Amazon MP3 Vs. iTunes Music Store

Ali writes "As discussed here recently, amazon.com has launched a public beta of Amazon MP3, a digital music store that provides DRM-free downloads of over 2 million songs from 180,000 artists and 20,000 labels. In comparison, Apple says the iTunes Store now contains over 6 million songs. Here is a head-to-head comparison."

I'd rather go Amazon

[bogaboga]

I prefer Amazon because I will not touch DRMed music, tied to a platform even with a 10 foot pole!

Re:Bad info in article.

[log0n]

emusic isn't mainstream. 9 out of 10 non-slashdot'r haven't heard of it.

Re:Bad info in article.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they should let people see what's available without signing up.

Re:Bad info in article.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I wonder if this place has ever heard of eMusic.


Your comment was the first time I'd heart of it (or perhaps I'd read of it in passing before, but this is the first time it registered.)

So, I went to go see what how their selection is. Guess what, can't do anything without signing up for a trial (and giving them name, address and a credit card number.) You really think I'm going to do that when I have no idea what bands they even carry?

Plus the "deal" seems to resemble those old shady Columbia House ads my parents would never let me sign up for. $10 for 30 downloads a month. Not sure what it costs to buy more than 30, and of course if you don't choose 30 songs you're still out the money. Sorry, but that doesn't work for me. Buying music is an impulsive thing. I don't want a steady stream of 30 songs to pick a month. I want to buy things on a whim, some times no songs a month, some times going on a tear and buying dozens or hundreds when I discover a new band or genre.

And of course, if they don't have what I want, I'll have to get it elsewhere-- while still paying them their monthly fee. And I guarantee they won't have everything I want. Fuck that.

Maybe this has something to do with why no one has heard of it? Sounds like a pretty crappy business model to me.

Redundant?

[weirdcrashingnoises]

The fact that it's called "Amazon MP3" and then to tag it "not flac" and "not lossless" seems rather redundant don't you think? Obviously mp3 is not flac, and everyone already knows mp3 is a lossy format.

Re:Bad info in article.

[Anonymous Coward]

Epic fail. For those who can't find it. [emusic.com]

Seeing as how that's probably the most important thing anybody would want to do before signing up, seems pretty silly to hide it in such a non-obvious place.

Re:Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon MP3:
* no DRM
* money eventually goes to fund the RIAA

iTMS:
* DRM
* money eventually goes to fund the RIAA

Until the RIAA stops suing grandmothers and interrogating 8-years-old children, neither looks like a good option.

profit margin

[goombah99]

They're so close to getting it right though; why not, when you order the CD from Amazon, allow you to download the MP3 while you're waiting for the 'couple of days' shipping?

Wow. That's a killer idea. I hope they steal it.

The problem with that, and maybe with the whole amazon gig is the profit margin issue. My impression, perhaps I'm wrong, was that apple was pocketing less than a dime a song for itunes music store. I suppose that varies a lot with the rate songs are sold since there are many fixed costs. If that dime a song margin is accurate then amazon must be running on fumes since they are underselling Apple. Presumably this is not too server lite either since I'm guessing the songs are watermarked with your ID and then MP3 compressed. So assuming amazon is not getting a better deal than apple it's hard to see how these low rates will last. Recall the record companies wanted apple to 1) share Ipod revenues with them and 2) raise prices on new releases. Given that I'd say either the record comapnies have decided to sell music for less (ha ha ha) or these are teaser rates. Does anyone think Amazon is giving them a cut of music player sales.... So it makes not sense for the record companies to move away from apple to accept even less (unless they were incredibly freakin' scared). So getting back to the CD shipping. That would mean even less profit perhaps or perhaps they could charge $1 for the instant album download option.

The way the question is framed misses the point

[Whuffo]

Amazon MP3 vs. iTunes? If you're one of the - well, one of the ones who filled up your 10,000 song capacity Ipod (or even a small fraction of that) from either of these sources then this may be an important topic for you.

But if you're like the vast majority of Ipod owners, you'll continue ripping CDs and loading MP3s from your "library" as you've been doing all along. On the occasions when you need to own one particular tune right now, it doesn't matter if it's 69 cents or 1.29; what matters is that it's in the catalog of the store you're shopping at. That's never easy to tell with Amazon; they've got a bad habit of putting EVERYTHING in their catalog and taking orders for it - regardless of whether they've actually got the item to sell or can even obtain it.

Personally, I gave up on Amazon after they left me on "backorder" status on a book order for a couple of months before I found out from other sources that the book was out of print. I finally got the book from Ebay for half of what Amazon wanted to sell it for - if they'd had any to sell.

Apple? Say what you will about them, but I've never been left feeling misused after dealing with them. What you get is what it says on the box; no "smoke and mirrors" like Amazon. But neither of them is getting any money from me this month (or next month either). I'll continue to buy CDs at deep discount and load those into Itunes.

Increases leverage of record companies, not Apple

[calstraycat]

There is one area where the author misses the underlying strategic implications of the recording industry's willingness to sell DRM-free songs through amazon.

