Apple iTunes Still #1, but Amazon Gaining

[JoeDMD]

iPhone is restricted to one vendor

And Apple is perfectly free to do that also. For a long time Apple only sold computers online or at Apple stores.

I wasn't looking for the perfect analogy though. I was just pointing out that if you want to defend someone's right to sell their IP any way they want to then you need to support it across the board.

Apple doesn't seen to care that the iPhone is not available through verizon and other carriers. I'm sure verizon's customers would love an iPhone, but apple won't sell it to them.

Should we be surprised that Record Labes won't sell DRM free though iTunes?

(actually yes, they are probably losing money, but that's besides the point)

 

[bluefiberoptics]

I thought about buying a song through iTunes Japan, but I don't think they have started iTunes Plus yet.

 

[seedster2]

It's really not just like that. An equivalent analogy would be more like if Apple let HP, Sony and other PC makers license OS X but not Dell (or whoever the market leader is at the time), and at the same time the music companies employed lots of musicians to create albums of tracks that were all released by 'Sony' or 'EMI' or whoever.

They don't have it in for Steve Jobs personally, but theydo want to lessen Apple's dominance, because it gives them more power. Understandable, but still pretty scummy towards consumers IMHO. They should let the market decide, by scrapping DRM everywhere altogether.

As eastcoastsurfer concisely states "if you want to defend someone's right to sell their IP any way they want to then you need to support it across the board"

Apple has made billions exploiting the same approach you disdain: you can only get OS X on an apple computer, you can only get an iphone on AT&T...

 

[adbe]

Apple doesn't seen to care that the iPhone is not available through verizon and other carriers. I'm sure verizon's customers would love an iPhone, but apple won't sell it to them.

Should we be surprised that Record Labes won't sell DRM free though iTunes?

(actually yes, they are probably losing money, but that's besides the point)

We should be surprised because, and only because, this is something of a new thing for the record industry. In general retail, exclusive deals are quite common; from Apple's Best Buy hookup, to Martha Stewart at Bloomingtons, or whether her stuff is at nowadays. For better or worse, it happens all the time.

There are plenty of cases of labels offering custom content to individual retailers for some kind of promotional reason, but never a wholesale disenfranchisement of one retailer over another as we are seeing here. The industry would have no problem showing that it is doing nothing wrong, for the reasons given above, but it *is* a surprising shift on the face of it.

The point though, is not about Apple, or Amazon, or any other retail channel. It's about whether as a consumer one wants to hand control back to an industry that fought tooth and nail against the iPod and other such devices, and still argues against devices such as the SqueezeBox, and will, if given a chance, fight future progress every bit as aggressively.

The RIAA, and its counterparts in Europe and beyond, need to be dealt a wake up call. Namely, people who pay for music, want to keep the right to enjoy their music in their own way. It's easy to see the Amazon thing as a boon to consumers, but it really isn't competition. It'd be competition if you could buy the same music DRM free in any online retailer you chose. Otherwise, it looks like a land grab, because it *is* a land grab.

I only buy from Amazon when iTunes doesn't carry the song I want, and I only buy from iTunes when a song is available in DRM free form. That means that BMG, and a whole bunch of indies are getting a lot of dollars from me, whilst the other majors aren't seeing my money from any retailer. If enough people do likewise, the majors will be forced to face up to the changing shape of media consumption, and we'll be free to buy our damn music from whomever we choose.

 

[w00master]

I _tried_ to buy a track from Amazon and it was the worst experience. Not only finding the track that I wanted was a pain in the ass (compared to iTunes). I had to download an application, that doesn't work with Firefox. (I didn't fiddle around with it much) So, fired up Safari and went through the whole process again.

Well, the CC they had on file was wrong. Rather then just re-checkout, I had to go through the entire process again.

Needless to say, I went back to iTunes and purchased the tracked I wanted in a fraction of the time.

The plugin works on all major browsers: Safari, Firefox and Internet Explorer on Windows and Mac. I'm not sure what problems you are having, but honestly (I'm a Firefox User) I have yet to see any issues at all.

The biggest benefit of using Amazon? You can always go back (in case you accidently deleted the music) and re-download. Can't say that about iTunes.

w00master

 

[Mustafa Monde]

Consumer rules

As a consumer, the outfit with the best price for the quality and amount will get my dollar. At times, iTMS gets my cash, other times Amazon gets it--for music.

