Amazon to Launch DRM-Free Music Store

[Doctor Q]

There's one more aspect to it. People may want higher bitrate audio simply because it's better in theory. Even if they are not sure they can tell the difference, they might want the best possible music quality as a matter of principle.

When people make purchases, it's not always a purely scientific process. Many people buy iPods without considering whether they are really the best product for them. They see the ads, they hear the name, so they get one.

When they see "higher quality for 30% extra", they probably don't do their own "taste test" before choosing.

 

[hircus]

But I agree with you - most all the devices people own now do play AAC, and certainly all computer programs that are used (iTunes, Winamp, XMMS) can play the format as well, so I want the higher-quality of AAC on my computer/iPod.

My TrekStor vibez plays everything under the sun but AAC -- MP3, Ogg Vorbis, FLAC, even protected WMA. And it actually plays them all with gapless playback.

(FWIW I rated this a positive since anything that hastens the death of DRM is beneficial)

OTOH, EMI is dying. What would be the effect if they were acquired by, say, Warner (which the article indicated has been linked with various merger attempts in the past)? Would the remaining music distributors try to shut the door of DRM-free music?

Now we know why it was EMI that signed up with Apple and Amazon. It's out of desperation, rather than vision. Which is rather sad, really.

 

[YunusEmre]

Amazon is so dumb - mp3's??? Encode a song in mp3 and then in AAC at the same bitrate and see which one sounds better. The difference is noticeable to even the most tone deaf.

Who is going to provide the AAC decoders for PCs, Tivos, Cell phones, other hand-helds etc.? Most already have mp3 decoders. Amazon is making a business choice. They are not in the business to vote for the best audio compression technology. They are in business to deliver content to as wide an audience as possible so they can make more money. Besides, going with mp3 does not preclude Amazon offering AAC content using the same deliver mechanism in later date.

 

[MacFly123]

I hope!

I hope Apple is always able to stay on top with the iTunes store. I guess all this competition is inevitable, so they better keep stepping up to the plate and hitting them out of the park.

 

[slughead]

There's one more aspect to it. People may want higher bitrate audio simply because it's better in theory. Even if they are not sure they can tell the difference, they might want the best possible music quality as a matter of principle.

When people make purchases, it's not always a purely scientific process. Many people buy iPods without considering whether they are really the best product for them. They see the ads, they hear the name, so they get one.

When they see "higher quality for 30% extra", they probably don't do their own "taste test" before choosing.

Well another reason to want higher bitrate is so you can transcode it without as much loss. For instance, you'd want a 320kbps mp3 to reduce to 128 for a web page. If you used a 192 or 256, it wouldn't sound as good. Original source is best, but you can't find that online, at any price.

Another example would be if you were putting a song into a home movie which you were compressing into a DVD. You would want the highest bitrate possible so the end result wouldn't sound distorted.

Sort of like JPEGs: if you have a "full" quality one, you can't tell the difference between that and 90% compression, unless you have to re-compress or are using it as source material for something else.