" No DRM. No consumer likes DRM, and although Apple hasn't yet released any statistics on how the DRM-free tracks from EMI have sold in comparison with the DRM-encumbered versions of the same tracks, Amazon has done the right thing by eliminating it across the board. Hopefully Amazon's move will give Apple some leverage with the music labels to make more DRM-free tracks available."

He's got it backwards. This deal gives the record companies a strategic advantage in its pricing battle with Apple. Allowing Amazon to sell DRM-free songs but variably-priced would be best interpreted as the record companies giving Steve Jobs the finger. Only one of the major record companies has allowed Apple to sell DRM-free songs and then only at a premium price.

Of the battling parties, it is the record companies who have gained leverage with this move, not Apple. The message to Apple is clear: allow variable pricing and we'll let you sell DRM-free tracks. Keep insisting on fixed pricing and we'll only let you sell DRMed tracks.

Re:How about adding Spiralfrog & imeem

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to break the DMCA law and go against the wishes of the music companies why bother going to all that trouble of getting music through spiralfrog? You may as well just pirate it.

!lossless = !buying

[Dhraakellian]

Let me guess: You buy overpriced $100 gold tipped cables, don't you?

Don't get me wrong. My ears probably don't care, really, and I'd be transcoding to Ogg Vorbis as soon as I got it.

But I still don't want to be locked into a single lossy format forever, even if I was buying it in today's best codec.

This is one reason I plan to start buying and burning off FLACs from Magnatune [magnatune.com] in the near future. Their full-length mp3 samples are fine for previewing/freeloading, but if I'm going to actually pay money for the music, I'd like the freedom to change to tomorrow's super-high-compression/quality format when it comes out. (Plus, supporting indie artists on labels with cool business models is nifty too...)

Re:I choose Amazon (Prime)

[Guppy06]

"fewer restrictions"

After seeing how many music disks are sold without the CD-DA logo, strongly suggesting that there is non-audio, likely executable code on the disk to interfere with ripping, I have my doubts about this. I find myself wondering if, at this point, buying a DRM-free MP3 from Amazon actually leaves the consumer more liberated than buying a music disk.

Re:Redundant?

[Guppy06]

The point is they're trying to tag it "my piracy is still justified."

Drive customers away from Apple...

[shmlco]

No, the labels aren't scared, they're pissed off that Apple has the ability (and the gall) to stand up to them and tell them what to do.

As such, I think you're missing an essential part of the strategy: The labels put MP3s on Amazon in an attempt to drive customers away from Apple, with the result that if enough people switch then Apple no longer has the clout to stand up to them. After that the next time the contracts are negotiated they raise the rates everywhere and require everyone to use whatever brand of DRM they see fit.

Goodbye DRM-free iTunes. Goodbye DRM-free MP3s.

As much as I like Amazon, I like Apple's stance on the subject more. I'm sticking with iTunes.

DRM free? Not quite...

[r_jensen11]

Notice that you still have to use their special program to download full albums. That leaves out the (semi) vocal Linux and BSD crowds out in the cold.

Re:They say DRM is bad...

[warrigal]

Apple's DRM works only on iPods. MS' DRM works only on "Plays for Sure" licencees' players (not Zune or iPod). Removing Apple's DRM is trivial (even if it is unsatisfactory for the purists) and totally legal. Removing MS' DRM is neither. Apple is more than happy to sell non-DRM tracks because they don't market their DRM. MS, however, have a vested interest in marketing DRM. Except, of course, the proprietary DRM they use for the Zune.

EMusic has lots of promise, but fails currently

[spagetti_code]

Sadly emusic is a long way from an ideal mp3 service. I'm a member, and here is my feedback:

• There is a limit choice. Dont expect to find hot new albums there. So far all my searches for artists I listen to regularly has been fruitless. On the plus side, I have downloaded artists I wouldn't have looked at before.
  
• Music is 128kbps bitrate. They're basically delivering the absolute minimum quality that I, and many others, consider usable (yes, I know that's going to be very subjective - but all my music encoded from my CDs is at 256 or 320 - space isn't an issue so why not encode as high as possible).
  
• I'm on the 30 songs per month for $10. Which sounds good at 33c each. However, I like to buy albums, which is extremely awkward as you have to carefully spread them across months and keep track of what you have got so far.
  
• If you dont download 30 per month (or accidently skip a month when you are on the road, as I did) then the 33c per song jumps quickly.
  
• The option to listen to a snippet of a song is lame. Deliver the whole song, or a good part of it. Not just 20 or so seconds. Sometimes I have listened to a snippet and not even got to the words.
  

There are some pluses - such as there being a downloader for linux (java based), the website being clean and simple to use, and the id3 tags being clean (artist, album, year, genre, BUT no cover).

Personally I think they should make a minor change to their business model. I pay $10 for 30 songs per month. Instead of limiting me to 30 songs, if I go over 30, immediately start another "month" (another 30 songs, another $10). That is, I can download as much as I like, and its about 33c each for each block of 30. With a min of $10 per month. If I commit to one of their higher plans, I can buy songs at a cheaper rate.

