digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Amazon Launches DRM-Free MP3 Store

engadget.com — Amazon has launched the public beta of its new digital music portal called Amazon MP3, which will feature two million songs from 180,000 artists and 20,000 labels, all without DRM. Separate songs will sell for $.89 or $.99 and albums will range in cost from $5.99 to $9.99, with the best selling albums coming in at $8.99.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • lavawalker, on 10/17/2007, -3/+250"users are free to throw the 256Kbps MP3s on any player they like, as well as burn CDs, copy to MiniDisc, and dump to 8-track."

    256Kbps yes, thank you.
    • kshakir, on 10/10/2007, -1/+43For the curious, it's a mix of CBR and VBR selections.

      "Bit Rate: Where possible, we encode our MP3 files using variable bitrates for maximum audio quality and smaller file sizes, aiming at an average of 256 kilobits per second (kbps). Using a variable bitrate allows us to allocate a higher bitrate to the more complex sections of music files while using a smaller bitrate for the less complex sections. The average of these rates is then calculated to produce an average bit rate for the entire file that represents the overall sound quality. Some of our content is encoded using a constant bitrate of 256 kbps. This content will have the same excellent audio quality at a slightly larger file size."

      http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.htm ...
      • Timmmm, on 10/10/2007, -21/+9"aiming at an average of 256 kilobits per second (kbps) ... Some of our content is encoded using a constant bitrate of 256 kbps. This content will have the same excellent audio quality at a slightly larger file size."

        Lies. It will be the same size, but slightly lower quality.
        • macslut, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12I don't know why Timmmm is being dugg down. He's right. If file A (VBR) and file B (CBR) are the same length, and file A averages 256kbps and file B *is* 256kbps, they will be the same file size. File A should sound better because it used more bits for the complex parts and less bits for the rest.
        • SPECOPS, on 10/10/2007, -10/+0This is not exactly true. You need to have the original file at lets say 256 kbps, then encode it VBR with a range. If you choose a HIGHer range, then the size may end up the same, but the whole purpose of the VBR is to have a smaller file size. Of course if you change the VBR to higher than what you started, it's going to use more space, but if you keep it the same it should end up with less of a file size (and then it uses less on those parts of the song/file/movie that has less dynamic range or motion).

          This compression has been used in Mpeg 2 movies a long time before audio, and you can see how much it shrinks those original video files.

          As a final note, there is a POSSIBILITY that the VBR never has any chance to compress an audio/video file, there just isn't any place in the song to use a lower bit rate; I believe this is very rare, but still a possibility.
        • macslut, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10SPECOPS, you're missing the point. I think you're confusing average bit rate with maximum bit rate.

          10 seconds at 256kbps = 2,560kb. 10 seconds at an average of 256kbps = 2,560kb. There's really no getting around that. If you have 10 seconds and the file size is greater than 2,560kb, then the average must be greater than 256kbps, or if it's less than 2,560kb, then it's going to be less than 256kbps.

          Taking an original file that's a constant of 256kbps and re-encoding it to an average 256kbps variable, would be retarded.

          The purpose of using VBR isn't to have a smaller file size. It's to take an original file of higher quality and when encoding, choosing VBR over CBR so that you have better quality at the same file size, or smaller file size at the same quality, or some combining trade-off.

          Regardless, average bit rate * time will equal constant bit rate * time.
        • macslut, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1SPECOPS, you're missing the point. I think you're confusing average bit rate with maximum bit rate.

          10 seconds at 256kbps = 2,560kb. 10 seconds at an average of 256kbps = 2,560kb. There's really no getting around that. If you have 10 seconds and the file size is greater than 2,560kb, then the average must be greater than 256kbps, or if it's less than 2,560kb, then it's going to be less than 256kbps.

          Taking an original file that's a constant of 256kbps and re-encoding it to an average 256kbps variable, would be retarded.

          The purpose of using VBR isn't to have a smaller file size. It's to take an original file of higher quality and when encoding, choosing VBR over CBR so that you have better quality at the same file size, or smaller file size at the same quality, or some combining trade-off.

