follow...

[Vonnie]

Originally posted by Malic
I have it on good word from "Rusty" of SomaFM.com (shameless plug) that WinAmp should be supporting AAC soon.

As an aside, he also tells me that SomaFM.com is very interested in supporting AAC streams and seriously looking into it.

...an idea which I am absolutely thrilled over!

Problem is that the DRM (called FairPlay) is an proprietary apple technology. Just AAC support is not enough.

I hope that apple will be smart enough to license fairplay to others for a very low price. Not just for software media players, but also for hifi modules, car-stereo, ..
If Apple doesn't sublicense their fairplay technology, they will probably be beaten up by a future wma-music-shop.

[pEZ]

Originally posted by Malic
It just occured to me - if Amazon is tied in with Apple TMS, and AAC/m4a/m4p as a result, could this spell the end of Real Audio use for album samples on Amazon!?

Ooooooo! Warm and fuzzy feelings follow...

I second those warm and fuzzy feelings - that would be even better than the sheer demise of RealNetworks.

[bbc]

Originally posted by soosy
I think (hope) this means that you'll have an option to buy the physical cd along with the digital downloads. That would rock!!!!!! I've seen several people suggest this already.
The joy of immediate downloading along with full cover art and option to rip at higher rates/different formats in the future.
This was my thought also. It makes extreme sense. Right now you can buy an album's worth of music, downloaded immediately, for $10. For just a few more dollars ($5?), you should be able to receive later by slow mail the matching physical album. I say $5 because you've already paid the royalties and transaction costs, so all you are paying for is the CD, the case, the cover art, the handling, the shipping, and profit for Amazon. (Okay, maybe that all wouldn't fit in $5.) Maybe the album would even ship bundled with whatever else you were receiving from Amazon that day, to save on shipping.

You wouldn't have to digitize the album yourself, You wouldn't have to wait to have it digitized. So, it is a different product than just picking up the album yourself at the local record store. Yet, you would eventually get the album itself for its archival/artwork/trophy value.

[Grimace]

Okay, if those two are being paired in business - I think we'll see an PPC970 powered Segway with iTunes installed (standard of course,) and in the old colors of tangerine etc.

[maradong]

now that would be so great. beeing on amazone, and , releasing a client for windows. man, it can t become better...

[tychay]

The FairPlay DRM is not contained in iTunes, it is contained in QuickTime. iTunes is the only interface currently that activates/deactives the DRM.

This is also why you can include purchased music in your iMovies, burn them to CDs with Roxio Toast, and a myriad of other uses that you can't easily do with any other purchased downloaded music (without the extra step of reripping).

I don't see any reason why this (FairPlay being in QuickTime) won't also be true for Windows. This means you won't be required to use iTunes Windows except when purchasing the music. However, you would be required to have QuickTime (the free, non-pro one). In this scenario, the MP3 jukebox would only have to hook into the QuickTime API to play back the FairPlay protected AACs.

[Unicron]

This is important for nothing else if to put a roadblock to Microsoft's music store.

I can also see Amazon having iTMS' "buy now 99¢" button by many song listings for CDs. They already have "buy used" option for CDs, so Amazon isn't totally focused on selling new merchandise (because they take a slice from the used sales). Similarly, I can see Amazon taking a small cut of any iTMS sales through its website.

Also, Amazon's support would hopefully accelerate AAC adoption in consumer electronics (CD players, DVD players, etc).

[deepkid]

Originally posted by aub32
True, 97% of most users will not notice a difference in the encoded quality of AAC and MP3 encoded at a higher bitrate.

My argument is that some artists (U2, Coldplay, other larger artists) actually sound better than smaller artists that I've downloaded, such as Queens of the Stone Age, Earshot and Bloodhound Gang, for instance. Its as if they're encoded differently, although they all say 128kbit AAC.

I've not read the whole thread yet, but one thing I fail to see mentioned when debating encode quality is the original masters.

If the original recordings weren't engineered "properly", then no other format will sound good unless there is tweaking done first.

So if you're expecting Jimmy Hendrix recordings to sound pristine without some additional mastering, you're thinking about this all the wrong way.

If you're comparing a cd copy to an AAC provided by Apple and expect them to sound the same, you're expecting too much.

