I have a 1-click with a Canadian address and it still prompted me for a US address. You definitely got lucky!Maybe it is just a loop hole they will fix quite quickly (I hope not!), but I just managed to buy a track off Amazon.com.
I have a One-Click account, but with a UK credit card and address.
There is a notice: Downloads only for US buyers or something like that I turned a blind eye
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Amazon Launches Public Beta of DRM-Free Music Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Excellent news.
Hopefully this will give iTunes some healthy competition (really, 0.79p for a crappy DRM riddled 128kbps track? Pah)
Hopefully this will give iTunes some healthy competition (really, 0.79p for a crappy DRM riddled 128kbps track? Pah)
Did you select to install the Amazon software? That might have made the difference. I am sure it will all be changed within hours
Unfortunately I have to say I was not really in the mood to buy any .mp3s but I coudln't resist trying it out! New Look for online Apple store.
Hey I posted a quick gallery of some of the changes of Apple has made to their store. Including what it looked like yesterday, and a link to what it looks like today. check it out.
Hey I posted a quick gallery of some of the changes of Apple has made to their store. Including what it looked like yesterday, and a link to what it looks like today. check it out.
Im not going to read all the replies to this thread, but Im sure what Im saying here has already been said. Songs are cheaper, albums, especially older ones, are considerably cheaper. Looks like this may give itunes a run for its money so to speak.
AAC is in theory more efficient than mp3, but in practice you only really notice a real difference at very low bitrates. In the last public listening test at Hydrogenaudio, Lame even at 128kbps put up a pretty good fight. I believe the number of people who can consistently tell the difference between Lame -V0 and 256kbps CBR AAC is extremely small. (That doesn't prevent everybody on the internet claiming that they can easily hear the difference with their music samples on their equipment though
I totally agree with you but will say that classical music recordings are almost without exception better sounding at higher bitrates (192 and above in my experience). I think it may be due to the more old-fashioned recordings or less production processing, but the classic classical recordings really benefit from high bitrates.
Perhaps modern production heavy classical recordings will sound just fine at low bitrates (I know that The Illusionist soundtrack [AMG] sounds pretty good at 128 kpbs AAC).
Perhaps the master recording off of which they made the 256 kbps recording was flawed? There could be mistakes in the system.
Amazon and the like sell songs at a loss! Amazon makes it's money elsewhere. Once you're hooked the prices go up! Apple has never sold anything at a loss. Apple is in the business to make money, they don't play the loss leader role. This pisses the record companies off and they want them out of the game.
Methinks you are spending way too much time trying to defend yourself and calling other people names. Maybe you should just download some Amazon tunes and enjoy.
Oh! One more thing you really don't have to reply to this as I think you have said quite enough all ready.
No offense, but as a poor college student, I think I have a right to try and find the cheapest, easiest, and highest quality product available in the same package. You cannot sit there and tell me it's not a good deal for me to pay $8.99 with no tax for a high quality download of The Wall vs. buying the CD for $20 + tax or $17 + tax on iTunes. At this point in my life, finding the best deal is huge because I don't make much money in my job at the school library.
Having said this, I agree with you about corporations. But Apple is no different. They have become complacent. The new iPods are proof of that. All kinds of bugs that you wouldn't expect, especially in the iPod Classic, which should be a well-oiled machine at this point.
Everybody *doesn't* win
Well it is in the short term perhaps, but in the end we will get screwed again. The only reason this store even exists is an attempt by the music cartel to crush the iTunes store, and it seems like it's working already judged by the comments here.
An excellent analysis I stumbled across this morning says it all:
http://www.thesmallwave.com/TSW/Hom...on,_But_Why_Are_The_Labels_Being_So_Nice.html
I suppose a price war might be good for consumers in the short term as well, but if iTunes goes down, there goes your freedom.
This is not good news for consumers.
Well it is in the short term perhaps, but in the end we will get screwed again. The only reason this store even exists is an attempt by the music cartel to crush the iTunes store, and it seems like it's working already judged by the comments here.
An excellent analysis I stumbled across this morning says it all:
http://www.thesmallwave.com/TSW/Hom...on,_But_Why_Are_The_Labels_Being_So_Nice.html
I suppose a price war might be good for consumers in the short term as well, but if iTunes goes down, there goes your freedom.
iTunes AAC Tracks Sound Better!
I love Amazon's new service. It's really easy to use. However when comparing iTunes AAC tracks to identical Amazon MP3 tracks, there is simply no comparison in quality. iTunes wins hands down!
The MP3 tracks sound compressed, without enough headroom. The AAC tracks sound clear and natural. Mind you, this is comparing identical albums, taking into account release dates, remastering status, etc.