          Regardless, average bit rate * time will equal constant bit rate * time.
    • MikeFromAmerica, on 10/10/2007, -28/+7Am I the only one who prefers LOWER bitrates? I'd rather save the disk space with more-than-adequate 192kbps MP3s than waste the limited space on my MP3 player with supposed fidelity that I wouldn't notice even if I had high-end stereo speakers.
      • jonnyeh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21You can just transcode it to 192 kbps then. It's better to get the highest quality, then reduce it to fit your needs.
        • MikeFromAmerica, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Yeah but CD -> 256kbps MP3 -> 192 kbps MP3 is going to be worse than a direct CD -> 192 kbps MP3 rip. Not sure how noticeable the difference would be--maybe not at all for me--but if I'm bothering to pay money for something, I'd rather not have to compromise or settle for what someone else decides is the best trade-off.
          • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6The difference is so minimal that it's unlikely you'll notice it. You'd really only notice if you did it lots of times, changing the bitrate frequently.
      • zachberry, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13yes
      • sparkrainfir, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5yes, mike, you are.
      • IllBeBack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I listen to my MP3s on my TiVo in my home theater, so yes it is VERY important to me and I can clearly hear the difference.
    • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -11/+7I'd prefer if they used LAME with --preset extreme instead. Slightly lower filesize than a constant 256k, but much better quality.
      • freakygeeky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+30I downloaded the free demo track called "Energy" by The Apples in Stereo, and opened it in a hex editor. Toward the end of the file, it says LAME 3.97:

        ?⢬ëLAME3.97ªªªªªªªªªªªªªª
    • arctic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+108-track yes, thank you.
    • zman14321, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6This is step one, ogg vorbis music store anyone?
      I can dream.
  • Quix, on 10/10/2007, -19/+216OK, so the record labels gripe that Apple is selling music too cheaply and insist that DRM is still a must. Yet they turn around and allow Amazon to sell music 1) cheaper, and 2) without DRM?

    I smell collusion, and it stinks.

    • chrisgeleven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+30To be fair, it is only Universal that is sticking it to iTunes at the moment. EMI is already on iTunes Plus.

      What I don't get is where are the indie labels on iTunes Plus? Supposedly they are chomping on the bit to get onto iTunes Plus, but Apple hasn't added them yet. And now Amazon has at least some of the indie labels on their new service.
      • prag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14DRM only helps Apple at this point. Most will recognize it does nothing to stop real piracy but it does have the effect of locking iPod users into iTunes. Perhaps Apple realizes that if they drop DRM from more and more tracks people can and will shop around for the best deal. I certainly won't buy anything more from iTunes that I can now get cheaper from Amazon.
        • t0ny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You got it backwards it locks music to itunes and ipod, not ipods to itunes. Go ahead and by mp3s they will work on itunes :).
        • bradleyland, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Perhaps Apple realizes that if they drop DRM from more and more tracks people can and will shop around for the best deal."

          I fail to see how Apple dropping DRM would allow people a greater ability to shop for music. iTunes and iPods both handle MP3s just fine.
    • NSMike, on 10/10/2007, -10/+36Collusion? That's a bit dramatic, isn't it? Personally, I think iTunes has needed a competitor for a long time. Maybe if they can topple the iTunes giant, they're thinking they can eventually hike rates with another seller. But collusion? Nah.
      • positron, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Consumers don't benefit from the competition getting toppled, we benefit from the competition itself. The moment the competition is out of the picture you're back to square one, waiting for some new competition to pop up.
        • NSMike, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3My comment addresses the idea that record labels were colluding with Amazon. I don't think it's the case. Sure, they're trying to knock off a competitor so they can get us back to square one because they don't like working with the market leader. But I don't think they need to collude with Amazon to accomplish that. I'm not denying that their goals are less than ethical.
        • brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3They're completely ethical (in this respect). Companies make money. If low balling a products price to squeeze a competitor out of business (not going to happen in this case as itunes isn't going anywhere) improves long term profits they are certainly not ethically bound to ignore that option. In fact, it could be unethical TO ignore it.
        • RoboJesus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So a company is not required to make ethical decisions as long as it makes profitable decisions? I recognize that this is how things work now, but I see no reason to accept it. Companies should be held to ethical standards and shouldn't be given a free ride, just because it's profitable. That's one of the worst manifestations of capitalism that can exist, and, unchecked, could lead to a completely unethical, corporate-centric , profit driven, economy and society. We need to be careful about what we're willing to accept.
          • positron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Read much more into things than people really say often?
      • CountSessine, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2You don't understand - we don't have competition in music stores but the real problem is that we don't have competition in music publishers. Where else are you going to get a 50 Cent album than from Universal? The reason they hate the status quo is that THEY face a monopoly in distributors, and that one distributor is containing their prices.