This probably has more to do with the record companies than the codec.

[deepkid]

Originally posted by Malic
As an aside, he also tells me that SomaFM.com is very interested in supporting AAC streams and seriously looking into it.

...an idea which I am absolutely thrilled over!

Yes! I love Groove Salad.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by reedm007
Just to clarify, it's not the NYT, It's the New York Post... Which, I'd argue, is somewhat less reliable than the New York Times.

You know, until 2 or 3 weeks ago, I would have agreed with you on that...

[Malic]

Originally posted by deepkid
Yes! I love Groove Salad.

Every month I am always thinking to myself, "Gotta find stuff to sell on eBay to 'recharge' my PayPal account 'cause Rusty needs money!"

[daveg5]

this is what many of the 20 million pre mac osx users (8.6-9.2.2) have been asking for, a web portal to the itunes music store, even if there is an extra 2 or 3 steps to sync it to your ipod. from download folderthen convert from aac to mp3 then to itunes to ipod.
now if apple would update quicktime for mac 8.6-9.2.2 to read aac like it does for windows 98. this is a win win for Apple more ipods sold more, music sold, more profit, more money, better research, faster better computers.
if not one of the other online music sellers will beat them to the punch and grab apples non osx 20 million strong community.

[Foocha]

Everything that SJ has said on the subject of iTMS indicates that Apple sees it as integral with iTunes - heck even the name. If they intended to have a Web alternative, I doubt they would have called in iTunes music store. This is the reason when they're investing so much in developing a Windows version of iTunes.

Amazon may become a distribution partner with Apple on iTMS, but it think this will involve driving people to download iTunes, not distributing AAC files via the Amazon site directly.

[cgmpowers]

If I were Apple, I'd do everything but sell my soul to exclusively sell my Music on Amazon for PC & Mac users..

iTunes 4.0.x for the PC maybe nearer than farther away--but regardless, tie it in with Amazon & if it can increase the amount of music from 120,000+ songs to maybe 600,000+ songs...then do it!!

Amazon has been extremely successful, Apple is proving their music is extremely successfull....and the dogs of MS & AOL are bitting at your ankles...

Do it...Apple/Amazon...do it!!

Christopher

p.s. Also make it easier/or automatic to add album covers to your ripped music. Synergy does a good job playing your iTunes & displaying album covers via Amazon...but you still have to manual drag the photos into iTunes. Amazon and iTunes merge, make this an automatic process!!

[AppleMatt]

Interesting...Steve Jobs mentioned amazon and their one click buying in the presentation he gave about the music store...

anyway, I'm all for this, Apple should team up with as many big-players as it can.

AppleMatt

[j763]

Originally posted by Foocha
Everything that SJ has said on the subject of iTMS indicates that Apple sees it as integral with iTunes - heck even the name. If they intended to have a Web alternative, I doubt they would have called in iTunes music store. This is the reason when they're investing so much in developing a Windows version of iTunes.

Amazon may become a distribution partner with Apple on iTMS, but it think this will involve driving people to download iTunes, not distributing AAC files via the Amazon site directly.

Agreed. Amazon could have a "BUY SONG" link right next to each song, which would then open that up in iTunes (this is possible, Apple's already got the URI's set up). Amazon could take a cut for all of the click throughs, Apple would no longer be faced with competition from Amazon and iTunes would become more popular.

[AndrewMT]

Good, good. Just get on it, Apple. They need to have a windows version of the Apple store as soon as possible. Having the music store somehow involved with amazon would really help spread the word that Apple's music store is both a valid and strong alternative to, well, everything else. Just do it! Now!

[bbc]

Originally posted by bbc
... Right now you can buy an album's worth of music, downloaded immediately, for $10. For just a few more dollars ($5?), you should be able to receive later by slow mail the matching physical album.

Replying to myself, I think I know a better way to price and pitch this item (i.e. a physical album mailed to you plus available for immediate download). The price would be whatever Amazon would charge for the physical album, plus a premium for the services that the iTMS provides (preview, encoding, download). Treat it like a premium service, above the normal cost of just buying music from Amazon, for those who want to save money by buying from Amazon, but cannot wait to have the music in their pocket. (Plus, you can then offset the extra charge for the download with cheaper&slower shipping, since your need to hear the music ASAP has been satisfied.) So maybe an additional dollar or two over the normal cost of the album, to have the "instant gratification" of downloading what Amazon will ship to you, plus to avoid any work in getting it from CD into your iPod/whatever.