Technically speaking, AAC is simply a better codec. Analysis clearly shows that tracks copied using AAC more exactly resemble the waveforms of the original, whereas MP3 does not. MP3 particularly drops off in amplitude around the 15khz region, giving that tight compressed sound with lack of treble response. For people with normal or exceptional hearing, this is a very noticeable degradation of the signal.
Still there is the occasional track on Amazon that I can't find on iTunes or elsewhere with relatively great sound quality. So I expect to be shopping at Amazon not only for CDs but digital tracks too.
I love Amazon's new service. It's really easy to use. However when comparing iTunes AAC tracks to identical Amazon MP3 tracks, there is simply no comparison in quality. iTunes wins hands down!
The MP3 tracks sound compressed, without enough headroom. The AAC tracks sound clear and natural. Mind you, this is comparing identical albums, taking into account release dates, remastering status, etc.
Technically speaking, AAC is simply a better codec. Analysis clearly shows that tracks copied using AAC more exactly resemble the waveforms of the original, whereas MP3 does not. MP3 particularly drops off in amplitude around the 15khz region, giving that tight compressed sound with lack of treble response. For people with normal or exceptional hearing, this is a very noticeable degradation of the signal.
Still there is the occasional track on Amazon that I can't find on iTunes or elsewhere with relatively great sound quality. So I expect to be shopping at Amazon not only for CDs but digital tracks too.
Amazon sound quality sucks
Sorry, but my iTunes comparative track just sounds a whole lot better. It's worth the extra dime to me. Maybe not for others.
Good to see some competition though. I do think Amazon is selling at a loss to get market share and their prices will go up in the long run..
My 2 cents.
Sorry, but my iTunes comparative track just sounds a whole lot better. It's worth the extra dime to me. Maybe not for others.
Good to see some competition though. I do think Amazon is selling at a loss to get market share and their prices will go up in the long run..
My 2 cents.
Wonder if the records labels are being nice (other than providing a lot of un-DRMed content) or if Amazon is simply selling these at a loss or make a lesser % on them than iTunes (while providing the labels with the money that they want).
I thought it was weird to see NBC's TV shows on Amazon at basically the same price as iTunes. Unless Amazon is paying them differently behind the scenes, it doesn't look like NBC's making any more money via Amazon.
mp3sparks is the latest venture of the "entrepreneurs" from AllOfMP3.com. Their business is borderline legal in Russia, but, quite importantly: your use of their business is illegal in Russia and in the US. The only thing protecting you right now is that their transactions are shielded by their borderline legality. If that shield breaks, get ready for RIAA lawsuits like you've never seen before (and with a whole lot more convincing evidence - your credit card authorization - than in any RIAA lawsuits to date).
Note that of course their web site FAQ says differently (although not in very strong language ... something like "we think it's legal to use our service in the US because of fair use exceptions"), but they also expressly disavow any knowledge of laws regarding the use of their product inside or outside of Russia.
More importantly, though, it's highly immoral. No one who produced the music gets any money from this. Who gets the money? After network and equipment fees, it's 100% profit for the guys running this. Some would assert that this money goes to the Russian Mob, and that may be true or not. All that's important to me is that it does not go to anyone remotely involved with making the music. As such, paying them is no better than downloading from a torrent or Kazaa (are they still around?). I'd rather 2 cents of my dollar go to the artist than nothing, frankly. They still get screwed, but at least they can buy beer to drown their sorrows
And, if I'm going to deprive them of any money, I don't see any reason to pay some unrelated third party for the privilege.I have several thoughts on this:
1) mp3 is inferior sonically to aac. So, you are getting a product that doesn't sound as good, not that anybody is going to notice on their earbuds.
2) Although Amazon lists the rate as 256kps, the album I just bought was variable, with the lowest rate being 204kps for one song, and the highest being 245kps. The DRM songs I have bought on iTMS have been true 256kps.
3) The fiasco with Universal was about them wanting to be able to charge more for some music. What happened to that? You can buy the 12 song Amy Winehouse album for $8.99.
Also, I want to make a comment about some of your criticisms about Apple's insistent pricing policy: Apple made uniform pricing mostly to keep labels from charging TOO MUCH. Labels have been arguing too be ableto charge MORE for the hit songs. They charge $3.99 for a freaking 20 second ringtone. You really think they want to keep stuff this cheap for the whole song?
Remember, when Apple chose 99¢, it was to compete against the most popular downloading price at the time: 0¢. They had to choose something that was attractive enough so that people would be willing to pay for it. Go back and find any interview with Jobs from when iTMS came out, about how they picked that price. People forget this when they criticize the Apple pricing.
4) I wonder labels are receiving per song from Amazon. Apple is paying about 70¢ on 99¢ downloads.