        Universal signed up for this because they want to break the back of the iTunes store. They want to eliminate the monopoly THEY face. That does nothing for the monopoly WE ultimately deal with. As the Amazon music store and it's like gain popularity, Universal et. al. gain leverage over the whole bunch of online music stores, and you can forget about ever paying < $10/per album (at least for popular releases) again.
        • NSMike, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1That still doesn't do anything to support the idea that collusion is going on.

          And as a matter of fact, your second paragraph is essentially the same thing I said when I was talking about toppling iTunes.
      • sophiaperennis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Some of the albums in the top-100 only have the first 4 songs or so at 89 cents, and the rest of the songs at 99 cents. Still, it looks pretty good, and no DRM!
    • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -14/+22But the music companies have been arguing also for variable prices. There is absolutely NO reason for a digital recording to be sold at variable prices. All songs should be like $0.50 and no more. But they want to charge $1.50 for something that is "popular" as opposed to $0.99 for the "regular" stuff, even though there is absolutely no more hard media that is involved, there is no manufacturing process involved, no man power or anything else to justify a price increase, just a file that can be downloaded infinitely. There is nothing except greed that compells variable pricing. They only want to charge more for populart songs because they can, that's it. There is no other excuse. In the digial world, that ***** doesn't stand. Lower the prices and make the prices the same across the board, so that the new Billboard #1 hit costs the same as a Steely Dan track. There is absolutely no reason not to except pure greed.
      • Singularitarian, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8You think an artistic masterpiece should sell for the same price as some bubblegum pop or gangster rap song? There are certain specific songs that have been worth, I don't know, hundreds of dollars to me, or in some cases more, and it is insanely cheap that I can purchase these songs for a dollar.
        • comand, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16You're exactly the sucka the record companies love. A MP3 is just data, and should be priced according to the quality of the data -- higher bitrates might be worth more to me, but I shouldn't have to pay more just because someone thinks that a particular song is *better* than another one. When was the last time you paid twice the going rate to see a *good* movie?
          • themuffinman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Have you ever bought a movie? The newer, more popular ones sell for double or even triple the price of other movies. The same with CDs. It's not that the more expensive ones are necessarily better, it's that the more expensive ones are in higher demand. Supply and demand, take basic economics.
          • halter73, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1themuffinman, while I agree that variable pricing is justified for digital downloads, it involves a little bit more than basic supply and demand. While the demand is variable, the supply is always going to be infinite. Like brufleth wrote, it is more about capitalistic companies attempting to maximize profits, which in my opinion is perfectly legit.
          • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@themuffinman
            So so the "demand" part in supply and demand means "more people want it so I'm going to jack the price up and gouge the hell out of people for no other reason than because I can." If increased demand means higher production costs becuase you have to make more of a product, then I can kinda understand why the price would be higher, but with a digital file there is no higher production costs. The same single file is infinitely downloadable and costs no more if 1000 download it as opposed to 10 because you don't have to make 1000 files, you only have to make one.

            The only reason they're wanting to charge a higher price is that they can. That is called gouging and that's not right.
          • weareglass, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The whole supply and demand model is the main reason why this argument from the record labels is so ridiculous. The reason a lot of records are more expensive it's because they are in short supply, expensive to produce or transport. This levels the playing field. You shouldn't have to pay $30 for an import album anymore as it costs the exact same thing for them to send it to Milan as to Dubuque.

            Honestly, it's not so much that people are against variable pricing I think. As much as it is we are tired of variably getting ripped off by the record labels. If they could somehow prove they would act in a fiscally responsible matter I wouldn't be opposed to it, but the weight of history proves the record labels are just going to find new ways to gouge consumers if they get the reigns of control back. Apple may do many things wrong, but one place they do not gouge the consumer is on the songs. I personally spend a lot more on music than on the player, I'd rather be gouged on the hardware than the software. It's going to come from somewhere.
          • teethman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If I record myself pissing in the toilet at the same bitrate, so you can hear all the trickling in high quality sound, is it worth the same?
        • PunkRampant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Some songs still have higher production values, so of course the label would want to sell them for more in order to keep making a profit.
      • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -5/+23"There is absolutely NO reason for a digital recording to be sold at variable prices. "

        You flunked economics, I presume.
        • brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Well he's trying to apply simple supply and demand to digital distribution. His mindset is that since the supply is infinite or at least uniform regardless of popularity it doesn't make sense to price them differently. That isn't really how things work though. A company would be stupid not to price a product such as to maximize profits. That might mean pricing lower so more sell or pricing higher to make more per sale.

