Apple iTunes Still #1, but Amazon Gaining

[w00master]

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.

I don't get this. What is it that you don't like about Amazon for Music? Is it the navigation? If so, what is so different about the navigation? There's a search box for searching MP3's on Amazon, just like iTunes. There are categories of genres to browse on Amazon, just like iTunes. There's even a "homepage" for the MP3 store which shows Top Songs and Top Albums, just like iTunes.

Is it the fact that loading up a browser the deal here? Wow, that is so difficult and out of the norm!

 

[smeinzer]

iTunes Plus better hurry up!

I have actually started buying mp3s from Amazon simply because they are just that... unprotected mp3s! If Apple converts all there music to DRM free I will happily buy from them cause they really are the best service.

 

[tivoli2]

Apple can't sell stuff DRM free if the labels wont license it to them. The majority of the big labels are trying screw Apple at of business by licensing DRM free music to Amazon, but not to Apple. 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.

Krikey - I love it when people strike this lovely all-knowing, generalized, insulting tone. Many people (including myself) have posted in this very thread about buying music downloads from Amazon, and you take it upon yourself to flat out call us "clueless, or thoughtless idiots". Don't start whining about taking it out of context, either - the context is quite clear and obvious from your quote above. I think it's clear it's you who is the clueless and thoughtless one to assume you've got the only answer. Best of luck.

 

[adbe]

Krikey - I love it when people strike this lovely all-knowing, generalized, insulting tone. Many people (including myself) have posted in this very thread about buying music downloads from Amazon, and you take it upon yourself to flat out call us "clueless, or thoughtless idiots". Don't start whining about taking it out of context, either - the context is quite clear and obvious from your quote above. I think it's clear it's you who is the clueless and thoughtless one to assume you've got the only answer. Best of luck.

Taking what out of context? What exactly are you talking about?

Anyway, I don't recall ever replying to you.

(Hold on, just checked... No, I didn't. I was replying to Maokh).

So, why are you trying to be an 'us', when the comment you quoted was aimed at Maokh? Anyone who trashes a company, or product, of any kind, online without having first bothered to do even the most elemental fact checking deserves to be trashed in kind for it. Maokh's post was uninformed, and stupid on a number of levels.

As for being clueless and thoughtless, since you seem to want to know whether I think that label fits you, here's the question: assuming you aren't buying from Amazon specifically because a) you don't want AC3 audio, or b) you just plain prefer their shopping experience, are you quite happy to play along with a rather blunt attempt by the RIAA to regain the kind of market control they enjoyed in the 90s? If so, and if you aren't a label exec, then yeah, I think you're an idiot.

 

[tivoli2]

Anyway, I don't recall ever replying to you.

(Hold on, just checked... No, I didn't. I was replying to Maokh).

Yeah... and he was stating his opinion, but not addressing you directly; just as you responded to him, I'm responding to you. (Public forum... funny that.) Should be easy enough to understand.

So, why are you trying to be an 'us', when the comment you quoted was aimed at Maokh?

I was addressing your comment:

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.

and I already covered that in my previous post.

As for being clueless and thoughtless, since you seem to want to know whether I think that label fits you,

it's more like you have an irresistible urge to tell people what label fits them. I certainly haven't asked.

assuming you aren't buying from Amazon specifically because a) you don't want AC3 audio, or b) you just plain prefer their shopping experience, are you quite happy to play along with a rather blunt attempt by the RIAA to regain the kind of market control they enjoyed in the 90s? If so, and if you aren't a label exec, then yeah, I think you're an idiot.

Now you've changed your parameters on what constitutes an Amazon-buying-idiot from your previous statement, it seems. I agree with you; to happily play along with the record labels wouldn't be the most informed thing to do.

 

[Syrus28]

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.

The large majority of Apple's music is not encoded in in 128, not 256. The iTunes Plus, while "DRM free" and encoded at 256 still has a user's full name and account e-mail embedded.

All of Amazon's music is 256kpbs and truly DRM free.

 

[adbe]

Yeah... and he was stating his opinion, but not addressing you directly; just as you responded to him, I'm responding to you. (Public forum... funny that.) Should be easy enough to understand.

He was stating his opinion about a 3rd party. I called *him* out on it. You're free to call *me* out on that, but you didn't. You instead chose to insert yourself into the aggrieved. That's a completely different thing. Had I responded to Maokh with something along the lines of "so you're saying all iTunes customers are just the victims of a sick joke," you'd have a point. I didn't though. I called him out for being ill-informed and ranting anyway.

it's more like you have an irresistible urge to tell people what label fits them.

