You apparently know very little about how VBR encoding works. Of course the automatic badmouthing of anything that isn’t Apple takes precedence over reality with some folks.

“Mp3 format is old and outdated. Look at how many new and improved formats have emerged since mp3.”

Yes, and look at how many of them have actually become as ubiquitous as MP3. Then ask yourself the question: how many players support MP3? 99.99999% of them. (That 0.00001% being Sony’s ATRAC-only Digital Walkman, which by now actually DOES support MP3). Why do you think that’s going to change? In twenty or thirty years, MAYBE, but not right now, and certainly not on your say-so.

As I said, the digital landscape is littered with the ruined corpses of various formats which have been devised to challenge MP3. Even if you took the two most popular alternative “superior” formats’ market share combined you’d not begin to approach the popularity and mind share of the MP3. VQF. ATRAC. Even the MP3+ and MP3Pro extensions to the format couldn’t compete!

And you need to learn there’s a lot more to superiority than tech specs. Betamax was in every way superior to VHS, but the inferior VHS won out. So it wasn’t quite so inferior, was it?

What’s the problem with watermarking? As long as the music plays wherever, whenever I want, I don’t care.

That’s DRM free. It’s like the serial number on your computer. They know that you bought that item.

Let me dissect your argument.

“compared to a 256kbps AAC track the MP3 file is larger”

BZZT. A file encoded at 256k will be approximately the same size whether it is AAC, MP3, WMA or Ogg Vorbis. A VBR-encoded file (and Amazon’s files are VBR-encoded) might be larger than a 256k file, but it might just as easily be SMALLER.

“Not to mention that AAC is the successor to MP3″

Nonsense. That’s purely conjecture. The digital audio landscape is littered with the corpses of formats which were the ’successors’ to MP3. AAC is popular, but that’s ONLY because of the iPod. If the iPod fell from favour tomorrow nobody would miss it.

“AAC offers a better compression ratio and preserves more information when compared to an MP3 file at the same bit rate.”

This may be true ON PAPER but in real world experience, a 256k MP3 is indistinguishable from a 256k AAC file.

I have no problem with people supporting AAC. It’s a decent format, and I use it for audiobooks (mostly because it’s the only way to make iTunes see the files as books and not as generic audio tracks) as well as for music.

As far as pricing goes, some individual tracks MAY indeed be more than $1.29 (iTunes+ pricing) BUT the majority are .99 or less. The labels will always have some say in the final price of the music you buy unless you’re buying used CDs.

I bought the Decemberists’ new e.p. for $2.77 on Amazon the day it came out (before it showed up in the iTunes store, btw). It’s encoded in HQ VBR. I can buy it from Apple now for $3.49 in 128k AAC. Now you tell me…which is the better deal?

“Finally the thing that kills it for me is the lack of integration into a player.”

Funny, the Amazon downloader added the tracks right to iTunes when I used it. I’ve heard this complaint before, and I can only assume it’s being made by people who haven’t actually USED the service. Sure, it’s not built into iTunes, but I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing.

“I personally don’t see the huge deal in wanting DRM free music”

Okay, so you don’t mind DRM? You don’t mind somebody else having the ability to prevent you from using your purchased music how you want? With MP3s I can burn as many CDs as I want, give them to friends, put the MP3s on as many computers as I want, I can load them onto every iPod I see, email them to a friend or (not that I would) upload them to a website for people to download. But with the iTunes store, Apple’s calling the shots. Call me crazy, but that just plain sucks. It also locks you into NEEDING an iPod if you want to take your music with you. I’m not so crazy about that, either. If people are forced to buy iPods to keep their music portable, how does that make Apple any different from Microsoft?

I’m not buying any more music from either service, because I honestly prefer CDs, but if I were going to buy more music, it’d be from Amazon.

Oh, and Daniel? Amazon’s store has only been open for a week. The iTunes store has what, three or four years? I’m quite certain the number of tracks available on Amazon will go up quickly.

The real “coup” will be if they manage to score the right to distribute the Beatles catalogue before Apple (AND if they get exclusive rights to it).

Overall, though, the Amazon MP3 store is a welcome addition as it works well, by and large, and, unlike most other such services, supports a wide range of platforms and players. It’ll provide competition, not just for iTunes, but pretty much for everyone else selling music downloads.

Also, while your point about the compression rates is completely valid, there are two sides to the argument: some people say that an AAC is always better than an MP3, but I have also heard people say that a high-quality MP3 can be superior to a low-quality AAC. For example, this article compares the quality of a 128 kbps AAC to a 160 kbps MP3. But you’re right about the fact that in general, the AAC format is superior to MP3.

You mentioned that the tracks are encoded in MP3 format at 256kbps while these are superior in quality to the standard 128kkbps in AAC format compared to a 256kbps AAC track the MP3 file is larger which is a poor case for a superior file. Not to mention that AAC is the successor to MP3 and AAC offers a better compression ratio and preserves more information when compared to an MP3 file at the same bit rate.

Finally the thing that kills it for me is the lack of integration into a player. I don’t want to be hassled with having to move the song from the download folder and open up iTunes to sync it to my iPod. Thats a hassle for me. Pain in my arse.

I’d like to also point out that while competition is good for the industry the only reason they are not selling other labels besides EMI at the iTS is because the cartel wants to spite Apple due to its huge influence in the distribution of content. A few months ago Universal said they would never offer their music without DRM but now thats what they are doing. Eventually Universal and the others will allow Apple to sell their music unprotected but that will take time. I personally don’t see the huge deal in wanting DRM free music unless you are sharing the music with more than 5 computers or wanting to switch from using an iPod to a different music player (I’ve never seen it happen but hey even a snowball might have a chance in H3LL)