          With digital music distribution it seems that pricing low and selling more volume makes more sense than pricing high to make more per sale. Assuming bandwidth is cheap a billion sold at 10 cents a pop would be preferable to a million sold at 1 dollar. I think royalties are usually setup on a per sale basis though which doesn't make as much sense in digital distribution since no physical disk with a manufacturing cost is transfered.

          If a person can get a high quality DRM free version of an album for a few bucks easily it starts to seem like a better option than digging for a questionable copy via some torrent.
      • PunkRampant, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It's still cheaper than iTunes.
        • jferrari, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Yeah, but it takes you 5 times longer to purchase, download and get it on your iPod - my times worth more than $0.10 so ill stick to itunes.
      • AmusedToDeath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What arbulus doesn't get is that it didn't cost any more to produce one physical CD over another one. There has NEVER been any reason to price music differently other than because of simple supply and demand. High demand for Band A means Band A's records cost more. Low demand for Band B means Band B's records cost less.

        Same concept with movies on DVD. Hot new releases that everybody wants are $15-20. Meanwhile Steven Seagal movies end up in the 3 for $10 bin at Wal-Mart.

        Really, when you think about the fact that even the crappy cassingles that they used to sell cost $2 or $3, $0.89 doesn't seem like such a bad deal for DRM free music.
    • apotropaic, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6I smell Steve Jobs...
    • MikeFromAmerica, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11Arbulus, price isn't determined based on production costs only. There's always supply & demand. In that sense, it makes perfect sense for the record companies to want to charge more for music that is in high demand.

      On the other hand, music has been reduced to a commodity. So little of it has any actual artistic value that a 3-minute song should only cost a few cents more than 3 minutes of white noise.
      • RearNakedChoke, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Supply? Are you on crack?There is an INFINITE supply of an MP3. The only limiting factor is bandwidth. But bandwidth doesn't care if the song is popular or not, or whether its a song, a pr0n clip or a word file. Bytes are bytes.

        But sheeple are programmed into thinking if something is popular it should be more expensive. For traditional physical things, yes, but digital data? No.
        • theroyalweman, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2a) supply is not infinite - the cost of supply in the case of digital data is basically the cost of bandwidth, which most definitely is not insignificant. if you run an online digital music store, and you don't have a big enough pipe, the cost goes up.
          b) you didn't address demand - the demand for a product always affects the price. if something is popular it *should* be more expensive. if something is popular, then the company selling the product is going to sell *more* of that product.

          it has nothing to do with "sheeple" being programmed.
          • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why? Why should it more more expensive if it's popular? Just because it can be? Because the more people want it, the more you can charge for it because if they want it so bad they'll pay more for it? So the price of a product should increase proportionally to how bad you want it? That's blatantly unethical. You can cry "free market" and "capitalism" all you want, but regardless of the economic atmosphere, jacking up a price simply because people want the product more is unethical.
        • brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6@theroyalweman
          He addressed bandwidth. If you have a digital music store you pay a flat rate for bandwidth. It doesn't cost more to send a popular 3meg song or an unpopular 3meg song. Since you're charging per song the cost incurred is equal so the fee seemingly should be equal.

          As far as demand goes you're still trying to apply simple supply and demand logic to something that doesn't quite fit the mold. The concept you're reaching for is that a company will charge such that they maximize profits. That might actually mean charging less so that more sells in which case you make money on volume even if your margins are lower. Or in the case of a popular new release, charging more to maximize profits on what will be hot item anyway.

          What is being ignored is that there are often per song royalties which don't really make a ton of sense. It would make more sense to take a percent of profits so that price could vary to maximize profits even if it was to lower prices and increase volume. Also being ignored is that people can usually get songs for free quite easily even if it isn't legal. So if a company wants to make money they have to either A) make downloading an album via torrent too difficult, dangerous, or otherwise unappealing or B) make downloading a song legally cheaper and easy enough to compete. Record companies have tried option A and it isn't playing out all that great. Option B is now being explored and if they can get their heads out of their asses and figure out how to adapt things might get better for everyone.
        • jtcalhoun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2a) "the cost of supply in the case of digital data is basically the cost of bandwidth, which most definitely is not insignificant"

          Yes, but this is an expense for the music store, and not for the record companies.

          It would certainly make sense for a music store to increase the price of a song to cover its own bandwidth expenses, network hardware upkeep, etc. Yet I simply cannot see how a digital music file existing on someone else's hard drive and using someone else's bandwidth incurs any extra cost for a record company.

