[starman]

...on Amazon

paidContent.org - The Economics of Content - Warner Signs On With Amazon’s DRM-Free MP3 Download Store

[mdc]

Why Amazon? The long answer from WMG exec Michael Nash in the release really boils down to “it’s not Apple”—although not in those explicit words.

It sucks that some companies are not getting along with Apple when it comes to the iTunes Store.
At least Amazon works on a Mac though.

[The Godfather]

^ Same crummy deal, but at least it deflates the quasi-monopoly of iTMS. It'll be easier for content producers to get better deals in the future by diversifying distributors now.

I'd do the same if I owned Warner...

[SpaceMonkey]

In general, if the files are iTunes/iPod compatible, then I don't really care whether or not they can be bought on the iTunes Music Store, just as I wouldn't care if I had to choose between purchasing a CD at Wal-Mart, Borders, or Amazon.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

^ Same crummy deal, but at least it deflates the quasi-monopoly of iTMS. It'll be easier for content producers to get better deals in the future by diversifying distributors now.

I don't want them to get better deals. Better for them means much worse for us. That's their problem with Apple — they want to screw us and Apple feels that would be bad for business.

[peeb]

Diversity in the market is a good thing. It will push Apple to abandon DRM, leaving the MafIAA nowhere to peddle their soiled goods.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Diversity in the market is a good thing. It will push Apple to abandon DRM, leaving the MafIAA nowhere to peddle their soiled goods.

Apple doesn't need a push to abandon DRM — it just needs the RIAA to agree to DRM-free music, which of course the RIAApists won't. Apple has always been against DRM on music (pro-DRM on movies, but that's a different story), but instead of going along with Apple and putting their songs on iTunes Plus, the labels went and created the Amazon music service. Yes, it will weaken Apple's hold on the music market, but unfortunately Apple is the most customer-friendly player in that market, so I don't want a new king.

[peeb]

Apple has DRM on most of its music, Amazon does not - how is Apple more consumer friendly?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Apple has DRM on most of its music, Amazon does not - how is Apple more consumer friendly?

Uh, because it's not Apple's choice? Apple has DRM on most of its music because the RIAA decided to create this Amazon service rather than let Apple sell DRM-free music. As far as I can tell, Apple has consistently argued for DRM-free music and affordable music, while Amazon has not. Amazon doesn't give a ****. The only point of this Amazon service is to take down Apple, because Apple holds the customer's interest in higher regard than the RIAA's.

[peeb]

And on what basis are you propounding this conspiracy theory?
Apple loved DRM because it locked out competitors.

[mduell]

The Amazon music store isn't backed by the RIAA any more than iTMS or Urge or WMT's music store was.

DRM offered Apple an advantage in the beginning, so they refused to allow the indie labels to go DRM-free in their store. Now all that DRM is coming back to bite the Apple, because they can't get out of their DRM contracts.

Amazon: 3/4 major labels DRM-free, higher bitrates (256), wider compatibility (MP3), and lower prices ($0.89)
iTMS: 1/4 major labels DRM-free, below-standard bitrates (128), limited compatibility (AAC), and higher prices ($0.99-17.99)

The iTMS interface/integration is nice, but it's not *that* nice. Amazon has a web interface you can access from anywhere and automatically adds the music to the iTunes library.

[pooka]

Yeah, bought my first album from amazon over the weekend. Actually fired up iTunes and noticed it wasn't available sans DRM. Checked on Amazon and it was available. I'm not naive, I realize this is a calculated move by the labels to weaken Apple's hold on digital music distribution. If things start regressing, just take Trent's advice. Steal, steal, steal away.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Apple has DRM on most of its music, Amazon does not - how is Apple more consumer friendly?

APPLE CAN'T SELL THEIR MUSIC WITHOUT DRM BECAUSE THE LABELS WON'T LET THEM!!!

How many times do we have say this? Apple would LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE to sell the music without DRM, but THE LABELS WON'T LET THEM!