5) The seamlessness of iTMS might still be more attractive than the extra steps involved in the Amazon store. I bought a record to test it out, and although not a huge pain, it was a little more complicated.
1) mp3 is inferior sonically to aac. So, you are getting a product that doesn't sound as good, not that anybody is going to notice on their earbuds.
2) Although Amazon lists the rate as 256kps, the album I just bought was variable, with the lowest rate being 204kps for one song, and the highest being 245kps. The DRM songs I have bought on iTMS have been true 256kps.
3) The fiasco with Universal was about them wanting to be able to charge more for some music. What happened to that? You can buy the 12 song Amy Winehouse album for $8.99.
Also, I want to make a comment about some of your criticisms about Apple's insistent pricing policy: Apple made uniform pricing mostly to keep labels from charging TOO MUCH. Labels have been arguing too be ableto charge MORE for the hit songs. They charge $3.99 for a freaking 20 second ringtone. You really think they want to keep stuff this cheap for the whole song?
Remember, when Apple chose 99¢, it was to compete against the most popular downloading price at the time: 0¢. They had to choose something that was attractive enough so that people would be willing to pay for it. Go back and find any interview with Jobs from when iTMS came out, about how they picked that price. People forget this when they criticize the Apple pricing.
4) I wonder labels are receiving per song from Amazon. Apple is paying about 70¢ on 99¢ downloads.
5) The seamlessness of iTMS might still be more attractive than the extra steps involved in the Amazon store. I bought a record to test it out, and although not a huge pain, it was a little more complicated.
Musician
I am a professional, classically trained musician. I have a fine ear. AAC at 128 is poor quality sound anyway you slice it. The MP3's I downloaded from Amazon are slightly better quality. 256 AAC and I start to lose the ability to distinguish sound quality from a CD, but the difference is noticable with some music (generally classical in the higher ranges) I encode everything at AAC 320 and cannot tell the difference between that and a CD (though some seem to be able to).
In an experiment with a few friends (MUSICIANS), we tried to distinguish the different encoding blindly COMPARED TO cd's.
AAC 128 10/10 easy to tell
AAC 256 7/10 violinists generally have trouble go figure
AAC 320 2/10 2 people got it correctly in every sample the rest were hit and miss
MP3 128 10/10
MP3 256 10/10
MP3 320 4/10
So, for us, as a general rule any encoding less that 256 is unacceptable AAC or MP3. The Amazon dowloads are OK but not great, and I suspect for 99% of the population using their iPod earbuds the difference is not detectable, in fact I am not even sure the ipod ear buds are able to distinguish at all.
I am a professional, classically trained musician. I have a fine ear. AAC at 128 is poor quality sound anyway you slice it. The MP3's I downloaded from Amazon are slightly better quality. 256 AAC and I start to lose the ability to distinguish sound quality from a CD, but the difference is noticable with some music (generally classical in the higher ranges) I encode everything at AAC 320 and cannot tell the difference between that and a CD (though some seem to be able to).
In an experiment with a few friends (MUSICIANS), we tried to distinguish the different encoding blindly COMPARED TO cd's.
AAC 128 10/10 easy to tell
AAC 256 7/10 violinists generally have trouble go figure
AAC 320 2/10 2 people got it correctly in every sample the rest were hit and miss
MP3 128 10/10
MP3 256 10/10
MP3 320 4/10
So, for us, as a general rule any encoding less that 256 is unacceptable AAC or MP3. The Amazon dowloads are OK but not great, and I suspect for 99% of the population using their iPod earbuds the difference is not detectable, in fact I am not even sure the ipod ear buds are able to distinguish at all.
So why are they doing it now?
The public doesn't know the details, but it's possible. Universal is free to negotiate whatever price they want with iTunes. Then they can turn around and offer a different price to a different distributor. The record companies are scared of iTunes getting a monopoly on digital music downloads. So I wouldn't be surprised if they offer Amazon a better deal than Apple in order to try and shift the marketplace, even if it costs them profits.
Same thing goes for Amazon, if they want they can treat this as a loss leader, or have low introductory pricing to build a customer base, then jack up prices later.
Personally, I'll buy DRM free from now on, and I won't be willing to pay the higher iTunes pricing, especially the higher ones. Apple may be able to drop prices to compete, but they may choose not to - is it worth getting into a price war if you end up not making a profit on sales.
What I'm hoping is that now that other companies are selling cheaper downloads and DRM free ones, it will give Apple some leverage in their negotiations.
With amazon selling some albums for 5.99? I sure wouldn't buy the iTunes version for four bucks more.
Which MP3 encoder were you using? There is a world of difference with different encoders, especially early-generation encoders. Amazon's were encoded using LAME, which is generally regarded as the "best".