Again, you chose to be part of that group. I hadn't put you in it simply because I have no idea who you are, and none of your posts had suggested that you belong in it.

Now you've changed your parameters on what constitutes an Amazon-buying-idiot from your previous statement, it seems.

OK, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here that I don't think you offered me:

I didn't change my parameters at all. I used the terms 'clueless' and 'thoughtless', and I chose those two words deliberately. Clueless means uninformed, with the tacit overtone of a lack of desire to be informed. Thoughtless means having knowledge but not caring to think through the ramifications of ones actions. If someone buys at Amazon as part of an informed choice, or simply because they really truly don't care about DRM, that's their call, I have no problem with that. If someone buys at Amazon specifically because they dislike DRM, then well, we've already covered that ground...

For my part, I can wait. If a song isn't available on iTunes in plus format, I'll hang on until the record labels finally stop trying to flog the dead horse. At that point, I'll just as likely buy the song from Amazon, because I have the choice.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

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.

Do you DENY saying this or what? Who says I have to quote your entire message? I didn't change any meaning at all.

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.

I concentrated on your statements that ANYONE (as in you said "EVERY PURCHASE MADE AT AMAZON" which implies EVERYONE who buys music from Amazon's store, not just a single person as you later try to claim) who apparently uses Amazon instead of iTunes is a clueless, thoughtless IDIOT (because in your world, the record companies are dealing with Amazon and not Apple for DRM free to try and bring Apple down a few steps and you seem to think by supporting Apple that will tell the record companies you don't like them and their methods or something). There is no way I could change your meaning there because that is what you said exactly as I quoted it. The rest of your message trying to defend WHY you think such a person is an idiot is what is pointless. People have been buying from iTunes all along. The record companies don't have to interpret that as you don't like their control. You could just as easily assume they might interpret that as you apparently LIKE or even PREFER DRM or at worst don't care if they release music with DRM because you KEEP ON BUYING IT (from iTunes) when there is an alternative DRM Free choice with Amazon and Rhapsody and the like.

I also didn't put words in your mouth as you falsely claim. All I said is that you support a company (Apple) that is doing something similar to another company (in this case Psystar) who wants to sell something that Apple doesn't want them to sell so they can retain CONTROL over the entire market for OSX hardware (just as the music companies want to retain control over music sale prices, not leave them to Apple to charge $1 for everything). You don't address that, but you do call people who don't buy from Apple clueless, thoughtless idiots so you tell me what conclusion I should draw from those statements?

 

[BongoBanger]

A lot of people are missing a point here: The labels no longer have to bend over backwards to accomodate Apple because there's more than one show in town now.

If Apple want to sell DRM free music from the other three of the big four it's going to have to be in their terms, not Apple's. That's just business.

 

[adbe]

A lot of people are missing a point here: The labels no longer have to bend over backwards to accomodate Apple because there's more than one show in town now.

I don't necessarily disagree with that, but surely the reason why there is another game in town is because the record labels effectively created that game. In the world of digital downloads, Apple were the undisputed WalMart of the market. Amazon had no market share to speak of in that market, and their market share overall was comparatively low. Yet, somehow the labels all lined up, and offered Amazon a deal that only a year earlier they'd claimed they couldn't possibly offer Apple. It smacks of collusion, and deliberate market rigging.

If Apple want to sell DRM free music from the other three of the big four it's going to have to be in their terms, not Apple's. That's just business.

WalMart gets to dictate terms. It works both ways.

Frankly I have no problem with iTunes getting knocked off the top spot, but if it does, it needs to be because it just isn't a compelling service, not because the labels would prefer that it didn't exist.

 

[gnasher729]

The large majority of Apple's music is not encoded in in 128, not 256. The iTunes Plus, while "DRM free" and encoded at 256 still has a user's full name and account e-mail embedded.

How exactly would that keep you from playing the music anywhere and in any way you want? And wouldn't that be helpful, in case a burglar is found with a dozen iPods at his home, all the police has to do is check the user names in the music on them and have proof of theft + can return them to their rightful owners?

 

[Jeff Meredith]

Music Industry Logic

The reason we have DRM is to prevent piracy.
Pirates only know about iTunes.
They don't know about Amazon and they don't know what to do with MP3.

My head hurts.

If they sell DRM free tracks on a public forum doesn't that remove the rationale for having any DRM anywhere. Isn't the cat out of the bag.

The only reason to maintain DRM, Apple clearly has stated they want to get rid of it, is to force Apple to sell a deliberately degraded product. Aren't suppliers obligated to sell the products their re-distributors require. Isn't it collusion and a cartel creation (anti-trust) to not do so.

I'd love to see Apple get treble damages.