IT'S NOT APPLES FAULT!

Apple tries to "be more consumer friendly" by trying to make sure that music sells for 99 cents a song no matter what. If the labels had their way, they'd make new releases $1.50 a song, then after a while, they'd try $2.50 a song, then after a while they'd try $4.99 a song, and then declare online sales a bust because nobody's buying.

Just wait and see what happens when the songs on Amazon's MP3 store start selling for more than 89 or 99 cents. Mark my words. IT WILL HAPPEN.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

Just wait and see what happens when the songs on Amazon's MP3 store start selling for more than 89 or 99 cents. Mark my words. IT WILL HAPPEN.

Why is this so much more likely on Amazon than on iTunes? Especially considering how Amazon likes to brag about lower prices by listing some crossed-out, mythical retail price next to their own. I can't imagine them drastically altering their consistent low-balling formula in their music store.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Why is this so much more likely on Amazon than on iTunes?

Well, I can't say for certain, but once there's more competition out there, the labels will have more leverage. "Well, we'll just pull our songs from your store and sell them someplace where they'll be happy to sell them for more money."

Within a few years, songs being sold will be more expensive.

[Arty50]

You're crazy if you're arguing that Apple wants DRM. Everything they have ever done says they don't. Evidence includes Jobs letter to the labels to drop DRM, the fact that iTMS was the first to offer DRMless tracks (courtesy of EMI), etc.

The only reason they have DRM in place was at the insistence of the labels. And it was because of this DRM that iPods and iTMS became so popular. Note that Apple wasn't the only digital retailer who refused to license it's DRM scheme. Everyone else did exactly the same thing. So the labels really have no reason to cry, since their insitence on DRM created the "Apple Monster."

I'd also like to point out that the unprotected AAC files Apple sells are vastly superior to the MP3s on Amazon. The only reason Apple is getting shafted right now is because the labels realized they messed up and want to punish Apple for it. The level of stupidity at the major labels never ceases to amaze me.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

And on what basis are you propounding this conspiracy theory?

Uh…all of history? The RIAA's own words in file-sharing trials where they say that they want draconian DRM that will require people to buy a song for every device they play it on? The fact that the RIAA is unwilling to share its DRM-free music with Apple? The fact that Amazon has never been a vocal opponent of DRM?

Seriously, why else would things be this way? I can't find any other plausible explanation.

Originally Posted by peeb 

Apple loved DRM because it locked out competitors.

Jobs has said in several interviews that he believes DRM on digital music is a mistake because neither of the format's main competitors has DRM. CDs can be freely traded and remixed, and pirated music is even easier. That's why iTunes had such an amazingly liberal DRM scheme, while all of the non-Apple digital music stores were stuffed up the wazoo. Locking out competitors was never really on Apple's radar as far as I can tell. Apple always allowed people to burn their songs to CD.

[peeb]

Of course it is Apples fault - they embraced drm because it locked out non-ipods. A greater number of digital music outlets means less ability for any one to 'go bad'.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Locking out competitors was never really on Apple's radar as far as I can tell. Apple always allowed people to burn their songs to CD.

OSX and iTunes have the same business model - DRM that allows the software / music to only play / run on apple hardware.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

Well, I can't say for certain, but once there's more competition out there, the labels will have more leverage. "Well, we'll just pull our songs from your store and sell them someplace where they'll be happy to sell them for more money."

Within a few years, songs being sold will be more expensive.

This has never happened with any product.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Of course it is Apples fault - they embraced drm because it locked out non-ipods.

No, it did not. The non-iPod music player market at the time was made up CD players. Apple's main competition at the time was CDs and pirated MP3s. Apple made the iPod compatible with both of these things.

Originally Posted by peeb 

A greater number of digital music outlets means less ability for any one to 'go bad'.

Yes, it reduces the vendor's power without reducing the RIAA's power. Guess who wins then.

Originally Posted by peeb 

This has never happened with any product.