          If anything, the process of a record company digitizing its music catalog should be a one-time expense. Once the files are created, they shouldn't require further maintenance.

          The base cost of a digitally distributed song should only need to vary to the extend that it covers bandwidth fluctuations and any other costs incurred by the music store (i.e. the AllOfMp3 model). Unfortunately, the only real "demands" that digital music vendors have to satisfy are those of the record companies who would prefer to be able to shift licensing prices on a whim to squeeze as much money as possible out of vendors, and by extension consumers.
      • jhnshft, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah, there is no shortage of supply on mp3's and one man's white noise is another man's rock and roll.
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12"OK, so the record labels gripe that Apple is selling music too cheaply"

      No, they griped about Apple setting the price of music. They wanted to choose the price themselves, which is much more reasonable. Apple's monopoly status is the only thing giving them leverage to set prices.
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Apple music retailer adds no value. The RIAA (damn them) are normal producers, they shouldnt have prices dictated by the retailer. That's how Wal-Mart works.

        You dont want Apple to become the Wal-Mart of music.

        This is the *exact* situation that Apple claims happened with NBC. Apple accused NBC of wanting to raise wholesale price -- yet NBC says otherwise -- because Apple wanted to control the *retail* price (remember apple's claim "they would have driven the price up to $X.XX!!1!", as we know, *retail* prices are set by the *retailer*).

        The MPAA shares an executive with the Apple Corporation. Never, in a million years, presume that Apple will break from the wishes of its new cash-rich friends, the MPAA and RIAA.
    • cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -1/+3what are you worried about?.. have a look.. and if you like, buy a few tunes.
    • knute5, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Universal - use Amazon to squeeze Apple. Renegotiate iTunes terms and jack up prices on both Apple and Amazon. Mission accomplished. "Dumping" is like crack for consumers and screws them in the long run. Competition is good, but something smells rotten about this...
    • OddTSi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5You're taking Steve Jobs' word at face value. He's the one that said studios want to set higher prices. Studios said they wanted pricing flexibility. Don't you think it's the least bit possible that Steve Jobs is the one trying to screw you over? Nah, what am I saying, God would never do that.
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You just won a critical thinking award. Apple shares executives with Disney.
    • Quix, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19"No, they griped about Apple setting the price of music. They wanted to choose the price themselves, which is much more reasonable." - geekee

      Ah, so Universal *wanted* to sell their top hits for $.89 in iTunes (DRM-free, no less) because it's a better deal for consumers, but Apple said "Screw you, it's $.99 for DRM and $1.29 for DRM-free. Period."

      Riiight...
      • OddTSi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5What makes that so ludicrous? You do realize that Apple is a for-profit company, right? I'm not saying that it's definately the case but why do you automatically assume that it's not?
        • bobcatred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Okay, you realize that the iTunes store is to sell ipods, right? It doesn't really have much to do with selling the music. It's just the enticement for buying an ipod. I'm sure Apple's happy for any extra money they make off the store, but a huge chunk of those sales go straight to the labels. It's not their cash cow.
    • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Who cares? This is good news for the end users. Oh I get it, the Mac fanboys care.
    • teradome, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Or more likely, Amazon's slice of the sale is smaller than Apple's, thereby letting the label make *more* per sale even while it's cheaper "at the counter"
      • kaytrio, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That's actually right. Apple takes like 30 cents of each song or something. That's what pisses off the music companies.
    • theuniversal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Now consumers have another easy option, so this is great. Nor will this hurt Apple's business, since Apple makes very little from music sales anyway. Only 3% of the content on people's iPods is stuff purchased from iTunes, and most of that revenue from those sales go to the content owners.

      Since shelf space is valuable, powerful brick and mortar retailers have always been able to put pricing pressure on manufacturers. iTunes shows that the digital world is no different. The labels should stop crying about business reality 101 and focus on giving better value to the consumer. Digital music is still too expensive. But maybe Amazon's new store shows that the labels are starting to change their thinking. The labels must realize that if Amazon does well and becomes a real competitor to Apple's store, then there will there'll be 2 digital retailers instead of just 1 putting pressure on the labels to give a better value for lower prices.
  • kshakir, on 10/10/2007, -1/+70If this stays as stable as gmail's beta, I'll be pushing this for friends and family. With the Amazon MP3 Downloader, song automagically appear in iTunes. No more conversion before transferring to devices, no more QTFairUse, no more iTunes Plus for $1.29.

