Apple Beware: Amazon Music Store

In order to download music from Amazon on your Mac you need FIVE things:
Internet access (duh)
An Amazon account (double-duh)
The Amazon MP3 Downloader application
Mac OS X (10.4 and up)
Be located in the US (DUH)

    +5

I was of the understanding that Apple has been trying to remove the DRM virtually since the inception of the iTunes store, and that it was the record companies keeping it there.

So why do they cut Amazon a special deal and offer DRM free music when they won’t allow iTunes to provide the same thing?

I was also of the understanding that there is, and has been for quite a while, higher bit rate DRM free music available from iTunes. You just need to pay more for it.

    +0

http://macapper.com/2007/09/30/the-amazon-mp3-store-watch-out-apple/

(subscribed to comments)     +0

Been using it since it came out… absolutely love it. Better selection than iTunes, too!

Before I was using eMusic a lot, and iTunes just when eMusic didn’t have anything but… Amazon’s options and prices really seal the deal.

Oh, and you can redownload.. as opposed to Apple which makes you beg if you want to redownload anything.

(subscribed to comments)     -1

@cjc:
There is some DRM-less music, but it is not much of the offerings.

Also, Apple may want this.. but the music industry doesn’t like Apple having them by the short hairs so they gave a deal to Amazon to create some competition on terms they wouldn’t offer Apple. They don’t want to create another Wal-Mart that can dictate terms to them - like Apple already tries to do.

(subscribed to comments)     +0

I actually get most of my music from (the similarly DRM-free) eMusic. A subscription site just feels more appropriate for the way I listen to music these days. That said, when I want to purchase something in between my subscription refreshes on eMusic or if I want something they don’t have, Amazon is my first stop. I’m all about DRM-free music stories!

    +0

@slithytov: You don’t necessarily need to be located in the US. I’ve made many purchases from outside the US. I do, however, pay with a US credit card.

@Gideon: I didn’t know about the ability to re-download from Amazon–yet another reason to love ‘em!

@Daneil Nass: Enough has changed in the online music landscape and with the Amazon Music Store to warrant a follow up article. I am constantly surprised how many people don’t even know that Amazon sells MP3 downloads.

    +0

I’d like to clear up a few things..

1. you DO NOT need to install the amazon downloader to download the mp3s. It can save to your desktop like any files downloaded from the net.

2. Apple’s 128kbps AAC tracks generally are better quality due to algorithm vs. 256kbps mp3.

3. amazon’s mp3s do not have any identifying tags on them unlike apple’s drm free music.

    +1

I really prefer Amazon’s mp3 service to iTunes. For a couple reasons:

1. All Amazon tracks are DRM-free. iTunes has a bunch of iTunes Plus offerings, but many albums and tracks are still DRM.

2. You get MP3 format with Amazon. Your stuff will pretty much play on any device, unlike AAC format which requires conversion for some devices. Highly annoying.

By the way, John, not sure what you bought from AmazonMP3.com, but everything I’ve purchased so far has ID3 tags on it. I bought NIN’s latest album and all tags are there. Not sure what you’re talking about.

    +0

I love Amazon, and buy nearly everything from it when I can, but…Buying music in iTunes compared to buying music in the Amazon MP3 store is like shopping at Macy’s vs. shopping at a flea market. Everything is clunky and awkward, the selection is lousy, and just finding your ways down the aisles can be a miserable experience.

    +1

“2. Apple’s 128kbps AAC tracks generally are better quality due to algorithm vs. 256kbps mp3.”

Maybe, if you’re comparing AAC to an MP3 made with the old Xing encoder, but Amazon’s MP3s are high quality VBR MP3s made with the LAME encoder.

Just because AAC is “technically” superior to MP3 on paper doesn’t mean AAC files actually sound any better.

    +0

Yeah you are all ohhhhh so clever. Just face it, Amazon sux bigtime and so does their music service. iTunes all the way baby….best music selection ever too, now go away.

    -5

Oh, so all we need to buy music from outside the US is a US credit card. Gee, that’s convenient. :/

    +0

“So why do they cut Amazon a special deal and offer DRM free music when they won’t allow iTunes to provide the same thing?”

To spur competition. iTunes is already the top music retailer, so in order to give someone else a chance and avoid being trapped into another Apple monopoly, they’re giving another retailer special privileges.

    +2

I’ve already switched. Much better deal, selection, review interface, etc. I hope the word gets around.

    +1

I don’t order from Amazon. They have the worst customer service I have ever experienced. Also, a 256 kbps MP3 is actually of lower quality than a 128 kbps AAC file. Bit rate isn’t the only factor in audio encoding. Get your facts straight.

    +0

Bah, all this useless bickering on 256Kbps MP3 vs 128Kbps AAC. Anyone who’s making claims of one being better than the other, post some reputable, semi-scientific links to back up your claims. Otherwise I’m not interested.

    +1

For those complaining about the kbps, try this and see if you can tell the difference: http://mp3ornot.com/

I got it right, though I don’t think guessing counts. I was surprised at how similar the two sounded.

    +2

I’m no expert, but it seems to me that sound quality doesn’t matter unless you have headphones to compliment it. If you’re using standard, outer-ear headphones does it even really matter?

I use Amazon for three reasons:

1. DRM-free means the freedom to use my files anywhere, on any mp3 player, in any way I want.
2. Higher quality (at least bit rate wise) is always a good thing.
3. MP3s are more common and playable on all MP3 players. (That’s why they’re called MP3 players)

However, I think that iTunes does have a more matured, integrated, and easy-to-use interface. But Amazon is the winner for now. It makes me feel future-proof. Like, if I get a new computer of for some reason get a different mp3 player, my music is all good.

