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 Undercuts iTunes With 69-Cent Pricing on New Release MP3s
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
if this forces Apple to cut prices that would be nice
I buy very, very few $1.29 songs, but I've bought much less music from itunes since that price went into effect.
I really hope this does push Apple into cutting their prices back down to .99 and cheaper. I do not know anything about digital rights etc., but I do know that the higher price tier made me retreat from iTunes pretty quick.
I buy very, very few $1.29 songs, but I've bought much less music from itunes since that price went into effect.
I really hope this does push Apple into cutting their prices back down to .99 and cheaper. I do not know anything about digital rights etc., but I do know that the higher price tier made me retreat from iTunes pretty quick.
With the exception of very few bands and solo artist, this has been the case anyway. I think we would be kidding ourselves if we don't think the music industry has done this already. Pop seems to rule the airwaves and the tv so why should this be any different. Heck, you can't tell me hearing a song that came out less then a year ago being played on in a car commercial. Come on, it has already been commercialized.
Where? I just checked the Top 200 Best Selling iTunes Songs & there's only ONE .69c song all the way at #196.
In fact, there's only 3 .99c songs, two of which are in the bottom 25.
I realize that this was the labels doing & not Apple, but that's crazy.
In fact, there's only 3 .99c songs, two of which are in the bottom 25.
I realize that this was the labels doing & not Apple, but that's crazy.
You can't beat it because it's a pirate site. NONE of the money from the site goes to the artists, songwriters, producers, labels, etc.
There's a reason it's based out of Russia. So I hope you're happy knowing your essentially buying stolen property.
There's a reason it's based out of Russia. So I hope you're happy knowing your essentially buying stolen property.
Blame The fact that Apple won't allow a competing service in it's market. On my Android phone I can use the Amazon mp3 app to purchase music, download it to my phone immediately or stream it from amazon. It goes into my Amaozon locker meaning I can go to any computer and download it there at any point in the future. Instant access from multiple devices, except my one iOS device.
Yeah--open mouth insert foot--you know what they say about assumptions. Oh well, still a better bit rate so I guess I'll just be satisfied with that--or maybe I'll just save a bit of money at Amazon. Thanks for pointing out my poor assumptions.
Apple's 256kbps VBR files didn't do me any good with my last car stereo by JVC. The JVC would play AAC, but not VBR AAC. So I could either convert Apple's AAC VBR to regular AAC (extra conversions are bad for sound quality) OR just buy something that plays out of the box (i.e. Amazon 256 VBR MP3). I chose the latter. I'm not sure about my new stereo that came with my WRX (it plays AAC, but I haven't tested a VBR one), but it doesn't matter much sincee that head unit won't be around much longer. Now that Amazon is cheaper to boot, it's not even a question, really. I prefer buying CDs and transferring it myself, though if I want a whole album.
Proof please. You have no idea what does or doesn't go to the artists, songwriters, producers, etc. You are speculating. The site has been up and running for years now, because noone has been able to prove in a court that they are doing anything illegal. If the courts decide otherwise and shut the site down, I'll move back to Amazon.
I'm willing to bet that Amazon isn't doing things the way Apple is doing things. Amazon wasn't born yesterday. They have yet to do something that is an abject failure.
The thing about Amazon's service that is appealing:
- No software is required. They offer software to help you, but it's not required to use the service.
- They have a LOT of stuff. Their catalog is quite huge.
- Because no software is required it works on literally any device. Problem with iTunes is that it's not friendly to any portable music player except iPods.
- With the new Cloud Player, you can now redownload your songs if you need to, unlike before where you had to jump through hoops - which as of the last time I used iTunes 2 years ago was still the case with them.
- Amazon's store doesn't bog you down with movies and games and whatnot. You go to the MP3 section and 99% of what is advertised is music, both the music you searched and others you might like.
- Really clean Android app.
- Free songs offered every day in various genres. Great way to support new and upcoming artists who are trying to get their music out to the world.
iTunes has gotten more irritating in that regard in recent years. You click on store half the time just wanting to do a search for a song or something you're looking for and you get this MEGA LAG due to the fact iTunes wants to load up a catalog page containing about a thousand items on it with fade-through album covers, animation, etc. to try and catch your eye to sell you stuff you don't want to buy. The problem is even with a 10mbps connection, it still loads slow (at least on my older Macs and you get that lag trying to click on the darn search box which won't respond because it's far too busy loading advertisements). That sucks IMO.