Uh, that's exactly what they're doing to Apple. Remember how you were just noticing that their songs are mysteriously absent from iTunes Plus?

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Of course it is Apples fault - they embraced drm because it locked out non-ipods. A greater number of digital music outlets means less ability for any one to 'go bad'.

Sounds like you work for the RIAA.

Bottom line, Apple would love to sell DRM free music, but the labels won't let them.

Let's see the future:

5 stores, all selling DRM free tracks at $0.99 a song.

The labels decide they want to sell popular tracks at $1.25 a song. They go to store 1, who says, "No. It'll kill sales, and drive up piracy."

They go to store 2, who says, "No. It'll kill sales, and drive up piracy."

They go to store 3, who says, "Sure, we'll do it." Then they pull the music from stores 1 and 2 and go to stores 4 and 5 and threaten them with the same fate if they don't raise their prices.

Sales go down and piracy of tracks runs rampant again. The labels use that as an excuse to bring back DRM. They go through the same thing all over again. Stores that refuse to sell without DRM get shut down.

This has NOTHING to do with "protecting the iPod." Apple would have GLADLY launched their store without DRM if the labels had let them. Why can't you get past this fact?

[peeb]

No, there were other brands of mp3 player. Remember iRiver, Creative? Apple did not invent the hard drive music player.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

This has NOTHING to do with "protecting the iPod." Apple would have GLADLY launched their store without DRM if the labels had let them. Why can't you get past this fact?

Because it's not true? Apple used DRM to kill other mp3 players by being first to market with a usable digital download site.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

No, there were other brands of mp3 player. Remember iRiver, Creative? Apple did not invent the hard drive music player.

No, nobody was buying them. They were not competition. Apple didn't need to lock them out any more than Snapple needs to lock out a kid with a lemonade stand.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Because it's not true? Apple used DRM to kill other mp3 players by being first to market with a usable digital download site.

Yes, Apple used DRM, BUT THEY ONLY DID IT BECAUSE THE LABELS WOULDN'T ALLOW THEM TO SELL SONGS WITHOUT IT!

That's the ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY reason Apple put DRM there.

[peeb]

Chuckit - You simply don't know that. I guess we will never know whether Creative or iRiver could have carved a niche for their product if you had been able to use iTunes music on them. It's telling that in order to launch the Zune Microsoft also had to launch their own music service. Everyone else being locked out of the biggest online music site is a huge advantage for Apple, in much the same way as the Windows install base is for MS.

Person Man, can you really not see how locking everyone else out of the iTunes store is a massive competitive advantage for Apple? Do you really think that they want Zune owners to be able to download from iTunes any more than they want PC owners to be able to install OSX?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Chuckit - You simply don't know that. I guess we will never know whether Creative or iRiver could have carved a niche for their product if you had been able to use iTunes music on them.

We have a pretty good idea. The iPod was kicking their ass around the block for years before the iTMS was introduced. I see no reason to believe it would be different just because you could play iTMS music on them, especially considering it would still be more convenient on the iPod with its iTunes integration.

Here's what Jobs had to say on DRM around the same time they launched the iTMS:

When we first went to talk to these record companies—you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you’re talking about’s gonna work. We have Ph.D.’s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don’t believe it’s possible to protect digital content. [There’s] this amazingly efficient distribution system for stolen property called the Internet—and no one’s gonna shut down the Internet. And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock—open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it—puts it on the Internet. You’ll never stop that.

Even earlier:

If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own.

Do you really think DRM was Apple's idea with that guy in charge?

[peeb]

Yes. Look at OSX - if Apple hated DRM, they would not use it. DRM music benefits Apple, no matter what they say, it is their actions that count. I am baffled that you don't think that locking competition out of iTunes is an advantage to Apple.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Yes. Look at OSX - if Apple hated DRM, they would not use it.

Are you actually reading my posts? I said Apple is specifically against DRM on music for the reasons both Jobs and I have listed. (Also, Apple has not gone to any of the consumer-unfriendly measures Microsoft has to copy-protect OS X. You can pirate it to your heart's content.)

