Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

macfantn · Feb 3, 2008, 05:02 PM

just bought 3 tracks one .89 one .99 and one 1.28 not sure why it was that much, but they are 256kbps and sound good and they are mp3 format so i can burn an mp3 disc which plays in my car unlike aac from apple. plus drm free rocks, the album artwork is high quality and they load up right in itunes.

RAILhead · Feb 3, 2008, 05:44 PM

Buy some punctuation next time you place an order, too.

Ghoser777 · Feb 3, 2008, 05:44 PM

Never mind - I tried thinking.

Buckaroo · Feb 3, 2008, 06:24 PM

This idiot almost never uses any kind of correct punctuation. He doesn't even try.

I'm not talking about occasional misspellings. I can't spell worth a darn.

His message is lost in his lack of respect for us.

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Buy some punctuation next time you place an order, too.

SpaceMonkey · Feb 3, 2008, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by macfantn

just bought 3 tracks one .89 one .99 and one 1.28 not sure why it was that much, but they are 256kbps and sound good and they are mp3 format so i can burn an mp3 disc which plays in my car unlike aac from apple. plus drm free rocks, the album artwork is high quality and they load up right in itunes.

I don't believe you.

Eriamjh · Feb 3, 2008, 07:52 PM

Tell us what songs and then we'll decide if you made the right decision.

mduell · Feb 3, 2008, 08:35 PM

Yea, Amazon was late to the party but they really nailed the music download store. Four times the number of DRM-free labels, lower prices, higher bitrate, and broader compatibility than iTMS.

vmarks · Feb 3, 2008, 08:56 PM

You can burn mp3 CDs with iTunes. I'm not sure why you suggest that you can't.

Ghoser777 · Feb 3, 2008, 08:57 PM

I made the same comment vmarks (and then deleted them), but that doesn't work with protected aac files, right?

mdc · Feb 3, 2008, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by macfantn

just bought 3 tracks one .89 one .99 and one 1.28 not sure why it was that much. . .

Amazon charges based on the length of the song.

Kenneth · Feb 3, 2008, 08:59 PM

I did try Amazon MP3 download a couple times, it's good and I had no problem with the transaction. However, I rather use the iTunes store, it's easy and no need to go thru the web browser thing.

Chuckit · Feb 3, 2008, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by Ghoser777

I made the same comment vmarks (and then deleted them), but that doesn't work with protected aac files, right?

MP3 CDs, no, but you can still burn CDs.

Originally Posted by mduell

Yea, Amazon was late to the party but they really nailed the music download store. Four times the number of DRM-free labels, lower prices, higher bitrate, and broader compatibility than iTMS.

Lower prices? No — it's more expensive in some cases. Higher bitrate? No, it's the same as iTunes Plus, only in an inferior format. Four times the number of DRM-free labels? Yes, but it's got nothing to do with any particular cleverness on Amazon's part. Jobs was talking up the idea before the iTMS was even out.

mduell · Feb 3, 2008, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Lower prices? No — it's more expensive in some cases. Higher bitrate? No, it's the same as iTunes Plus, only in an inferior format. Four times the number of DRM-free labels? Yes, but it's got nothing to do with any particular cleverness on Amazon's part. Jobs was talking up the idea before the iTMS was even out.

I don't know what music you're into, but the majority of the songs I buy (recent major label music) are $0.89; that's 30% cheaper than iTMS Plus. The bitrate is higher than the closest priced iTMS tracks and on par with iTMS Plus. The codec is slightly inferior from a quality/space perspective (although most listening tests can't really tell the difference), but so much more compatible with a wide range of devices that it makes it worth it to me (especially when it's at 256kbps). We have no idea when Amazon was talking to the labels about DRM free.

Art Vandelay · Feb 3, 2008, 11:11 PM

iTunes Plus is $.99 btw.

The only reason Amazon has all the labels DRM free is because the labels are trying to break iTunes' dominance.

macfantn · Feb 3, 2008, 11:54 PM

I bought Kate Nash Foundations, Vampire Weekend A-Punk and Alkaline Trio Metro.

turtle777 · Feb 4, 2008, 12:00 AM

I'm tired of people "praising" Amazon for this.