    +2

I use iTunes first for exclusive tracks (remixes and the like) and imported songs that FINALLY they are offering in the US store. It’s also easier to just open up the iTunes program and go right to the store.

But when I wanted a single track from a special album, iTunes didn’t have it. I ended up buying it from Amazon MP3 because they had it, had it for cheaper than other places, and the quality was great. I’m starting to like Amazon MP3 better because they’re steadily increasing their selection, and their stuff is DRM-free BY DEFAULT– iTunes doesn’t even seem to mark what’s DRM-free or not anymore, now that iTunes Plus isn’t a separate program.

(subscribed to comments)     +0

#14: “I’ve already switched. Much better deal, selection, review interface, etc.”

Your claim that the Amazon MP3 store has a “much better selection” is mathematically and patently false. The Amazon store debuted, about 6 months ago, with 2,000,000 songs. Even if they’ve added a million songs since (which is highly doubtful), that would be 3,000,000 songs — only *half* of iTunes’ 6,000,000+.

Perhaps Amazon has more of the music that *you* like, but that’s not what you said.

I buy from both. I always check iTunes, first, then Amazon. And 8 times out of 10, I find that Amazon does *not* have the artist(s) or song(s) for which I’m looking. And I don’t mean obscure, indie stuff; I’ve searched across a good cross-section of genres, as well as a balance of current and classic music.

Amazon will improve, of course. But to say, today, that Amazon has a “much better selection” is simply a mathematical impossibility.

    +0

Not to forget: Open source music is fine with Apple. Amazon music purchases work just fine on iPods, iPhones, and iMacs. And Apple is fine selling you your iGiz through Amazon. It’s the hardware that makes the money.

    +0

to date, amazon is only available in the US. Amazon of course already has stores in most countries - once they can push out the concept to these countries, it will really take off.

    +0

13. “To spur competition.”

Nope. To spur true competition you need a level playing field. The record labels are just hindering the market leader and thus the market development.

    +0

Some Apple fans will shun the Amazon Music Store for reasons like..iTunes does have a more matured, integrated, and easy-to-use interface. Personal taste or shameless fan they wont budge a inch, but the other 2/3 of ipod users may switch or use both. There will be no itunes killer but maybe just maybe a healthy industry with more than one player. Imagine itunes made better or added value because of competition pressure. Its good news for the industry and that includes Apple. I dont care where our MP3s come from but we do love our ipods

    +0

The cheap ipods with small storage will fill up twice as fast at Amazon (2x bitrate)…This in turn will drive demand for the larger ipod models the have a much larger profit margin. So for every customer Apple looses to Amazon they get them back twice as fast for a upgrade. Now thats what I call friendly competition.

    +0

@JMS When you sync an iPod shuffle you can have it convert the selection to 128 kbs AAC if you want to. Maybe it’s not the optimal thing to do, but if you value bulk versus bitrate this may be the way to go.

    +0

@Pakk99: “Also, a 256 kbps MP3 is actually of lower quality than a 128 kbps AAC file. Bit rate isn’t the only factor in audio encoding. Get your facts straight.”

I might suggest you do the same. This fallacy has been pretty thoroughly debunked. Don’t buy the marketing hype. The reality is the higher the bitrate, the higher the overall quality of the final file, no matter which codec you’re using. More data is always better than less data.

    +0

Cool they use LAME at Amazon!

That codec is definitely in par with AAC at the same bitrate (as far as my ears has been able to tell me).

    -1

BruceA - “This fallacy has been pretty thoroughly debunked.”

Dude, I’m a filmmaker and audio professional. Compression algorithm is just as important as bitrate. Don’t throw your uneducated opinion in my face. I work with this stuff every day.

    +0

Interesting your comment re. brain training. Is that perhaps something akin to ‘brain washing’? I have been using an Intel Mac for well over a year now and have many MP3 players including a 30 gig iPod. I never understood how Steve was able to get so many people to buy tunes locked down to a single manufacturer’s hardware. He is indeed a very clever man.

I have never purchased DRM protected music preferring instead to rent tunes via Rhapsody, rip from purchased CDs or download legally from sources such as eMusic. I don’t see how folks are able to see music ‘purchased from iTunes’ as theirs to have and hold forever. It is dependent on an Apple player.

Hopefully, Amazon will continue to gain in market share and insure this crazy iTunes lock down becomes ancient history and soon.

(subscribed to comments)     +0

A few more comments. I am 58 and sure I have high frequency hearing loss at least equal to or exceeding that seen in persons my age. I suffer from tinnitus (ringing in the ears) perhaps from my years as a rock musician. Almost weekly I read another article suggesting that iPod and other MP3 player users are damaging their hearing at an ‘alarming rate’ by listening to their music at full volume.

Perhaps the iPod generation will quickly reach a point where a lowly sampling rate of 64 K will do the trick. I do believe for most that MP3 sample rates over 192K have little impact on the listening experience. I do find a discernible difference between players with my two Creative Lab players out shining the iPod hands down.

Sam
Windows2Apples

(subscribed to comments)     -1

Sorry Sam, not quite true. 64Kbps doesn’t just cut certain frequencies out that we may not hear, it also introduces bitrate compression artifacts such as “warbling.” Maybe that depends on the compression algorithm used, but I don’t think that even people who have hearing problems would be able to deal with 64Kbps compression.

    +0

CaptSaltyJack, that comment was tongue in cheek. However, you might be surprised to find that many audio podcasts are sampled at 64K. We tried that a few episodes before shifting to 92K.

Cheers
Sam
Windows2Apples

(subscribed to comments)     +0