Originally Posted by peeb 

DRM music benefits Apple, no matter what they say, it is their actions that count.

OK, seriously, what the hell? Has it not been pointed out enough times in this thread that there really wasn't any other option?

Originally Posted by peeb 

I am baffled that you don't think that locking competition out of iTunes is an advantage to Apple.

Like I said, it's an advantage if you think MP3 players are Apple's competition, but non-iPod MP3 players were a flop market when iTMS was introduced and they continue to be so to this day. There's some marginal advantage in not having to worry about that, I guess, but rival MP3 players are such a small concern that the tradeoffs do not seem worth it to me (and from his quotes, it appears Jobs agrees with me).

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Are you actually reading my posts? I said Apple is specifically against DRM on music for the reasons both Jobs and I have listed. (Also, Apple has not gone to any of the consumer-unfriendly measures Microsoft has to copy-protect OS X. You can pirate it to your heart's content.)

The DRM is specifically about locking into Apple hardware. The same approach they take with music.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

OK, what the ****? Has it not been pointed out enough times in this thread that there really wasn't any other option?

People have expressed that opinion, but not offered any evidence for it.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Like I said, it's an advantage if you think MP3 players are Apple's competition, but non-iPod MP3 players were a flop market when iTMS was introduced and they continue to be so to this day. There's some marginal advantage in not having to worry about that, I guess, but rival MP3 players are such a small concern that the tradeoffs do not seem worth it to me (and from his quotes, it appears Jobs agrees with me).

I think you are severely underestimating the benefits of it. Are you really serious that you don't think the iPod competes with Creative and the Zune? iPod market share falls – to 87% - News and Analysis by PC Magazine

[TETENAL]

Apple - Thoughts on Music

"Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat."

Steve Jobs

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

People have expressed that opinion, but not offered any evidence for it.

I did. The quote from Jobs was a evidence — it was a firsthand account, both of what happened and his views on the subject. He said that they tried to convince the labels not to include DRM, but the labels were scared to death of the idea. You haven't produced any evidence to the contrary. This certainly seems consistent with the RIAA I know.

Look, I'm really trying to figure out where you're coming from here. Do you think the RIAA wanted to release DRM-free music, but Apple went in twirling its mustache and was like, "NO, WE DEMAND DRM"? Do you think Jobs publicly trashed DRM on music — repeatedly and consistently — despite actually liking it? It seems like you're going into this with the assumption "Apple is evil and any evidence to the contrary is deceptive" and coming out with the conclusion that Apple is evil and any evidence to the contrary is deceptive.

Originally Posted by peeb 

I think you are severely underestimating the benefits of it. Are you really serious that you don't think the iPod competes with Creative and the Zune?

Uh…you just acknowledged a couple of posts back that nobody else has managed to carve a niche. I don't think those players have managed to dent Apple in the past half an hour. More importantly, nobody else even had a player whose name you'd recognize when Apple was making the iTMS. Steve's points about the disadvantages of DRM were valid, and I can easily see that view winning out over the questionable benefits of protecting yourself from nonexistent competitors.

[peeb]

Actually, Apple's market share has fallen since DRM free music began to be available outside iTunes - see the article I posted. As for Steve's comments, talk is cheap. I'm judging him by what he DID. I'm not saying they are evil, I'm saying that, like every corporation, they acted in what they thought was the best interest of their shareholders. They tried to lock out the competition by using DRM that tied iTunes to the iPod, just as they tied OSX to their own hardware.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

As for Steve's comments, talk is cheap. I'm judging him by what he DID.

What Apple did was introduce a DRM scheme that was more liberal than anything else available at the time, and which even made it easily (if not always conveniently) possible to transfer your tunes to rival devices — including the most popular rival device at the time, the Discman. What more could Apple have done that would convince you Jobs hasn't been blowing some very consistent smoke for the past several years? Like I said, you do really think the labels put DRM-free tracks on the table and Apple said no?

