Amazon Launches Public Beta of DRM-Free Music Store

[redfirebird08]

Well, only an idiot would believe that labels are begging Apple to offer songs at a cheaper rate, but Apple is standing in the way. Same with DRM.

As I said on the other thread, I am glad Apple refused to license FairPlay. This forces the music labels to offer DRM free tracks if they want a competitor to iTunes, as anything else would not play on iPods. Brilliantly effective!.. Similarly, iTunes puts a ceiling on the price of a download. In the end, Apple is the one who lets me have what I want although not from iTunes for now. As long as iTunes remain viable and iPods stay dominant, we will get what we want.

Please remember, MS made statements supporting DRM to curry favor with labels when Jobs anti-DRM public letter was published. If Zune was the dominant player, we would never get tracks without DRM.

I agree. If Apple had their way, the whole iTunes Music Store would be DRM free. In time, it will get there. I do, however, think that they will need to address the gap in price between non-DRM tracks at iTunes and Amazon. There's no reason they should be charging 30 cents PLUS TAX higher than Amazon. The tax issue is a biggie for me. We should not be getting taxed on Internet downloads. Amazon doesn't even charge tax on physical products when they ship them, which I would think are more taxable than downloads. iTunes needs to get rid of tax and lower their iTunes Plus price to compete with Amazon.

 

[EricNau]

Don't be surprised if we see an actual iTunes website with content in the coming months.

What would the point be? ...Almost everyone already has iTunes on their computer.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I think this is good news for everyone. Itunes lovers should love the fact that iTunes will finally get some legit competition and iTunes haters will get an alternative to iTunes that works with their iPods and such. I just want to know if I can buy TV shows and rent movies from Amazon, then I will give up iTunes for ever.

 

[synth3tik]

whole thin

Whether you like Amazon or not, this is a good thing. This will help force Apple to stay on it's toes. With out any competition Apple has been able to charge what they want and negotiate how they want.

If this takes off Apple will start having to look at how to retain their iTMS customers, pricing and other things.

I like this whole thing, even though I really don't like Amazon.

 

[jettredmont]

Just bought the Feist album my wife has been bugging me to get and I haven't because (1) I am too lazy to go to a record store any more and (2) I'm generally reluctant to purchase DRM music any more. I would have bought it a week or so ago on iTunes Plus, probably for $9.99 (as Plus and non-Plus are the same price for albums); I bought it today on Amazon for $8.99. Rather ironic, I think, that an iPod nano commercial is key to my first Amazon MP3 purchase.

Why do I care about DRM? Because I keep hitting up against the 5-computer limit. I have my machine at work that plays my music while I work, my laptop that I take with me on trips, my wife's laptop, the kid's iMac, and last but most importantly, my G5 at home which is the "master store" for all our music. That's five. In the past six months two hard drives (my laptop and the kids' iMac) have crashed, meaning a reinstall without previous deauthorization, meaning a "bulk deauthorize all computers" call. Fortunately when the laptop drive crashed my wife didn't have her laptop yet (so we were using 4) and so I didn't have to reauthorize until after the kids' drive crashed. If anything of the sort happens again this year, though, I've got to get on the phone and talk to Apple to convince them I'm not abusing the system. I don't look forward to it.

Add to this the fact that it's a major pain in the rear to use my purchased music in Final Cut Pro (sure, I can plop a song in an iMovie home movie, but for the video I'm an FCP junkie; using FCP Apple has deemed the produced home movie to be a professional production and thus thee protected track will not play in the movie). I have to either plop into iMovie with a few pics, export to quicktime, split off the audio, then put that into FCP (a major workflow downer), or burn the disk to CD and re-rip it so I can throw it over into FCP.

So that's why I'm avoiding DRM wherever possible again.

Will 256k MP3 quality be sufficient? I suspect so. I went from 192k MP3 to 160k AAC when I switched over to AAC and didn't see a significant difference (positive or negative), although 160k and especially 128k MP3s grated on my ears; I hardly hear the difference between my 160k encoded files and the purchased 256k iTunes Plus tracks. So, I suspect at 256k the difference between MP3 and AAC will be beyond my hearing capabilities.

A dedicated "downloader" application, specifically for OS X? Very nice touch. More than I expected. Best of all, unlike similar "uploader" apps for photo printing services (Costco and others), it didn't crash when installed with Safari 3 beta! So: kudos, Amazon! See? It takes so little to make us Mac users all warm and fuzzy ...


A few differences to note, though. Can I "complete my album" on Amazon? That doesn't seem to be an option. Will Amazon be featuring a free song each week? That alone has fueled the purchase of several albums: get me into iTMS early on Tuesday mornings, before I'm jaded from the day and also before I am fully enough awake for the impulse filters to be in place, and ... well, let's just say I've ended up with a few non-free albums after downloading the free songs of the week.