That would dramatically increase revenue as I am sure a lot of people like to buy albums, but keep hitting the 30 songs per month limit. They'd cycle "months" much more quickly. However it could reduce profit as people are less likely to fail to download their limit (Think: their best result is when I download nothing in a month).

Anyway, just my $0.02c worth.

Re:Drive customers away from Apple...

[Wdomburg]

Yeah, don't buy from the outlet that sells exclusively DRM-free tracks encoded at a reasonable bit-rate with no embedded user information. Much better to buy from the one who offers a smaller selection of DRM-free tracks, charges a premium for them and embeds data about you in every track. They're the ones who are really standing up to the labels. And continuing to buy DRM laden tracks will send a clear message to the labels that consumers want DRM-free music.

Re:Bad info in article.

[PMBjornerud]

It is actually possible to brose their selection without giving them your credit card number:
http://www.emusic.com/browse/all.html [emusic.com]

So even slashdotters are uanble to use their site successfully... It took me way too long to figure out that URL. Tried a few approaches, but every single one of them seemes to slam a huge ad and trying to make me write my credit card number to get something "for free".

Frankly, what the hell is their design goal? "Impersonate a scam site"? If I had dropped in there by chance, every single red flag I have would trigger: "SCAM! SCAM! Don't fall for this! Get out! Close the browser, scan for spyware. Phew. I'm safe again."

This is exactly the kind of site I warn my family about and tell them they should never, ever hand even their email to. Kinda sucks when you're a legit site... I'm sure they could have a huge boost in subscribers by changing their fron page to something just a little bit less scammy-looking.

Agree with parent on all points. I have been considering to purchase music from them several times, but everytime I visit their site, I just end up thinking "why bother? this site sucks" and postphone it another 3 months.

Re:Drive customers away from Apple...

[RalphBNumbers]

Yeah, don't buy from the outlet that sells exclusively DRM-free tracks encoded at a reasonable bit-rate with no embedded user information. Much better to buy from the one who offers a smaller selection of DRM-free tracks, charges a premium for them and embeds data about you in every track. They're the ones who are really standing up to the labels. And continuing to buy DRM laden tracks will send a clear message to the labels that consumers want DRM-free music.

The grandparent never said to "buy DRM laden tracks", Mr. McStrawman. And you have only Amazon's word that the watermarks Amazon admit are in many of their tracks don't contain personally identifying information; whereas with Apple's watermark-free music you can trivially read or remove any information in the tags.

I think grandparent is wrong about the labels being able to take back the DRM-freeness (DRM will remain dead for the same reason it is dying now: the iPod), but I do expect them to raise prices, as the grandparent suggests. By allowing variable pricing, Amazon has made themselves much more vulnerable to gradually increasing prices (both by the labels and by themselves), when compared to Apple's fixed pricing.

People taking the Amazon MP3 store as some sort of victory against Apple have things almost entirely backwards.
Apple has just won the online music wars far more permanently than they could by simply owning ~80% of the market; the Amazon MP3 store is the Big labels' terms of surrender (well, 2 of them, Sony and Warner are still holding out). Those terms say the labels will let people sell cheap, convenient, DRM-free music that isn't locked down to only Microsoft-approved systems, and Apple will continue to make ludicrous amounts of money selling such systems.

The only real downsides for Apple here are:
1) This comes at a time when Apple is in the middle of trying to grab two new markets with the iPhone/iPod (video and mobile telephony), and you can tell from their product lineup's limitations that they're already having a lot of trouble getting the kind of decent terms that allowed the iPod&iTunes combo to work so well for music. Anything that the movie/TV/mobile-network companies can interpret as a sign of Apple's weakness (real of imagined) is going to somewhat undermine Apple's ability to do for other industries what they did for music.
And
2) Universal has basically said that, at least for the next several months, they will sell DRM-free music to anyone but Apple. Basically they've decided that a free market where consumers can pick the store they like is too dangerous, so they're going to use their monopoly on certain music to artificially undermine their most popular distributor rather than just selling DRM-free music to anyone who will pay and letting the market decide. This is probably a temporary situation imho, as Universal can't throw away income from their largest online distributor forever, and it really doesn't do Apple much harm since they make their real money on iPods anyway and Amazon MP3 works just fine there, but this kind of discriminatory sales policy sets an ugly precedent.

Re:I'd rather go Amazon

[STrinity]

You know you can buy songs without DRM from iTunes? Thirty cent price jump for 256 kpbs MP4 (theoretically superior quality to 256 kbps MP3) with no DRM for individual tracks. No price jump if you buy the whole album.

 
You can buy some songs without DRM from iTunes -- iTunes Plus has a worse selection than the CD section at Target.
 
Meanwhile, for $.10 less that iTunes' normal price ($.40 less than iTunes Plus) you can get 256kbps MP3 tracks from Amazon, or a whole album for a dollar less than iTunes price. The theoretical-but-imperceptible-at-that-bit-rate inferiority of MP3s isn't enough to justify iTunes' higher cost.