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Actually, Apple's market share has fallen since DRM free music began to be available outside iTunes - see the article I posted.

The article you posted is from 2004.

Originally Posted by peeb 

As for Steve's comments, talk is cheap. I'm judging him by what he DID.

Apple DID release DRM-free music when EMI let them. Warner publicly stated they don't let them and Apple doesn't. So everything is perfectly in sync with everyone's public statements.

[peeb]

OK, I'm not going to argue any more - have it your way - Apple hates DRM, but all their products are stuffed with it. Amazon, who has no DRM, higher bitrate and lower prices, is the biggest threat to consumers out there.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

OK, I'm not going to argue any more - have it your way - Apple hates DRM, but all their products are stuffed with it. Amazon, who has no DRM, higher bitrate and lower prices, is the biggest threat to consumers out there.

I don't think Amazon is a threat to consumers. I love Amazon. I have the Amazon credit card. But I don't think Amazon is going to stand up to the RIAA when it says, "Hey, we want to charge $5 for this song, package it with another $2 song that nobody cares about, and we only want people to be able to use it on one Kindle at a time." I think the RIAA is the biggest threat to consumers out there.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't think Amazon is a threat to consumers. I love Amazon. I have the Amazon credit card. But I don't think Amazon is going to stand up to the RIAA when it says, "Hey, we want to charge $5 for this song, package it with another $2 song that nobody cares about, and we only want people to be able to use it on one Kindle at a time." I think the RIAA is the biggest threat to consumers out there.

And then music sales will fall. The market works.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

And then music sales will fall. The market works.

To a point. The RIAA will then come in and say music sales fell because of piracy.

[peeb]

Two words.
Bottled. Water.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

To a point. The RIAA will then come in and say music sales fell because of piracy.

That is immaterial. They still need to sell music, which means releasing a product that people want, at a price people will pay.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by peeb 

They tried to lock out the competition by using DRM that tied iTunes to the iPod

No, they just locked out DRM-based competition. Sites that use MP3s with no DRM (like eMusic) have always worked with the iPod.

[Arty50]

Peeb, you're pretty ignorant on this subject. Please do some research, think, and then get back to us. I'm not calling you stupid, just ignorant. There's a huge difference.

I've used iTunes for a long time. Some might remember a product called SoundJam. Apple hired the developer for SoundJam, he put a different face on the app, and the end result is iTunes. For those who used iTunes from the start, they might remember that you used to be able to share your music library with anyone...even over the internet. So my brother and I could link up over the net and play each others music collections. Then the iPod came along in October 2001. iTunes still had the same fuctionality, but now you could load all of your music on the device.

Then in April of 2003 the iTMS debuted. Shortly after, an update to iTunes disabled the sharing of libraries over the internet. It was no big secret that this was a contractual demand of the record labels.

Apple limits iTunes file sharing | CNET News.com

The labels wanted people to buy music instead of share it over the net. Keep in mind that iPods had been selling like hotcakes before the iTMS debuted, and Apple has never made much money off music sales at the store. They make just enough to pay the bills and provide the service for their customers. The labels keep the vast majority of the revenues.

Apple's all about selling iPods. Remember, the iPod sold insanely well during the 18 months between its debut and the debut of the iTMS. Apple didn't need iTMS to feed the juggernaut. The iTMS is just their way of providing customers with an easy resource for legitimate music and for getting the RIAA off their back. Also, it's no big secret that most people aren't using iTMS to fill their iPods. If you don't think Apple knows this, then I have a bridge to sell you. iTMS is great to get a quick song here or there with little search effort; but Limewire seems to be the most popular choice still:

$40K to fill an iPod? One third of PCs use LimeWire instead (Updated)

Apple has consistently shown that they want to open this thing up so that people can hear their music in new an innovative ways. It wasn't until the labels got involved that Apple was forced to lock things down. And even then, Apple has continued to take the stance that the labels are being too restrictive and should open their damn eyes and let people do what they want with their music.