You can get iTunes to move songs over to USB drives, etc. (select songs or lists and just drag it to the drive in the finder), but there's always been this bug if you move too many songs, it won't work (not sure where the exact number is, but I've run into it many times on an 8GB USB thumb drive for my car). Plus on Macs, OSX insists on copying the .files over with the songs which most car players choke on (so I use my Windows machine to do all this instead of my OSX server). Apple couldn't care less about either because in their eyes, you should be using an iPod...even for the car. Anything else is heresy and you deserve what you get. But they won't support Linux with iTunes because those people are crazy and probably wouldn't buy stuff anyway (free information et al).
You have implied your own proof. The fact that they are in Court at all should tell you money is not going from the site to the record labels / artists etc.
The only reason the cases have failed is that its not illegal under Russian law. Russian sites are violating international law in making this content available, but international law is very, very difficult to enforce. Especially where the action is legal in the violating nation.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
How I wish Xbox would support their format. I like streaming music but it sucks having to convert my favorite song. My NookColor, Palm Pre Plus and Nexus can all play these songs just fine.
Eidorian said:
How I wish Xbox would support their format. I like streaming music but it sucks having to convert my favorite song. My NookColor, Palm Pre Plus and Nexus can all play these songs just fine.
So by your logic, if you end up in court on flagrantly made up charges, you're guilty by implication? Jesus...
Ok a couple of things
Assume Apple and Amazon have the same deals with the record labels which is most likely the case.
Let's rough estimate that for every $0.99 song sold by Apple or Amazon then 69 cents go to the label. Therefore Amazon does not lose money on the sale but maybe a tiny fraction of a cent on infrastructure and credit card processing.
If Amazon sold the songs for $0.68 then that would be considered "dumping" by the FTC and WTO, and that is an illegal action, especially if it was intended to gain market share.
Competition is good - and then results benefit the consumer.
If Amazon has an incredible increase of market share by selling low, they either have to raise prices eventually or renege their contracts with the labels making music downloads cheaper. If they are successful at lowering prices then Apple will do the same, and we all benefit.
Assume Apple and Amazon have the same deals with the record labels which is most likely the case.
Let's rough estimate that for every $0.99 song sold by Apple or Amazon then 69 cents go to the label. Therefore Amazon does not lose money on the sale but maybe a tiny fraction of a cent on infrastructure and credit card processing.
If Amazon sold the songs for $0.68 then that would be considered "dumping" by the FTC and WTO, and that is an illegal action, especially if it was intended to gain market share.
Competition is good - and then results benefit the consumer.
If Amazon has an incredible increase of market share by selling low, they either have to raise prices eventually or renege their contracts with the labels making music downloads cheaper. If they are successful at lowering prices then Apple will do the same, and we all benefit.
Sure, they both have a deal that lets the labels set the prices. And the labels are underselling their digital copies on Amazon.
It is actually more likely they don't have the same deal. MP3 like Kindle files are loss leaders for Amazon. They are there and cheap to draw folks to the website where they will buy other more profitable things. That can only be done if Amazon has price control.
That they are being used that way has gotten the public ire of the publishers and soon the labels will probably start talking smack as well
Er, no. That doesn't follow from my logic at all. The poster was asking for proof that this russian site had any kind of problems with the labels "you have no idea what money goes where" or words to that effect were used. The fact that they are in court proves there is a dispute, not guilt.
I'd be happy to break the argument out for you in formal logic if you are familiar with the logical languages?
As a lawyer, you are really, REALLY bad at trying to make your point with the law.
The fact that they havent been brought to court is absolutely irrelevant to what the poster is talking about.
I have no idea what does or doesn't go to the artists, songwriters, producers, huh? How about the fact that I'm a songwriter with a number of songs that have been very popular worldwide & I have NEVER received a dime from this company. You can try & say, well none of you're songs have been downloaded from that site, but I know that to be false as I even purchased one myself from the site to test.