Amazon Adds DRM-Free Warner Music

[MacRumors]

Amazon has announced that they have added Warner Music Group's catalog to their MP3 Download Store.

MP3s downloaded from Amazon's store can be played on Apple's iPod and iPhone and contain no digital rights management (DRM) restrictions. Apple provides music without DRM in their iTunes Store but has only been able to secure a contract with EMI.


Article Link

[Eidorian]

Time to go check what songs I can get now.

Amazon has done a good job of making purchasing relatively seamless in OS X and Windows.

[Dissonance]

So what is it exactly that is stopping these labels from doing the same thing with iTunes? Is it the fear of Apple remaining so powerful in the music industry? Is Apple not offering the same $/song?

[shamino]

Originally Posted by Dissonance

So what is it exactly that is stopping these labels from doing the same thing with iTunes? Is it the fear of Apple remaining so powerful in the music industry? Is Apple not offering the same $/song?

Amazon's pricing is the same or less than Apple's.

I think the music business sees Apple as a threat, and therefore doesn't want to play ball.

This of course, is BS. Apple is a reseller, just like Target and Wal Mart.

Unless you count the fact that the sell songs from unsigned artists. That doesn't make them a label, since they don't produce the music, and don't sell it on any medium other than download, but the "big boys" may feel otherwise.

[Dissonance]

[quote=shamino;4661200]Amazon's pricing is the same or less than Apple's.
QUOTE]

Well, I meant the amount of money that Apple is offering to the labels per track sold. Does anybody know if it is less than what Amazon is offering them, or are there other reasons for the labels being more willing to offer DRM-less music to Amazon?

[theBB]

For some reason, there are a number of indie records (as well as Universal and Warner) that does not provide DRM-less tracks on iTunes even though they sell such songs through Amazon or eMusic. Are these indie labels too lazy or do they have another reason? I have some songs on my wishlist that I am not in a hurry to buy, so I'll hold out a bit more to see if they become available on iTunes.

Assuming Amazon and iTunes offer the record companies the same price, the big ones are clearly trying to bury iTunes. Of course, if they succeed, it won't be long before they start forcing us to buy albums again or increase the prices of each song.

[Brandon Sharitt]

Amazon was already my primary online music store, and now they are getting close to replacing physical CDs.

[reverie]

Steve Jobs' prediction that by the end of 2007 more than half of all songs will be available DRM free has become true, just not on the iTS. And this in spite of the fact that Apple is giving EMI $0.99 per song (for DRM free) and Amazon AFAIR doesn't even always pay the previous standard rate of $0.69 per song.

This is worrying for Apple, OTOH you have to remember that at least for the mass market Amazon's MP3 store is about getting songs on the iPod troublefree, not getting off the iPod and buying a different player. A few informed customers will buy on Amazon because they disapprove of DRM, most customers would just buy there because they like Amazon or because it's a bit cheaper. At the same time many existing iTS customers will keep buying DRMed tracks on the iTS because they still work on the iPod and that's all that matters to them.

Therefore the iTS will remain the #1 store ahead of the Amazon MP3 Store for the foreseeable future, and with each passing quarter in which Amazon does not unseat Apple the record labels will be under more pressure to give Apple the same conditions Amazon received for DRM free tracks.

[Mitch1984]

Labels have a problem because they would rather keep the savings made from digital distribution and packaging rather than pass them on to the customer amongst other reasons.

[Nermal]

Well, I just gave this a go and it basically said "you're not in the US, go away". I don't understand why they (the labels) like to turn down potential purchasers and not get any money! I know that the regional distributors like to get their money too, but surely it's not *that* hard to record which country a song was downloaded in then reimburse the correct distributor for the song.

[swagi]

Originally Posted by Dissonance

So what is it exactly that is stopping these labels from doing the same thing with iTunes? Is it the fear of Apple remaining so powerful in the music industry? Is Apple not offering the same $/song?

AAC

As long as Apple wants to promote their AAC standard, I guess the labels won't like it. Support for AAC is growing, but MP3 (though maybe inferior) is a de facto standard.

Simple fact: Most DVD-Players and CD-Players in cars can read MP3 but not AAC. I personally got back to MP3 encoding, as I like to have >100 songs on a CD and my car radio doesn't like AAC.

[NightStorm]

AAC is not an Apple standard. They just chose to adopt it, as it is a newer technology.