 

[kaiwai]

Too bad iTunes is the only one selling to overseas customers - I can only buy music from iTunes in New Zealand; the rest of these vendors flat out refuse to sell me it. Typical, just typical.

 

[Syrus28]

How exactly would that keep you from playing the music anywhere and in any way you want? And wouldn't that be helpful, in case a burglar is found with a dozen iPods at his home, all the police has to do is check the user names in the music on them and have proof of theft + can return them to their rightful owners?

It has nothing to do with finding an iPod thief... It means the second it hits a p2p program, they know who you are. Not saying its a big problem, but I would prefer if my music didn't have a watermark containing my personal information. And for people who would prefer the same (with no compromises, and often at a cheaper price), Amazon is perfect.

Too bad iTunes is the only one selling to overseas customers - I can only buy music from iTunes in New Zealand; the rest of these vendors flat out refuse to sell me it. Typical, just typical.

Actually, Amazon has plans to bring the music store international by the end of 2008. I don't think they mentioned what countries, but maybe you'll get lucky.

 

[Syrus28]

The reason we have DRM is to prevent piracy.
Pirates only know about iTunes.
They don't know about Amazon and they don't know what to do with MP3.

My head hurts.

If they sell DRM free tracks on a public forum doesn't that remove the rationale for having any DRM anywhere. Isn't the cat out of the bag.

The only reason to maintain DRM, Apple clearly has stated they want to get rid of it, is to force Apple to sell a deliberately degraded product. Aren't suppliers obligated to sell the products their re-distributors require. Isn't it collusion and a cartel creation (anti-trust) to not do so.

I'd love to see Apple get treble damages.

I'm no lawyer, but how is this different from Vizio or Sony providing a feature filled TV to Best Buy, and a cheaper "made for Wal-mart" TV with no extra features for Wal-Mart? They're catering to different markets, and why would they be obligated to provide equal products between stores?

 

[Loge]

It has nothing to do with finding an iPod thief... It means the second it hits a p2p program, they know who you are. Not saying its a big problem, but I would prefer if my music didn't have a watermark containing my personal information. And for people who would prefer the same (with no compromises, and often at a cheaper price), Amazon is perfect.

iTunes Plus files are not watermarked. The information you refer to is metadata that can be removed if you don't like it (although not by iTunes).

Actually it is some Amazon mp3s that are watermarked, although they do not contain personal data. But clearly they are not averse to hiding information in the files, so who knows where that will lead.

http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/09/some-of-amazons.html

 

[Syrus28]

iTunes Plus files are not watermarked. The information you refer to is metadata that can be removed if you don't like it (although not by iTunes).

It's a choice of words. Either way, your personal data is embedded into the file. Yes, you can remove it, but that's not the point. DRM can be removed also, but we would all rather have it DRM free - Same thing.

it is some Amazon mp3s that are watermarked, although they do not contain personal data. But clearly they are not averse to hiding information in the files, so who knows where that will lead.
http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/09/some-of-amazons.html

The article says:

"Amazon does not apply watermarks. Files are generally provided to us from the labels and some labels use watermarks to identify the retailer who sold the tracks (there is no information on the tracks that identifies the customer)."

Now when the songs start to collect our personal information, lets talk.

 

[Loge]

It's a choice of words. Either way, your personal data is embedded into the file. Yes, you can remove it, but that's not the point. DRM can be removed also, but we would all rather have it DRM free - Same thing.


The article says:

Now when the songs start to collect our personal information, it would be a fair comparison.

It's not the same thing at all. Watermarks are intentionally hidden from the customer, using steganographic techniques.

The personal information in iTunes files is clearly visible in iTunes. Nothing has been found secretly embedded in the files, although many have looked. Changing metadata is not the same as removing DRM - the metadata does not alter the usability of the file.

And the article states that the files contain watermarks, it is not claiming that they were added by Amazon.

 

[Syrus28]

It's not the same thing at all. Watermarks are intentionally hidden from the customer, using steganographic techniques.

The personal information in iTunes files is clearly visible in iTunes. Nothing has been found secretly embedded in the files, although many have looked. Changing metadata is not the same as removing DRM - the metadata does not alter the usability of the file.

I don't think so. As far as I know, the personal information is not viewable in iTunes. In order to see it, it would have to be viewed through Terminal... TUAW I don't think that would quite qualify as "easily viewable".

EDIT:

Ahh, I see it now. However, I still would prefer my personal information excluded from my music. (Which is part of the reason for my preference for Amazon)

And the article states that the files contain watermarks, it is not claiming that they were added by Amazon.

I understand that, but I'm not seeing how that compares to iTunes Plus. Amazon's music contains "Purchased by Amazon" while iTunes plus contains your personal information.