It has nothing to do with Amazon.

It's only about the MI / labels, that would like to break iTunes' dominance, so they can go back to ripping off the consumer.

Apple is NOT the bad guy here, they are only working within the restrictions the MI dictated to them in the first place.

-t

CharlesS · Feb 4, 2008, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

iTunes Plus is $.99 btw.

The only reason Amazon has all the labels DRM free is because the labels are trying to break iTunes' dominance.

So you do think that as soon as Amazon gets enough market share, they're just going to go "Whoops! Now DRM-free is gone, even though it was a major selling point of our store and all our tracks are in a format that doesn't support any DRM"?

turtle777 · Feb 4, 2008, 12:06 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

So you do think that as soon as Amazon gets enough market share, they're just going to go "Whoops! Now DRM-free is gone, even though it was a major selling point of our store and all our tracks are in a format that doesn't support any DRM"?

Don't you get it ?

It has nothing, *NOTHING* to do with what Amazon wants to offer.

The MI / labels call the shots. They are pimping Amazon out to steal share from iTunes.

-t

CharlesS · Feb 4, 2008, 12:16 AM

What makes you think Amazon will be any more likely than Apple to do something they consider a bad business decision?

What makes you think Amazon will feel forced to obey the RIAA's every decree any more than Apple does?

macfantn · Feb 4, 2008, 12:17 AM

i am not pro amazon or pro itunes, but i do like mp3 so i can burn a 100 tracks or so to a cd to play in my car. My car stereo only reads mp3s not aacs.

turtle777 · Feb 4, 2008, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

What makes you think Amazon will be any more likely than Apple to do something they consider a bad business decision?

What makes you think Amazon will feel forced to obey the RIAA's every decree any more than Apple does?

Nothing, because I didn't say that.

The only reason why Apple was able to resist the MI was because of their success in the marketplace. Otherwise, we would have constantly changing prices at iTunes.
The $ 0.99 pricing scheme is brilliant. I *ALWAYS* know what price I will get at iTunes.

-t

turtle777 · Feb 4, 2008, 12:22 AM

Originally Posted by macfantn

i am not pro amazon or pro itunes, but i do like mp3 so i can burn a 100 tracks or so to a cd to play in my car. My car stereo only reads mp3s not aacs.

Don't blame Apple, the DRM was dictated by the MI.

If it was up to Apple, they'd offer DRM free AAC. And that would allow you to burn MP3 Data CDs.

-t

Art Vandelay · Feb 4, 2008, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

So you do think that as soon as Amazon gets enough market share, they're just going to go "Whoops! Now DRM-free is gone, even though it was a major selling point of our store and all our tracks are in a format that doesn't support any DRM"?

No, just that they are preventing Apple from having DRM-free music (except for EMI). They are letting Amazon have DRM-free music as a way to end iTunes' negotiating power over them. The goal is to enable Amazon to grow to be a strong enough threat, which DRM-free is a tool to aid this, so that iTunes will now have to compete with someone. The labels have even stated as much.

mduell · Feb 4, 2008, 12:36 AM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

iTunes Plus is $.99 btw.

Good point, I forgot their dropped the price.

Originally Posted by turtle777

I'm tired of people "praising" Amazon for this.

It has nothing to do with Amazon.

It's only about the MI / labels, that would like to break iTunes' dominance, so they can go back to ripping off the consumer.

Apple is NOT the bad guy here, they are only working within the restrictions the MI dictated to them in the first place.

We don't really know what went on between Apple, Amazon, and the RIAA. What we do know is the end result: Amazon has the music I want with the freedoms that I want. Apple negiotiated for what they got, as did Amazon, but they both had different priorities (fixed price vs DRM free).

Originally Posted by CharlesS

So you do think that as soon as Amazon gets enough market share, they're just going to go "Whoops! Now DRM-free is gone, even though it was a major selling point of our store and all our tracks are in a format that doesn't support any DRM"?