This also dodges the "how to ship it" problem. You pick whatever shipping you want from Amazon.
It doesn't have to come 4th class.

Of course, if you cancel your Amazon order, you're still going to pay the $10 for the download...

[BobX]

I just don't get it. I can only see two possibilities:

1. Apple and Amozon limit themselves to cross marketting and little more (may be cross promoting the physical CD and the corresponding digitial music).

2. Amazon licenses Apple's FairPlay and becomes an independent music distributor just like it sells CD... except the music will be sold in digital form and DRM'ed via FairPlay.

#1 is most likely and requires the least effort, #2 is more significant longer term because Apple's would have recruited one more supporter to the MP4/FairPlay camp. This would signify that Apple is going for the "standard setting" route of trying to "establish a platform" that many indeoendent digital music distributors can use to sell music. Frankly, I'd rather see Apple push the QuickTime/FairPlay standard platform to the industry rather than trying to corner the music distribution business by itself -- else Microsoft may one day own the standard and we would have to rely on MS technology to download any DRM'ed digital media. Microsoft has proven adept at establishing de facto standards and then make every body conform to that standard. I am not a pro-Apple Microsoft-hater, but I see Microsoft's potential monopoly ownership of DRM standards in the future a threat to all consumers in general.

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by j763
Agreed. Amazon could have a "BUY SONG" link right next to each song, which would then open that up in iTunes (this is possible, Apple's already got the URI's set up).

And vice-versa: The iTMS could have a "buy CD" button that takes you to amazon, who would send the physical cd out to you.

I'd also like to see reviews and artist info incorporated into the iTMS... maybe from amazon or allmusic.com. Just a thought.

[kimble]

Actually, it just occurred to me that a side effect of having ITMS on windows is that it will require Quicktime. What a great way to get Quicktime installed on millions of PCs! If the store is successful, it may also encourage web sites to start providing more quicktime content instead of in Real or MS WM format....

[gotohamish]

Originally posted by Malic
It just occured to me - if Amazon is tied in with Apple TMS, and AAC/m4a/m4p as a result, could this spell the end of Real Audio use for album samples on Amazon!?

Ooooooo! Warm and fuzzy feelings follow...

Very interesting point - Amazon wants Apple's service. Apple wants Amazon's streaming.

[merges]

Originally posted by aub32
Hope they up the data rate on the songs before hitting the general (PC) public. Some of the 128k songs sound watery.

I'm not sure if you're listening to previews only, but FYI, the previews are not all full-quality, as advertised. Many of the previews are decidedly lower in quality than the downloaded songs.

For instance, "December" by Collective Soul (all versions on the iTMS) sounds "watery" (full of audible compression artifacts) in its preview, but the downloaded song sounds much clearer and free of audio garbling.

[gotohamish]

Originally posted by merges
I'm not sure if you're listening to previews only, but FYI, the previews are not all full-quality, as advertised. Many of the previews are decidedly lower in quality than the downloaded songs.

For instance, "December" by Collective Soul (all versions on the iTMS) sounds "watery" (full of audible compression artifacts) in its preview, but the downloaded song sounds much clearer and free of audio garbling.

I believe you on your point, but am curious whether Apple state this anywhere on the store - I'm in the UK so haven't given it a great deal of look (that would be a tease)...:(

[comrade]

Originally posted by groovebuster
I had the same effect and was wondring about it... since AAC was supposed to be so superior...

Apple seems to think the general population doesn't mind this quality. It's just like how they suggest a 160 kbps mp3 as the default setting. I perfer 192. With AAC a 160 kbps sounds good to me. The problem is, if most people don't notice the difference, then you are SOL. Another reason I don't have any use for the music service.

[gotohamish]

Originally posted by comrade
Apple seems to think the general population doesn't mind this quality. It's just like how they suggest a 160 kbps mp3 as the default setting. I perfer 192. With AAC a 160 kbps sounds good to me. The problem is, if most people don't notice the difference, then you are SOL. Another reason I don't have any use for the music service.