Media companies are at the consumable level, repleat with talented and creative artists of all stripes. The management at these places is another matter. The 99 cent model for a tune feels right to me, but it has the media companies in a quandary. They used to control distribution, advertising and on some level, content. Now, much of that has shifted to the hands of Apple. It would be difficult to surcharge an artisit if, in fact, the music company isn't doing anything other than providing recording studios and lawyers. They are unnerved. To this, I say, "Good."

Artists are begining to use iTMS to distribute--personally--their work. How the Media concerns must hate Apple. A hate born of greed and control.

Is Amazon a bit to undercut iTMS. I'm not really sure this is the case, but I'm pretty sure Apple will remain competitive. So--Go Apple!

 

[w00master]

I _tried_ to buy a track from Amazon and it was the worst experience. Not only finding the track that I wanted was a pain in the ass (compared to iTunes). I had to download an application, that doesn't work with Firefox. (I didn't fiddle around with it much) So, fired up Safari and went through the whole process again.

Well, the CC they had on file was wrong. Rather then just re-checkout, I had to go through the entire process again.

Needless to say, I went back to iTunes and purchased the tracked I wanted in a fraction of the time.

Sorry, but I have a *really* hard time believing this, all you have to do is do this thing called "search." Have you heard of it? Works just like iTunes does.

From my experience (other than loading up a browser), there is *very* little difference between searching/navigating/etc. for music on iTunes vs. Amazon.

 

[Porco]

As eastcoastsurfer concisely states "if you want to defend someone's right to sell their IP any way they want to then you need to support it across the board"

Apple has made billions exploiting the same approach you disdain: you can only get OS X on an apple computer, you can only get an iphone on AT&T...

I defend the music companies right to sell their music how they want, I just think it sucks, just like the iPhone being locked to one network per country sucks.

I think the OS X situation is very different though, as I think the product would suffer a lot for all users if it was licensed to be sold on various manufacturers PC hardware. So that doesn't suck, because it's of benefit to users. If OS X was rubbish, no-one would want to run it on anything any more. The iPhone would be the same, music would be the same, however and wherever they are sold and/or tied to, that's the difference.

Going off topic a bit I guess, sorry.

 

[bobertoq]

That's good. I used to go to Best Buy (physical store) before I had an iPod. Now I just buy it off iTunes. I like Amazon, though. Just not for music.

 

[rcpmac]

You beat me too it - when the general public thinks of Apple, they think proprietary, incompatible, obscure ... even Apple fans think this way (some like it like that).

However, Apple is a huge champion of standardization, in everything from Safari's web technologies, to iCal, to h.264 video, to AAC audio, right down to the UNIX certification of Leopard.

Amazon went with MP3 (the older generation of technology) because it would be compatible with all the devices on the market. There is nothing stopping them from offering their own "plus" version of music in higher quality, smaller file size AAC files, which would work with iPod/Zune/PSP, and a bunch of other hardware (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding#Other_Portable_Players )

Oh, and on a technical note, most audio/video formats are proprietary (in that patents are held and exercised over them) including AAC, MP3, MPEG2, MP4, etc. That doesn't keep them from being standardized formats.

What's the big deal here. If you have aac and need mp3 for your car just rip it to mp3. BFD

 

[clevin]

Not only finding the track that I wanted was a pain in the ass (compared to iTunes). I had to download an application, that doesn't work with Firefox. (I didn't fiddle around with it much) So, fired up Safari and went through the whole process again.

1. there is a big search field on top of the page, anybody using amazon knows what Im talking about

2. are you saying firefox doesn't download the app?

3. You don't actually need that app, there is a "skip download app" button/link right there.

 

[kryszrich]

I gotta say, though, with millions of iPhones out there, it's hard to imagine Apple's share decreasing. Most likely Amazon's taking share from the other small fry. Just like Microsoft did when the Zune came out.

I gotta say, buying/downloading music online is so easy these days, that people do it anywhere with ease...whether it be Amazon or Apple. So what I'm getting at, owning an iPhone doesn't mean that person will buy through Itunes. Integration means nothing in this case. Plus...Amazon was always just as 'hip' to shop at as Apple was/is...It's very established. People...all kinds of people, across all markets and demographics... have been buying CDs and books there for years.

 

[adbe]

What's the big deal here. If you have aac and need mp3 for your car just rip it to mp3. BFD

Only if you really don't care about quality.

 

[dasikes]

I love iTunes I'm glad they're on top, and I hope they stay there.

Today's purchase: Norma Jean: The Anti Mother (I wouldn't recommend it to anyone but NJ dedicated folk.)

