Amazon Undercuts iTunes With 69-Cent Pricing on New Release MP3s

[maclaptop]

Oooh things are heating up

I'm not gonna buy music from Amazon again though, I downloaded 1 song for my Dad once from there. Because iTunes didn't have it, and Amazon emailed me for weeks with spam.

Oh hell yeah, I just loaded up with a bunch of my favorites, Thanks Amazon!

I buy lots of stuff from Amazon, without a single problem with spam. No tax, no hassle, just a terrific place to do business.

Amazon has been my favorite for years.

 

[Digitalclips]

considering that amazon sells mp3 format and apple sells their non-universal format, it still doesn't matter to me. Until apple gets real and starts selling MP3s I will continue to buy from amazon. But I guess they don't care.

You like lossy compression? How 1990's of you.

 

[applesith]

I wonder if this new pricing scheme is being enabled by the record labels with lower wholesale pricing to Amazon (to try, yet again, to take power out of Apple's hands), or if Amazon is simply doing this at a loss?

Why would Amazon want to take a loss - to support non-Apple mp3 players?

For Apple, they are not making much, if any money - they always planned it as a break-even business - the real value was the content eco-system tied to their products (= value for customers).

Gain market share for Amazon. Like last year when they sold MP3 albums at a loss.

 

[allpar]

Remember when tiered pricing was announced, Steve said more songs would be available for $.69 than $1.29...I have yet to see a $.69 song.

I've seen numerous $0.69 songs. If you're always looking at brand new stuff you may not see them.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Apple pays 70% straight to the record companies, which would be $0.90. If Amazon pays the same, then they have $0.21 loss before they even start. Or Amazon gets different prices than Apple, which would need some explaining.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was a loss leader nor would I be surprised if different retailers had different costs associated with the products they sell. The local gas station, Wal-mart, and Costco typically don't pay the same price for the products they sell and I don't see why the online retail game would be any different.


Lethal

 

[wordoflife]

Yay.
I am buying my music from where it is cheapest. If Apple wants me to buy from them, they know what they need to do.

 

[ghall]

considering that amazon sells mp3 format and apple sells their non-universal format, it still doesn't matter to me. Until apple gets real and starts selling MP3s I will continue to buy from amazon. But I guess they don't care.

Basically any modern media device can play MP4 which is what Apple uses on it's store. For example I can put music purchased from iTunes on my Android phone with no coversion at all.

 

[mrsir2009]

Well aint that a kick in the teeth!

 

[Stella]

Shame there's no music available on amazon.ca.

 

[Eidorian]

Basically any modern media device can play MP4 which is what Apple uses on it's store. For example I can put music purchased from iTunes on my Android phone with no coversion at all.

Can you name a few more? I have only seen Sony support AAC on their PMP devices.

 

[goobot]

it would be nice if they just made it 99 cents again

 

[MowingDevil]

Apple pays 70% straight to the record companies, which would be $0.90. If Amazon pays the same, then they have $0.21 loss before they even start. Or Amazon gets different prices than Apple, which would need some explaining.

My thoughts exactly. Reeks of collusion and I could see lawsuits flying over this.

 

[leog]

great

Cool, I buy all my music from Amazon's mp3 store anyways!

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I wouldn't be surprised if it was a loss leader nor would I be surprised if different retailers had different costs associated with the products they sell. The local gas station, Wal-mart, and Costco typically don't pay the same price for the products they sell and I don't see why the online retail game would be any different.


Lethal

Very trust. Often times gas stations from playes like Wal-mart, costco and grocery stories run at a loss. The gas station does not generated any profit for the store in gas sells but does tend to bring more people to the store making up the difference and then some.

From working in a grocery store gas station I worked at I can tell you where we got gas from was from the big name gas companies like Exxon, Phillips 66, and Chevron. Chevron being the most common receipt I saw. Also can tell you that at most the only difference between brands is additives added at the terminals were they fill up the full trucks. The gas could of originally been made by any refinery and put in the pipe line. They do not normally get out the same product they put into it and that is from my knowledge from the oil industry and family working in it.

 

[Spooner83]

This would be awesome if I bought music at 256 kbps but I download LOSSLESS! When are digital retailers going to offer LOSSLESS?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

My thoughts exactly. Reeks of collusion and I could see lawsuits flying over this.

it is not against the law in any way to give a different deal to someone else. Amazon bring more to the table than Apple and to add to it Apple strong arming has pissed a lot of people off and they want to break Apple strong hold.

 

[ratzzo]

Can they really make big profit out of this? Amazon I mean, seeing how at least 50 would go to the music companies... it would take thousands of downloads to make a marginal profit. Is something wrong here?

 

[solafide]

but, to what end?

Gain market share for Amazon. Like last year when they sold MP3 albums at a loss.

Apple has proven that market share does not = profitability. I think Apple's focus is right.

I don't see how market share helps Amazon, in this case, if they are losing money on it and have no off-setting profit generated by the loss.

Also, I wonder when this comes into effect. I was just at the Amazon store and most the music I looked at was at $1.29 or $.99 a song - I only saw one $.69 song. Of course, my tastes don't trend toward a lot of pop.

 

[zep1977]

What is a gagalady and why should I pay $0.69 for it?

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Come on! We all know that the TRUE Apple fans on here will gladly pay $1.29 or even 2-3x that to support Steve Jobs' organ transplant fund. They wouldn't go to Amazon even if they were giving away that music for free.

 

[yg17]

You like lossy compression? How 1990's of you.

iTunes is lossy too

Edit: And glad to see someone downrated me for stating a fact. Real mature.

 

[Kaibelf]

Come on! We all know that the TRUE Apple fans on here will gladly pay $1.29 or even 2-3x that to support Steve Jobs' organ transplant fund. They wouldn't go to Amazon even if they were giving away that music for free.

Criticism of fanboyism and the habits of consumers is one thing, but it's pretty awful to make fun of the needs of someone who needed such an extreme procedure due to advanced cancer. Very very trashy.

 

[cvaldes]

Can you name a few more? I have only seen Sony support AAC on their PMP devices.

Zune HD for one.

The Sansa Fuze+ line too. Creative Zen, Archos, Sonos, Squeezbox.

 

[dwd3885]

With all the improvements made to Amazon MP3 lately, there really is NO reason to buy music from the iTunes store anymore. None.

 

[Full of Win]

Apple pays 70% straight to the record companies, which would be $0.90. If Amazon pays the same, then they have $0.21 loss before they even start. Or Amazon gets different prices than Apple, which would need some explaining.

How do you know this? Just curious. I've heard all sorts of numbers bandied about, but yet to see a confirmation as to the distribution.

I'm not a lawyer, but why does it need any explaining? Could it be that Amazon was better at negotiating than Apple, and got a better deal from the content providers? Is there a legal reason that Amazon cannot get more concessions and thus a lower price than does Apple?