In any case, the AAC/MP3 difference here is 3 of 10 trained musicians. We don't know if the MP3 was more or less obviously inferior to the CD than the AAC for the other 7, so they don't say much.
A couple of comments:
These comparisons are very much dependent upon the equipment used. Beyond a certain point the resolution and general fidelity of your electronics and speakers will become the limiting factor in attemption to resolve differences at the source level.
Also, using headphones for these comparisons is not a great idea at all for some pretty obvious reasons.
But in general I would tend to agree, on an average system it gets pretty hard to distinguish music encoded this way or this other way.
Can you give an example of a $5.99 album that iTunes is selling for $9.99 (or higher)?
You do realize that iTunes album prices are already variable, ranging from $7.99 on up for full length albums.
The "bargain bin" albums on Amazon/iTunes generally fall into two categories:
1. EPs. These really should be more prominently marked.
2. Catalogue or promotional titles.
Dealing strictly with the latter, I can see many "bargains" at Amazon, but nothing near the $4 difference you cited. For instance, "Wish You Were Here" is a $5.60 album on Amazon, or a $7.99 album (DRM-free) on iTunes. $2.39 is nothing to sneeze at. "The Gambler" for all those Kenny Rogers fans is a similar bargain at $5.99 versus $7.99 on iTunes (again, DRM-free on both). The Bon Jovi fans can get "Slippery When Wet" for $5.99 instead of $9.90 (saving $3.91, which is as close to $4 as I could find in the popular $5.99 bin).
All having been said, I haven't been able to find any "popular" Amazon downloads where the price is more expensive than the (most often DRM-free) iTunes price [aside: this may be a self-selective survey though; Amazon albums are likely "popular" strictly because of their price relative to iTunes, not because of their real-world popularity]. At this moment, today, Amazon seems like an all-around better price store. That having been said, Amazon prices can and do change at whim. I think the best route for the near future is to look the album up in both services to find the better deal. Today, though, that seems to lead to Amazon's side every single time.
Luv It
I for one am tired of the constant Apple "hand holding" and want other good options to choose from.
I for one am tired of the constant Apple "hand holding" and want other good options to choose from.
How does Apple hold your hand?
This seems to be the first stage of the labels strategy to **** things up for the consumer. Apple doesn't sell music to make a profit, they sell music to sell iPods. This works fantastically for the consumer. Labels sell music to make a profit. These prices will eventually go up (assuming Apple does not choose to go to war). Any attempt to subvert iTMS should be thwarted because it will be bad for us all in the long run.
This seems to be the first stage of the labels strategy to **** things up for the consumer. Apple doesn't sell music to make a profit, they sell music to sell iPods. This works fantastically for the consumer. Labels sell music to make a profit. These prices will eventually go up (assuming Apple does not choose to go to war). Any attempt to subvert iTMS should be thwarted because it will be bad for us all in the long run.
What do you call selling individual tracks on amazon, if not "selling out"; "hypocritical", "two faced" or just old fashioned "lying". Why do people think musicians aren't like the rest of the music industry, out to get what they can.
I think Amazon's costs are lower. Amazon can afford to sell songs atr lower price and still make money. They don't need a better deal.
Amazon already has in place a huge infrastructure of computers and networking and this is paid for with books and other items. If they ran the new MP3 store at break even cost it would be a big net plus to them because likely people while at Amazon would find other things to buy. It's the same reason Best Buy sells CDs - just to get people to come into the store. They don't need to make money on the CDs.
iTunes does not have much else to sell. It's purpose it just to make the iPod easy to use. What iTunes needs it it is to compete is offer some exclusive content. They need to sign their own bands, produce their own shows
As for MPS vs. AAC. Most people want the MP3 format. No one can hear the difference unless they spend over $100 for better earbuds. My preference would be to let the user choose the encoding and bit rate and pay acordingly. I'd bet if they did, they'd sell a lot of 64K MP3 files (and some FLAC too)
Amazon already has in place a huge infrastructure of computers and networking and this is paid for with books and other items. If they ran the new MP3 store at break even cost it would be a big net plus to them because likely people while at Amazon would find other things to buy. It's the same reason Best Buy sells CDs - just to get people to come into the store. They don't need to make money on the CDs.
iTunes does not have much else to sell. It's purpose it just to make the iPod easy to use. What iTunes needs it it is to compete is offer some exclusive content. They need to sign their own bands, produce their own shows
As for MPS vs. AAC. Most people want the MP3 format. No one can hear the difference unless they spend over $100 for better earbuds. My preference would be to let the user choose the encoding and bit rate and pay acordingly. I'd bet if they did, they'd sell a lot of 64K MP3 files (and some FLAC too)