Maybe Apple are trying to compromise by offering a medium sound quality, but bringing people in my the convenience and exclusive tracks (which are mostly UK b-sides it seems anyway - good all the same).

[Sonofhaig]

Originally posted by reedm007
Just to clarify, it's not the NYT, It's the New York Post... Which, I'd argue, is somewhat less reliable than the New York Times.

And I'll disagree with that.
But either way (Back on subject), a hook-up between Apple and Amazon
sounds like a smart way to keep the ball rolling until Windows version, and International get on board.....

[gotohamish]

Originally posted by Sonofhaig
And I'll disagree with that.
But either way (Back on subject), a hook-up between Apple and Amazon
sounds like a smart way to keep the ball rolling until Windows version, and International get on board.....

Looks like you're in for an argument then!! ;)

[tychay]

Originally posted by gotohamish
I believe you on your point, but am curious whether Apple state this anywhere on the store - I'm in the UK so haven't given it a great deal of look (that would be a tease).

Yes, they do point out that they are full-quality previews (http://www.apple.com/music/store/) if you look at the main graphic's first (top left) pullout.

I suspect one of the following things are more likely to have happenned:[list=1]
Apple may have multiple-quality files and the user's QuickTime settings is has a set bandwidth < 128kbps. QuickTime may then be streaming the lower quality version. Fix this by going into your QuickTime system preference pane and selecting a higher bandwidth.
The user has a low-bandwidth or net-congested link. If that is the case, setting the "Play songs after downloading" option in iTunes should fix that.
Something went wrong, users or QC noticed the problem and the song was reripped from masters, but nobody bothered doing so for the preview.
[/list=1]

Since anecdotal evidence is often taken as "rule of law" among Mac users, I'm more suspicious of a claim that the quality of the preview is substandard when Apple has no prima facia reason to have lower-quality previews and a many good reasons to make sure that the quality is the same.

I can remember when we ripped their libraries at 64kbps MP3--a zone where most people can easily tell the loss in quality, even without a reference--because of the media limitations of solid state players. Now, all of a sudden, Apple is being all cheapo because the default setting of iTunes ripping is 160kbps MP3 (when most of the fileshares and radio streams are ~128kbps) instead of LAME --outrageously-large-file, FLAC, or AIFF ;). Now, everyone of us seems to have platinum ears that can tell the difference between 128kbps AAC (they must be platinum because "golden ears" can't tell the difference).

Has anyone thought that, maybe their codec was set to 128kbps AAC on "FASTEST" or something worse when they compared samples? Or that we have some inherent placebo-effect bias when we do our comparison? Or that any difference at all may be because the AACs were digitized from the 24-bit masters instead of the 16-bit CDs?

Then again, why do I bother ranting? I'm talking about an area where people buy power line cleaners and Monster Cable to improve sound quality and take green markers to their CDs to make them sound more natural... :confused:

[Vlade]

Somewhat ontopic : Who was it that voted negative... its 64-1, thats the highest positive to negitive ratio I have seen on a thread (excluding when its very new and is 5-0 or 0-5 :p)

[andyduncan]

Originally posted by pkradd
Apple is already using Amazon.com's "one click" ordering system under license. I wouldn't think anything would happen until a Windows version of iTunes becomes available, even if then. Just speculation.

Don't you think this entire rumor might have been started by some loser making a comment that apple was using amazon's one-click system in the IMS? And someone who doesn't know much about it ran with the idea?

[bankshot]

Originally posted by tychay
Since anecdotal evidence is often taken as "rule of law" among Mac users, I'm more suspicious of a claim that the quality of the preview is substandard when Apple has no prima facia reason to have lower-quality previews and a many good reasons to make sure that the quality is the same.


I can confirm that many, but not all, of the previews are indeed lower quality than the purchased tracks. I have a transparent http proxy on my home network, so all music store downloads (including previews) are logged in the proxy logs. I looked through the log and found the actual urls of the preview files, then downloaded a few separately. Opening them up in QuickTime Player and showing file details revealed that most previews I selected were 64kbps AAC. A few were 128kbps but not many of the ones I tried.