 

[Loge]

I understand that, but I'm not seeing how that compares to iTunes Plus. Amazon's music contains "Purchased by Amazon" while iTunes plus contains your personal information.

The difference is just that iTunes is not hiding information whereas Amazon is. I have no problem with the personal data in the iTunes files, provided I can see it, and know that I could change it if I wanted to.

Rather academic for me anyhow, since buying Amazon mp3s is not an option, since they are over 4 years behind iTunes in launching outside the US.

 

[Syrus28]

The difference is just that iTunes is not hiding information whereas Amazon is. I have no problem with the personal data in the iTunes files, provided I can see it, and know that I could change it if I wanted to.

Except Amazon is not hiding information, its hiding "Purchased At Amazon" which I don't see the point in showing in the first place. Apple's not hiding the information, but its still personal, and you can't change it.

Rather academic for me anyhow, since buying Amazon mp3s is not an option, since they are over 4 years behind iTunes in launching outside the US.

Well, Amazon 's music store is less than a year old. However, they've said they are launching international by the end of this year.

 

[Phillyzero]

I almost never buy music, and I certainly don't buy per download ( I know..I'm one of those people), but doesn't Amazon sell in a V0 (VBR) bitrate with no DRM? whereas unless you pay for the iTunes+ for the same track, you only received 128kbps CBR?

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I'm no lawyer, but how is this different from Vizio or Sony providing a feature filled TV to Best Buy, and a cheaper "made for Wal-mart" TV with no extra features for Wal-Mart? They're catering to different markets, and why would they be obligated to provide equal products between stores?

The difference is "Made for Wal-Mart" products are made by the request of Wal-Mart for their store. In other words, companies don't make crap for Wal-Mart but rather Wal-Mart demands crap for their stores (by crap I mean products that might cut corners and/or are made more cheaply so Wal-Mart can charge less for them and thus maintain their low price image).

Here you have a situation where Apple supposedly WANTS higher quality DRM-Free product from the studios and the studios are denying it to them for their own purposes (i.e. they want the right to set their own prices on iTunes because they believe some content is worth more than other content whereas Steve Jobs wants a one price fits all shoe, although you might not guess that given the deals they are making elsewhere are pretty set price-wise just the same).

I would make an analogy to compare it to something more sinister like the old racist "separate but equal" laws where it was ANYTHING BUT equal. We'll sell this song to you, but you over here get this OTHER "equal" song that is anything but equal (because it's half the bit-rate and has DRM on it). There's laws NOW against such crap for things like race, but not for shopping at a company of your choice? So instead you have to shop at the company of THEIR CHOICE to get the product you actually want.

You find this 'exclusitivity' stuff elsewhere as well, of course. I get sick of going to restaurants and order a Coca-Cola only to be told the restaurant only carries Pepsi products (the reverse is true as well). Very few restaurants carry BOTH because they get a lower price if they side only with one or the other as the manufacturer wants to put the other company out of business. They couldn't care less if the restaurant offers some 3rd party 'nobody' drink there as well; just as long as the big competitor isn't allowed there; that's what's important. That should be made illegal too, IMO because it's directly akin to someone like Microsoft selling Windows cheaper to one company so long as they don't offer something like Linux pre-installed on any of their machines, only Windows to get the OEM price. Otherwise, you're going to pay retail and thus lose your business because you can't compete with the overall price packages if you have to charge $150 more for the same software because they got it for $50 and you had to pay $200 just because you wanted to offer Linux to your customers as a choice with the hardware you're selling.

 

[carolinak12r]

DRM will cause iTunes to lag

My thousands of dollars of iTunes songs are entirely hostage to FairPlay. Amazon MP3s are, on the other hand, not beholden to any rights management server, anywhere. I can play them in the car, off of USB drives, etc., all without reporting back to Amazon. At this point, despite being an early and enthusiastic adopter of iTunes digital music, I buy from iTunes only when Amazon doesn't have it. The fact that Amazon's 256 kbps MP3s are better quality than iTunes 128 kbps AACs is icing on the cake.

 

[SactoGuy18]

In my humble opinion, because the Amazon MP3 download system allows you to automatically put the playlist into iTunes 7.6 and 7.7.x versions, that explains why we see the exploding popularity of this download service.

However, I would like to see Amazon offer their music downloads in 256 kbps variable bit rate AAC and WMA formats as an option. Besides sounding slightly better (because of AAC's and WMA's better-quality compression), since large-scale server storage is so cheap nowadays Amazon could easily offer your choice of MP3, AAC and WMA format downloads at little added cost to Amazon.