[Snowy_River]

I don't know about anyone else, but DRM prevents me from buying digital music on a regular basis. Whenever I see that I can't get a song or album DRM free, I immediately think twice about whether I really want to spend the money. I usually go and look for a used version of the CD instead. Twice recently, I have decided that I wanted to get an album, but because it was only available with DRM, I bought a used CD instead. I don't lose because I still get the music (and often for less than I would have paid for the DRM stuff), but the music companies do because I got the CD used and they don't see a penny of it. If only they'd learn...

Sure, it's great that Amazon has more DRM-free music now. I'll continue to check them, but I still prefer iTunes. Competition on the distributer side is good, but the music labels sure are acting like monopolies on the production side...

[jaduffy108]

Originally Posted by swagi

AAC

As long as Apple wants to promote their AAC standard, I guess the labels won't like it. Support for AAC is growing, but MP3 (though maybe inferior) is a de facto standard.

Simple fact: Most DVD-Players and CD-Players in cars can read MP3 but not AAC. I personally got back to MP3 encoding, as I like to have >100 songs on a CD and my car radio doesn't like AAC.

AAC indeed. For me, there is no comparison. AAC is far superior in sound quality to mp3. I downloaded one album from amazon. It sounded terrible (256kbps mp3) and the download was very slow compared to the iTS. I also had to "go searching" for the tunes afterwards. No thanks. I'll buy again from the iTS when they offer Apple lossless.

[Snowy_River]

Originally Posted by swagi

AAC

As long as Apple wants to promote their AAC standard, I guess the labels won't like it. Support for AAC is growing, but MP3 (though maybe inferior) is a de facto standard.

Simple fact: Most DVD-Players and CD-Players in cars can read MP3 but not AAC. I personally got back to MP3 encoding, as I like to have >100 songs on a CD and my car radio doesn't like AAC.

AAC is MPEG-4 Audio. It's not Apple's standard, it's the next generation open format industry standard (i.e. MP3 is MPEG-3 Audio). While I will acknowledge that many car stereos don't support AAC, most music players do. So, it's a case of the car stereo manufacturers needing to get their butts in gear, not Apple needing to stay with yesterday's tech...

[SeaFox]

Originally Posted by Snowy_River

AAC is MPEG-4 Audio. It's not Apple's standard, it's the next generation open format industry standard (i.e. MP3 is MPEG-3 Audio). While I will acknowledge that many car stereos don't support AAC, most music players do. So, it's a case of the car stereo manufacturers needing to get their butts in gear, not Apple needing to stay with yesterday's tech...

Pioneer's been making car stereos that play back AAC for a couple years now. Here's one.

[Nermal]

AAC isn't really a "strange" format; even my cellphone plays it.

[swagi]

Originally Posted by Snowy_River

AAC is MPEG-4 Audio. It's not Apple's standard, it's the next generation open format industry standard (i.e. MP3 is MPEG-3 Audio). While I will acknowledge that many car stereos don't support AAC, most music players do. So, it's a case of the car stereo manufacturers needing to get their butts in gear, not Apple needing to stay with yesterday's tech...

If you have a chance to reach say 70% of the population with AAC and OTOH the chance to reach a certain 100% with MP3, which way to go?

Question was, why labels go to Amazon instead of Apple. My POV is, that it is indeed AAC's fault.

But I have a second idea. You need iTunes to access the iTMS, but from what I've heard (no US resident so no chance to test) you only need a freakin standard webbrowser to use Amazon. Believe it or not, there are some people in the world, really disliking iTunes on their Windows machines.

And I personally switched back to being a physical CD person, yeah, real old school. But I found 'digital booklets' so disgusting. They look cheap compared to their printed counterparts in CDs.

[theBB]

Originally Posted by swagi

If you have a chance to reach say 70% of the population with AAC and OTOH the chance to reach a certain 100% with MP3, which way to go?

Question was, why labels go to Amazon instead of Apple. My POV is, that it is indeed AAC's fault.

But I have a second idea. You need iTunes to access the iTMS, but from what I've heard (no US resident so no chance to test) you only need a freakin standard webbrowser to use Amazon. Believe it or not, there are some people in the world, really disliking iTunes on their Windows machines.