Also, I have to say that variable pricing (some track $0.99, others $0.89) is really bad when the prices are arranged in a column in bold with no other indicator. I mean, if you weren't relying on users seeing "$0.89 per song!" and clicking the $0.99 songs ignorantly, the better interface would include a "price scale" of some sort, with "$0.89" songs having a "9" tick bar, and "$0.99" songs having a "10" tick bar (which, conveniently, allows for expansion to 25-tick bars after Universal ends its "trial period" and raises your prices).

Again, this is the great beauty of iTunes. I hear a song on the radio and I know that I can go home, click on it in iTMS, and have it for a buck. Ten songs: ten bucks. I know that before I even open the app. Amazon utterly fails here. While I won't know how much a song is before I open the app, I'd expect the price to be prominently displayed (ie, not crammed in near-illegible type) when I do open the app. Instead, it is squished and bolded so that it is near-impossible to distinguish "89 cent" songs from "99 cent" songs.

 

[ezekielrage_99]

DRM-free MP3

Everyone wins.

Yeah the consumer wins, but it is also good to see competition out there this will mean that better product and hopefully better services for the users.

 

[macfan70]

The Power of Choice

iTMS was always just an option for finding content. Now Amazon is another. By providing legitimate sources of music at reasonable prices, the digital world can only get better.

 

[redfirebird08]

That sounds like a problem. Amazon seems to be advertising everything as 256kbps. Hmmm. My downloads (Feist's latest album) were all 256kbps, CBR, true to the website claims. Claiming 256 and sending less could lead to a major backlash.

I downloaded Pink Floyd's "The Wall," which by the way is the best value on Amazon's store right now. $8.99 with no tax for a double album that you pay $17+ tax for on iTunes and $25 for at Best Buy. That's a great deal. The tracks appear to be 256 VBR to me. The highest bit rate on any single track is 245 kbps. The lowest appears to be 214 kbps. The majority are in the 225 to 235 kbps range.

 

[theBB]

The Amazon buying experience, other than starting in your web browser (where, I might add, you can easily bookmark songs you want to return to later, unlike iTMS),

In iTunes, you can drag and drop the song you like from the store to a playlist on the sidebar. That works much better than bookmarking a website.

As for the sales tax issue, write to your representatives. Apple has no choice in that matter.

 

[sshrivastava]

What's DRM?

I wonder how many "joe average" consumers even know what DRM is? I'm guessing MOST people who buy iPods and who buy songs will gravitate to the easiest and cheapest solution. The easiest solution is iTunes because it's bundled, but the cheapest is Amazon, so first time buyers will buy their first tracks using iTunes but will eventually seek out less expensive alternatives. But "joe average" just needs to be able to buy a song and play it, he doesn't know what DRM is, what it means, or why it's important.

I don't think that for the vast majority of consumers DRM is an issue. Am I wrong here? iTunes is so pervasive and well known that it will continue to dominate simply because it is the dominant brand. The iPhone is just another way for Apple to dominate the music distribution business -- you'll be using iTunes to buy your music over the air on your iPhone, won't you?

As far as "backlash" at Apple, it must be coming from a very select few people because Apple's numbers are constantly up, their market share is ever growing, and the crowds at the Apple store are getting bigger and bigger. There is no "backlash" that I can see, unless you are talking about a handful of die-hard Apple fans who do not represent the majority of consumers.

I have a Mac Book Pro, I have a Power Mac G5, I have two Apple Cinema Displays, an iMac, an iPod, had a Powerbook, had an Apple LaserWriter and a IIci many years ago... I have never EVER had any quality issues with any of my Apple purchases, and the only Apple product that disappointed me was the iPhone because it is limited to a horrible carrier that won't provide a data-only plan for deaf consumers -- but the quality of the device is tremendous.

I think we need to take a step back and stop looking at things with tunnel vision.

 

[redfirebird08]

In iTunes, you can drag and drop the song you like from the store to a playlist on the sidebar. That works much better than bookmarking a website.

As for the sales tax issue, write to your representatives. Apple has no choice in that matter.

Apparently Amazon has a choice in the matter. And this goes for iPods too or Mac computers. You can buy from Apple and get charged sales tax or buy from Amazon and avoid sales tax. Why is that? Is it really because Apple has no choice? I don't think so. When I used Rhapsody, they charged 89 cents for songs if you were a subscriber. No sales tax. And you could re-download your songs if you wanted to.

 

[theBB]

By the way, according to Wired, Universal tracks on Amazon has watermarking.