What DRM container would/could they go to?

Originally Posted by turtle777

The $ 0.99 pricing scheme is brilliant. I *ALWAYS* know what price I will get at iTunes.

Really? How about those $1.29 tracks we had for a while? Or those $9.99 tracks where you have to buy the whole album with them?

macfantn · 12:46 AM

if the aac file is drm free, how can i burn it to mp3 cd without losing quality? I assume that isn't possible.

turtle777 · Feb 4, 2008, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

Really? How about those $1.29 tracks we had for a while?

Stop living in the past. It's over.

Originally Posted by mduell

Or those $9.99 tracks where you have to buy the whole album with them?

These are hardly the songs people wanna download as single songs.

Imagine Apple doing this for the top 10 singles. Yes, I'd see how people would be upset. But those album-bundle songs are typically B sides.

-t

legacyb4 · Feb 4, 2008, 02:37 AM

Ironic, isn't it? In order to break the lock that iTunes Store has over the music industry, they are embracing the one single thing that they worked years on trying to defeat: DRM-free music....

Chuckit · Feb 4, 2008, 03:09 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

What makes you think Amazon will be any more likely than Apple to do something they consider a bad business decision?

It's not necessarily a bad business decision. The fact that Apple didn't make that decision (to capitulate to every consumer-screwing idea the RIAA comes up with) is the reason the record labels are now trying to take them down.

Originally Posted by CharlesS

What makes you think Amazon will feel forced to obey the RIAA's every decree any more than Apple does?

Because Amazon does not have anything like as strong a vision of this kind of stuff as Jobs and Apple do — and as Amazon knows from being the RIAA's tool against Apple, standing up for reasonable business practices is a good way to get ****-listed.

As I've said before, Amazon just wants to sell stuff. They'll sell pretty much anything you let them. In this case, the RIAA wants to sell high-quality, DRM-free music to try and draw away Apple's customers. It's the digital equivalent of a loss leader. When the RIAA feels its mission has been accomplished and it is no longer bound to Apple, such generosity will no longer be in its interests. Do you really think the RIAA won't try to get a better deal?

CharlesS · 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

It's not necessarily a bad business decision. The fact that Apple didn't make that decision (to capitulate to every consumer-screwing idea the RIAA comes up with) is the reason the record labels are now trying to take them down.

Yeah, but the fact that tracks don't cost $2-$3 is also the reason that anyone actually buys them instead of just using Kazaa or whatever. Apple knows this, which is why they price the way they do, and unless they're a bunch of idiots, Amazon is gonna know this too.

As I've said before, Amazon just wants to sell stuff. They'll sell pretty much anything you let them. In this case, the RIAA wants to sell high-quality, DRM-free music to try and draw away Apple's customers. It's the digital equivalent of a loss leader. When the RIAA feels its mission has been accomplished and it is no longer bound to Apple, such generosity will no longer be in its interests. Do you really think the RIAA won't try to get a better deal?

Sure, they'll try. But that doesn't necessarily imply that Amazon will have to give it to them.

Think about it: what direction does heavy competition usually make prices go? Up or down?

[ - removed quote/reply to deleted post - reader50 ]

Chuckit · Feb 4, 2008, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Yeah, but the fact that tracks don't cost $2-$3 is also the reason that anyone actually buys them instead of just using Kazaa or whatever. Apple knows this, which is why they price the way they do, and unless they're a bunch of idiots, Amazon is gonna know this too.

Yes, but Amazon doesn't have the power to enforce this any more than Apple can make all the labels give them DRM-free tracks.

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Sure, they'll try. But that doesn't necessarily imply that Amazon will have to give it to them.

Think about it: what direction does heavy competition usually make prices go? Up or down?

This isn't the usual case. The "competitors" have no control over their prices, as far as I'm aware — they're contractually mandated. What competition does is make it so no individual player in the market is too powerful. That's exactly what the RIAA wants, because right now it and Apple are roughly equals and Apple can make demands. If the RIAA can set up lots of "competition," then no distributor has that much power.