Yes, AAC is not 100% compatible and yes, some people dislike iTunes, but those are not reasons for labels not to like it. That is for a customers point of view. Heck, more people dislike WMA and the new Zune format, both of which has much bigger compatibility issues than AAC, but they still sell them in those formats. You are confusing the two questions.

[Loge]

Originally Posted by swagi

You need iTunes to access the iTMS, but from what I've heard (no US resident so no chance to test) you only need a freakin standard webbrowser to use Amazon. Believe it or not, there are some people in the world, really disliking iTunes on their Windows machines.

You can buy single tracks from the web browser, but you need to install their downloader to purchase albums. But again, not US, so not first hand.

[Cleverboy]

It's interesting that everyone is so annoyed about the ongoing ignorance around a newer audio standard (supposedly by Apple) that it has become the most irksome thing to read... someone floating a non-sequitar argument with that misconception as its center.

BRINKMANSHIP

No, the music industry doesn't sell to Apple in non-DRM format as a matter of "brinkmanship". Nothing more, nothing less. Apple does the same thing. Leverage this, negotiate that, act aloof, return to the table.

All I know is that the labels are LOSING MONEY with this strategy of supposedly gaining influence. Apple couldn't care LESS. They already have the music. Moreover, if people still buy iPods and simply shop at Amazon, isn't Apple still getting EXACTLY what it wants? I mean, really now. They refuse to sell their Mp3 formats on iTunes, and pressure people into simply using another store, or stealing. Apple still makes out like a bandit.

I was looking at some Bluetooth headphones recently. Around the same area were an assortment of headphones... many of which said "Mp3 iPod" on them. I picked up another, and it said "iPhone Ready". This was Best Buy... I wasn't even near any other Apple products!

That right music industry. That's right NBC. Keep thinking you're in control. You'll just keep becoming less and less relevant to people who see your content as a "product" they can "buy" and not a "free transmission" they shouldn't pay for.

~ CB

[clevin]

just show you again nobody wants to be control by one single company. it was the truth back in 1990, it is truth in 2007, and it will always be truth in the future.

[stcanard]

Honestly I don't see the Amazon store making a serious dent in the ITMS market. They need to do some serious work.

I was quite interested when I read about this today. I registered an account with amazon.com to try it out (they wanted an email and username only).

I went through to buy a track. Selected the track. Declined to download their software (since I was trying it out). Got to the purchase phase. Pulled out my credit card, typed in the number and expiry, clicked next.

Then I got to the shipping address (which is required for the CC to be approved), and they only allow you to enter a US address.

Nowhere in any of the leadup was there any mention that this was going to be US only, something that Apple is quite upfront about.

It seriously pissed me off that they raised my expectation, took my credit card number, and then wouldn't sell it to me, with no warning. Worse yet, they never once told me they wouldn't sell it to me, they simply made it impossible to complete the purchase -- the box that I finally failed on was even labelled "State/Province/District" then simply only had the USA State abbreviations. I sat there for a minute trying to figure out if I was missing something.

99.9% of the world doesn't care about DRM. Apple has such a head start inside USA that everyone else is already fighting for dregs. The fight is now for other parts of the world.

Seriously pissing off your customers by refusing to admit they even exist is *not* a good way to break into that market. In the future I will be willing to pay an extra 10c for a better experience from another company.

Amazon had the chance to take me away from Apple, or even put me on a waiting list to be taken away -- I understand the licensing issues, a screen at the beginning saying "Due to licensing issues, the music store is only available to residents of the USA" would be enough -- but instead they not only drove me back to Apple, but upset me enough that I won't be going back to try again.

[Nermal]

Originally Posted by stcanard

Then I got to the shipping address (which is required for the CC to be approved), and they only allow you to enter a US address.

Nowhere in any of the leadup was there any mention that this was going to be US only, something that Apple is quite upfront about.

That's interesting because I got "Please note that Amazon MP3 is currently only available to US customers" right on the front page, however this may be because I was signed in using an existing Amazon account.

[stcanard]

Originally Posted by Nermal

That's interesting because I got "Please note that Amazon MP3 is currently only available to US customers" right on the front page, however this may be because I was signed in using an existing Amazon account.

That makes sense, they couldn't check because they didn't know my address.

But that leads one to wonder -- why did they delay the shipping address so long? There is nothing you can buy from Amazon without a shipping / billing address -- I was quite surprised it wasn't part of the registration process.

Very poor interface design, very poor user experience.