No one can seriously argue that Apple is the culprit here. The argument that Apple wants DRM because it locks people into iTunes is bunk. Study after study has shown that the vast majority of songs loaded onto peoples iPods comes from cds or P2P; iTMS tracks account for a very small percentage of music on people's players.

Originally Posted by peeb 

This has never happened with any product.

WRONG. When CDs were introduced, one of the major selling points was that music was supposed to get cheaper thanks to the lower costs of manufacturing a cd vs vinyl. This NEVER happened. In fact, music got more expensive. MUCH more expensive. And CDs never went down in price. Everything went up instead. Please note that digital distribution is even cheaper still, yet prices haven't dropped and the labels keep crying to Apple that they want to raise prices on "certain tracks." I thank Apple everyday for not caving into this BS. I can guarantee you that net prices across the iTMS will raise if this happens. Sure there might be a couple of older albums where the labels throw you a bone, but the vast majority of songs will go up in price. Proof? Go into a record store and take a sample of the pricing of old albums released back in the 60s and 70s. Remember, these are the albums/tracks the labels say they want to discount. Sure you'll find some for 9.99 or 10.99, but you'll also find a ton selling for the same price as a cd that was realeased last week. Trust me on this. I worked in a record store for 2 years. I've seen it all. The labels don't throw bones, they eat them. And eventually they will eat themselves.

My old store is gone. The Wherehouse is gone. Tower is gone. Apple barely makes money on iTMS. And the price just keeps going up...definitely not to the benefit of the distribution channel. Smart. Really smart. They just don't get the fact that their greed is consuming them. The sooner the labels disappear, the better.

[besson3c]

Peeb: it is also worth pointing out that DRM costs Apple more... It costs them in licensing Fairplay, in playing the game with customers in plugging holes that are found that allow people to break the DRM, and in supporting customers who deal with the limitations presented by DRM.

Also, Apple's profit margins come from iPods, not from the iTMS. The iTMS is just a catalyst to stimulate iPod sales. While it does make Apple a profit, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the profit made from iPod sales.

[peeb]

Well, if Apple hates DRM so much, it sure puts up with a huge amount of it while others don't.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I read an article in wired about the CEO of Universal, I believe, and it made an interesting point in passing -- That much of the vigorous CD sales we saw in the 90s were fueled by people upgrading their back libraries. Taking that into account, its perfectly reasonable to see why CD sales are flagging. The industry needs to come to terms that the 90s are gone and will never be again.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well, if Apple hates DRM so much, it sure puts up with a huge amount of it while others don't.

What other option is there? Seriously, I still don't know what you think Apple should do — just shut down the iTunes Store because the RIAA won't let Apple sell music without DRM? By no account is it that case that Apple is simply more willing to put up with DRM — it's just that Apple has to put up with it while others don't.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Arty50 

No one can seriously argue that Apple is the culprit here. The argument that Apple wants DRM because it locks people into iTunes is bunk. Study after study has shown that the vast majority of songs loaded onto peoples iPods comes from cds or P2P; iTMS tracks account for a very small percentage of music on people's players.

It's not that the DRM locks people into iTunes... it's that the DRM locks people into the iPod, since it's the only portable player AFAIK that is able to play AAC files that have iTunes' DRM.

This shouldn't be too difficult to figure out.

If the same record labels are allowing their content to be put on Amazon without DRM, then I'm afraid I don't understand how it's impossible for Apple to do the same thing.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

If the same record labels are allowing their content to be put on Amazon without DRM, then I'm afraid I don't understand how it's impossible for Apple to do the same thing.

Because contracts don't work like that? It's similar to how just because Tom Cruise gets paid millions of dollars for turning in a shitty performance these days, that doesn't mean every shitty actor out there is going to get millions of dollars for a job. The record labels don't want to deal with Apple, so they're giving special treatment to the next prettiest girl on the block, Amazon.