Apple really shouldn't have stated that the previews are full quality unless that was actually true.

Now, everyone of us seems to have platinum ears that can tell the difference between 128kbps AAC (they must be platinum because "golden ears" can't tell the difference).

I agree wholeheartedly that many people on many different forums I've read since the music store went live are making claims about quality that they can't substantiate. Most people, when taking a blind test would have trouble consistently identifying the original CD vs. a well encoded AAC or MP3. Instead, it's easier to spout off about how it's compressed and therefore the quality must suck. ;-) Either that or they don't setup a good blind test and like you say, biases creep in to invalidate the results.

However, under the right set of listening conditions (good equipment/speakers/headphones), with the right reference track, many people will be able to hear a difference at 128 kbps AAC, or even 160. Some even higher than that with really good equipment and good ears that know the material intimately (and knowing what to listen for). Sometimes having the right reference track which exposes particular flaws can make all the difference in the world.

But for 99.9% of music, 99.9% of listening environments (your computer, iPod, etc, even with good headphones), and 99.9% of listeners, this is a complete non-issue. I've been re-encoding my CD collection at 160 kbps AAC since I got my new 30 gig iPod (yay!) and I'm extremely pleased with the results. I couldn't reliably identify AIFF vs AAC rips at that bitrate and on my typical listening equipment, so it works for me, bottom line.

[dschneiter]

Originally posted by soosy
I think (hope) this means that you'll have an option to buy the physical cd along with the digital downloads. That would rock!!!!!! I've seen several people suggest this already.
The joy of immediate downloading along with full cover art and option to rip at higher rates/different formats in the future.

This is what I have been suggesting in several forums the last three weeks. However, I got the impression, that the demand was not that impressive... :-(

Apple - let's give us the choice to order the real cd, super audio cd or audio dvd directly via the iTunes Music Store: better audio quality than 128kBit/s AAC, great shopping experience through the excellent iTunes Music Store UI and no licensing issues in Europe - will say: I could order CD's from Amazon.de from Switzerland! Great!!!

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by reedm007
Just to clarify, it's not ACC, It's AAC... Which, I'd argue, is somewhat more reliable than ACC.

Hey! don't knock on the ACC man! UM is going to steal that show ;)

[aub32]

Look, I didn't say that the tracks were horrible. It is difficult to hear the imperfections in the iPod headphones, and even moreso with computer speakers such as the creature speakers or the Apple pro's.
However, I had my iPod hooked up at a friend's house, playing a track from Earshot's album, and the cymbals and hats sounded like they were noticably slimy. Happened in my car sound system too. When the singer pronounces "S-" sounds, you can hear it as well. Its as if they encoded the AAC tracks from an MP3 or something.
As somebody else previously mentioned, the loss could be due to crappy studio recording, but I wouldn't know because I can't say I'm too fond of that particular CD to the point of going to the store and buying it.
The pros outweigh the cons with iTMS, and most all of the other tracks I've downloaded (close to 40), sound great. The Joshua Tree tracks are totally perfect, even against the CD tracks (my original cd is scratched and won't play half the tracks, but I compared the ones that worked).
I do think that you can tell the difference, however, between a 128 kbit AAC and a 160 kbit encoding. Guess I have "GOLDEN EARS" or something, but for 99 cents, another 40 kbits wouldn't kill Apple.
;)

[The Shadow]

Originally posted by Macrumors
The NY Post (http://www.nypost.com/business/135.htm) claims that Apple and Amazon are in negotiations:

I won't say I told you so!;)

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=331934&highlight=amazon.com#post331934

Originally posted by The Shadow
I have just one word for you raving apologists:

"Amazon.com"

So, there!:p

[yzedf]

Originally posted by Schlomo
I was thinking the same thing. As far as I know, there isnt a windows MP3 player that supports AAC, most importantly, WMP, which I assume 80% of windows users never graduate from.

AAC has been available for Windows since last year, which is LONGER than for Mac... :rolleyes:

http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/aac.html

As to mp3 or wmp for Windows people... stop trolling. Why do you think Kazaa is so busy? Napster before that?

[sparks9]

Seems like a good idea, amázon has great appeal...........