Apparently Amazon has a choice in the matter. And this goes for iPods too or Mac computers. You can buy from Apple and get charged sales tax or buy from Amazon and avoid sales tax. Why is that? Is it really because Apple has no choice? I don't think so.

OK, you're right Apple has a choice. They can close all Apple stores in states that require sales tax and move their headquarters and all of the employees from California to Oregon.

 

[redfirebird08]

By the way, according to Wired, Universal tracks on Amazon has watermarking.

Not surprising at all. Universal is not as bad as Sony, but they are very much against non-DRM stuff. I think them going to Amazon was mainly based on trying to stick it to Apple because they probably feel that Apple has a monopoly. One thing I'm curious about. They supposedly pulled their music from iTunes but both Kanye and 50 Cent's new albums are on there. They are both part of labels that can be found within the Universal Music Group conglomerate. I'm confused by this, unless of course there's a separate Universal label within the conglomerate?

 

[jettredmont]

Apparently Amazon has a choice in the matter. And this goes for iPods too or Mac computers. You can buy from Apple and get charged sales tax or buy from Amazon and avoid sales tax. Why is that? Is it really because Apple has no choice? I don't think so. When I used Rhapsody, they charged 89 cents for songs if you were a subscriber. No sales tax. And you could re-download your songs if you wanted to.

Amazon doesn't physically do business in your state. Apple has a national chain of retail stores.

Again: Apple has no choice in the matter. If they physically have a retail presence in a state, they are legally obligated to collect sales tax. Amazon operates as a mail-order company: as long as you are ordering from outside their operating state, you are responsible for tracking, reporting, and paying the sales tax.

You are, of course, tracking your Amazon.com purchases and reporting them on your state tax return. Right?

 

[JGowan]

iTunes 4: AAC and MP3 Codecs Compared

I thought this was pretty appropriate to this topic.

iTunes 4: AAC and MP3 Codecs Compared

This document explains differences in the AAC and MP3 codecs that can be used in iTunes 4.

AAC-encoded files sound as good as or better than MP3 files encoded at the same or even a higher bit rate.

For example, a 128-kilobit-per-second (kbit/s) AAC file should sound as good as or better than a 160 kbit/s MP3 file. Because the bit rate is lower, the AAC file will also be smaller than the MP3 file. AAC files allow you to store the most music on your hard disk or iPod. The High Quality AAC setting creates files that are usually less than 1 MB for each minute of music.

Note: AAC files encoded from a source other than the iTunes Music Store (such as an audio CD) work the same as an MP3 file encoded from the same source. No authorization required to play or burn them. So, AAC files you encode yourself in iTunes 4 can be burned as many times as you want and the songs do not require authorization to play on multiple computers.

Link

 

[redfirebird08]

OK, you're right Apple has a choice. They can close all Apple stores in states that require sales tax and move their headquarters and all of the employees from California to Oregon.

Amazon.com is located in Washington, so is Real Networks. Washington has a 6.5% sales tax. I get charged for the sales tax rate in Texas at 8.25%. Sorry, but that is a lot when Apple is claiming to only charge $10 for an album.

 

[redfirebird08]

Amazon doesn't physically do business in your state. Apple has a national chain of retail stores.

Again: Apple has no choice in the matter. If they physically have a retail presence in a state, they are legally obligated to collect sales tax. Amazon operates as a mail-order company: as long as you are ordering from outside their operating state, you are responsible for tracking, reporting, and paying the sales tax.

You are, of course, tracking your Amazon.com purchases and reporting them on your state tax return. Right?

Thanks for the explanation. Cheers.

To answer your question, I'm in college and do not make enough money for it to matter, nor do I buy very many things from Amazon. I've bought like 5 things total in the last 5 years from them, including my download purchase today from them.

 

[Loge]

By the way, according to Wired, Universal tracks on Amazon has watermarking.

I read the watermarking only identifies the song as being sold on amazon, not purchaser info, although it would be better if amazon were up front about this, since people should rightly be suspicious about such watermarking.

 

[jettredmont]

Amazon.com is located in Washington, so is Real Networks. Washington has a 6.5% sales tax. I get charged for the sales tax rate in Texas at 8.25%. Sorry, but that is a lot when Apple is claiming to only charge $10 for an album.

1. If the company (Amazon, Real) has no corporate presence in your state, they do not need to (currently; some states are attempting to get this changed) collect sales tax. Amazon and Real do not have corporate offices or retail outlets in Texas. That is why they do not charge sales tax there. Apple does; hence it must.

2. If the company (Amazon, Real) has no retail presence in a state, but does have a corporate presence (ie, as in Washington state), the laws are a little more spotty, but, generally the corporate presence means they have to collect sales tax in that state.