BUT I love iTunes. A huge reason I got the iPod Touch in the first place

 

[irun5k]

This bugs the hell out of me also. It's really holding back progression. Until they begin to play fair, I have no intentions of playing fair.

I will say this, I wouldn't feel the slightest bit guilty about using some third party "hacker" too to strip DRM from the stuff I've bought from iTMS, especially when the exact same song can be bought DRM free from Amazon for the same (or cheaper) price!

Really, this would be like buying an iPod from store A or store B, and having the iPod from store A be artificially crippled from the manufacturer in some way. In the case of music, I guess we treat the record label as the manufacturer? The artists are the inventors and Apple/Amazon are just the retail fronts.

 

[seashellz]

well, I suppose this sig I ran across is apt here:
--------------
The good news is that the worst is now behind us
the bad news is that its gaining

 

[seedster2]

I defend the music companies right to sell their music how they want, I just think it sucks, just like the iPhone being locked to one network per country sucks.

I think the OS X situation is very different though, as I think the product would suffer a lot for all users if it was licensed to be sold on various manufacturers PC hardware. So that doesn't suck, because it's of benefit to users. If OS X was rubbish, no-one would want to run it on anything any more. The iPhone would be the same, music would be the same, however and wherever they are sold and/or tied to, that's the difference.

Going off topic a bit I guess, sorry.

I don't see it being that much of an encumbrance as Amazon integrates seemlessly with iTunes. Labels aren't saying you can't get the music at all, just through a different source. Users can still put the music on their ipod without issue.

 

[MacFly123]

glad to see amazon moving up. their mp3 daily deals are fantastic...and non-DRM is the way to go. competition for apple and itunes is a good thing for the consumer.

Yes competition is good. BUT, the problem is that Apple would love to sell all DRM free as well but the studios won't let them. The studios are purposefully trying to dethrone iTunes and how is Apple supposed to COMPETE with that when they can't make the call??? Stupid studios!

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Every purchase made at Amazon therefore is vote of confidence in the record industry's desire to regain control over the distribution model. They just rely on clueless, or thoughtless idiots going along with it, and they thank you for doing your part.

So buying DRM Free music is clueless and thoughtless and we're idiots, but buying from Apple who won't play fair selling hardware to run OSX isn't??? Geeze. That's some logic you have there.

 

[raythemoneyman]

We Sell On Amazon....

We sell on Amazon as "Amazon Associates" and we are shocked at how the music sales have shifted so quickly from CD's to downloads. Amazon's market share has a long way to run up here!

 

[radical]

iTunes expansion

If iTunes Music Store could expand further, e.g. iTunes Baltic and to the areas not yet having access to it, I'm sure the numbers would improve significantly. With the latest iPhone 3G countries (iPhone in Sweden and Estonia) it definitely makes sense.

But surely, DRM is a killer.

 

[iriejedi]

Amazon is NOT gaining

Amazon's catching up fast....

Amazon is not gaining - Best Buy and Wal-Mart are simply falling farther behind!!!!

Ha!

 

[wbeasley]

Maybe iTunes should have a third audio option...

and start selling MP3s 256kbps DRM-free.

But the record companies wouldn't let them, right? But it would make for a more level playing field...

(Or maybe they could buy every DRM-free MP3 and give them away to everyone... oh no, the Torrents have that covered). There must be kids out there who never have and can't believe people actually pay for music... record companies are their own worst enemies. Don't give people what they want, and they'll find a way to get it for free.

 

[zedsdead]

and start selling MP3s 256kbps DRM-free.

But the record companies wouldn't let them, right? But it would make for a more level playing field...

(Or maybe they could buy every DRM-free MP3 and give them away to everyone... oh no, the Torrents have that covered). There must be kids out there who never have and can't believe people actually pay for music... record companies are their own worst enemies. Don't give people what they want, and they'll find a way to get it for free.

Apple has AAC at 256, which is superior to MP3 at 256. There is no reason to go MP3. The problem is that Universal, Sony, and Warner are not signed on to iTunes Plus because they are trying to cripple Apple's hold over the online market.

The only future option I see Apple implementing is Apple Lossless, but that won't be for a few years at the earliest.

 

[adbe]

So buying DRM Free music is clueless and thoughtless and we're idiots, but buying from Apple who won't play fair selling hardware to run OSX isn't??? Geeze. That's some logic you have there.

Way to strip out the entire context of a post to make a pointless response. Do you do any other party tricks, or is this your signature move?

Oh, and since I never mentioned anything about Apple unbundling OSX, quit putting words in my mouth.