Apple charges sales tax because it has a retail presence nationally. Period. You do realize that the sales tax goes directly to the state, and not to Apple, right? Apple has absolutely NO incentive to over-charge state sales tax!

 

[redfirebird08]

I read the watermarking only identifies the song as being sold on amazon, not purchaser info, although it would be better if amazon were up front about this, since people should rightly be suspicious about such watermarking.

I just checked a song from The Wall in iTunes and it says "Amazon.com Song ID:" with what looks to be a 9-digit number. I'm not sure if this number is random for each song downloaded or if the same song downloaded by two different people is assigned the same number because it's cataloged in their database as a certain song. If it's random, then that is the same as purchaser info since they can trace that random number back to your purchase alone. But if it's the same number given to anyone who buys that song, then it's just a watermark.

 

[redfirebird08]

1. If the company (Amazon, Real) has no corporate presence in your state, they do not need to (currently; some states are attempting to get this changed) collect sales tax. Amazon and Real do not have corporate offices or retail outlets in Texas. That is why they do not charge sales tax there. Apple does; hence it must.

2. If the company (Amazon, Real) has no retail presence in a state, but does have a corporate presence (ie, as in Washington state), the laws are a little more spotty, but, generally the corporate presence means they have to collect sales tax in that state.

Apple charges sales tax because it has a retail presence nationally. Period. You do realize that the sales tax goes directly to the state, and not to Apple, right? Apple has absolutely NO incentive to over-charge state sales tax!

I already responded to your previous post on this and thanked you for the info. Again, cheers.

 

[jettredmont]

More options helps us consumers, so I'm all for it. I just bought an album, in addition to the free song that they give you for downloading the downloader (heh). We'll see how good it sounds (I'm in class so can't test it now), but I can't imagine anything but good. If they have sales on albums to make them cheaper than iTunes (the album I just bought was 10 songs, but only $8.99, so already a dollar less than iTunes), then they'll definitely make an impact.

jW

Do note, please, that iTunes has been offering full-length albums as low as $7.99 at least since the start of the Summer. Album prices on iTMS are fully variable. As such, to comparison-price you really will need to look at both music stores and compare the prices. An $8.99 album on Amazon is not necessarily a better price than the same album on iTMS!

That having been said, this is strictly theoretical. I haven't seen any cases where the iTMS price is less than the Amazon price. Today.

 

[BWhaler]

Apple has one option. Kill off DRM ENTIRELY on the iTunes music store and higher the bitrate of their music, otherwise they ain't getting a cent more of my money. Face the frickin competition or go home.

I agree.

The question is, will the record companies go along with Apple?

 

[LizKat]

I bought an MP3 album from Amazon, it plays fine but when i look at the info on any of the tracks it says Encoded by: Unknown which is, uh, different.

Also, using the the track info in iTunes, the Amazon stuff does not say who the label (copyright owner) is, which is, uh, WAY different.

The artist recorded for Universal in another of his albums that I had previously purchased as 128AAC tracks from the iTunes Store. I wonder if i happened to pick an Amazon offering that was an early (and really REALLY beta) upload by Amazon to its database...

At about the time of the first track coming down, i got some writes to my console

2007-09-25 17:48:38.970 Amazon MP3 Downloader[747] {
NSAppleScriptErrorBriefMessage = "Can't make some data into the expected type.";
NSAppleScriptErrorMessage = "iTunes got an error: Can't make some data into the expected type.";
NSAppleScriptErrorNumber = -1700;
NSAppleScriptErrorRange = <0000008f 00000037 >;
}


These were not repeated as the dl proceeded. I'll buy a different album or just a couple tracks of something else later on tonight and see if that happens again. The downloader for Mac seems to work fine, similarly to eMusic.

I'm happy enough with my purchase but it's funky to have the encoder "unknown."
===

later: OK, I bought another album, this one doesn't have the copyright holder identified in the get info either, but this time the encoder was identified (LAME3.97). No console errors this time around either. But the album was not cheap, the tracks were pegged at 99c each and the album of 12 tracks was 11.99 -- this was a Coldplay album, "Live in 2003." Perhaps this pricing has to do with the album also being available on iTunes Plus (at 1.29 a track but the album does go for 11.99 there as well). So maybe I should have gone with the iTunes version since it would have been 256AAC which I do prefer to the MP3. I will do more looking around in the future. If the price is the same, then getting it at iTunes in the unprotected high 256AAC would be my pick.

 

[jettredmont]

yes. for example, the free song is tagged "Amazon.com Song ID: 201470018" in the comments.

My free song was tagged with the same ID #. At least for the free song, the ID # does not appear to identify the downloader, just the song.