    Sorry non-US folks. Hopefully they'll add you guys soon.
    • grandemerda, on 10/10/2007, -22/+0I already get all music for free from the mule! Sorry US folks!
    • prag, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I wonder if Apple's recent attempts at putting a hash signature on the iTunes database is an attempt to prevent things like Amazon's MP3 Downloader from working easily. If true then it's a little like the old chat client wars.
      • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Shouldn't make any difference. Even if it can't be a direct upload into iTunes, then an import will work just as well. Just like adding tracks from your own CDs. Well, as long as they really are plain jane MP3 files (and they would have to be to work with most MP3 players). I welcome any competition that works with my platform of choice. I'm not married to iTunes for content purchases and if it helps to get rid of DRM, even better.
    • brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I hate itunes (on windows) with a passion. Very few programs have been more obnoxious or poorly executed. Winamp does everything itunes does (including transfer things to an ipod) without being such a royal pain. I'm actually thrilled at this news because it means that I have a legal means of downloading DRM free music from a reputable company without itunes and at a competitive price.
      • fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1I actually love iTunes compared to WinAmp. It's all a matter of personal preference.
    • iyiinsan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm not from US, and I could download the free sample without a problem. Maybe because I had made a purchase from Amazon to a US address before...
    • aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2people from Europe can buy from it. And cheaper too... since its 2 dollars to a pound, you get the album for half price if you live in the UK ;)
  • chrisgeleven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+113I just tried out buying 2 songs and it worked pretty well.

    Amazon has an MP3 Downloader app that you have to install if you want albums. There are both Windows and Mac versions, with a Linux version in development. The app will automatically add downloaded songs to iTunes or Windows Media Player.

    The purchase of the 2 songs went pretty smoothly on my Mac. Only thing that needs polish is I don't understand the need of the MP3 Downloader application to stay open after the song has been downloaded and added to iTunes...just one more thing to close.

    Quality sounds fantastic (256kbps MP3, not sure what encoder since iTunes reports it as unknown). I hope this will mean that iTunes Plus will have lower prices to match Amazon's offering. This is why competition is great.
    • Barleyman, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Where did you see that a linux version was in the works? That would be excellent.
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1NOTE: I use GNU/Linux professionally.

        Roughtly: Windows is 95% of the world's desktops. Apple is about 3%. Everyone else is 2%.

        If you are Amazon, and a reasonable music customer, its a littel silly to demand special treatment. Perhaps you should ask your GNU/Linux OS providers to speak with Amazon to negotiate / fund development of a client?
    • sej7278, on 10/10/2007, -7/+0why do you need an app to download mp3s from a website?

      smells of user tracking and hidden drm to me. if itunes+ has your user details encoded in the files, this probably does too.

      i won't use it until a). they open the specs to allow someone to write an opensource linux app which won't get locked out when they change the protocol, or preferably b). they just stick a plain old https website with "click here to download" buttons.

      i bet the euro/uk version gets a different pricing structure too, as 0.89usd is what, 0.44ukp, an album would be half the price of a cd!
      • cgohier, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4From the FAQ:

        Do I need to install the Amazon MP3 Downloader to buy music?

        The Amazon MP3 Downloader application is required for album purchases but is not required for purchasing songs. If you prefer not to install the Amazon MP3 Downloader when buying songs, choose "Skip installation and continue" if prompted to install the Downloader. If you wish to purchase an entire album, you are required to use the Amazon MP3 Downloader available for Windows XP or Vista and Mac OS X 10.4 or higher. If you initiate an album purchase and the Downloader is not installed on your system, you will be prompted to install the Downloader or cancel the purchase. For more information, please visit the Amazon MP3 Downloader Help page.
        • MikeFromAmerica, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Not from the FAQ:

          The Downloader is required in order to add a personally identifiable watermark to your downloaded tracks--for your protection of course.

          (I'm being sarcastic but it wouldn't surprise me if it was true.)
          • cgohier, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I think it probably is nothing more than a download manager.
          • goblindegook, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm pretty sure the server itself would do that, if indeed the files are watermarked.
          • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4If it adds a digital watermark with id tags from you, so what? It's DRM-free, relatively high bitrate (as good or better than iTunes), and is cross-platform with Macs and Windows. Don't share your music with others and have no problems. If you're going to give a CD as a gift, transcode to AIFF. The watermark SHOULD disappear.

            Competition is good.
        • madeingermany, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2sorry, but it seems you are being more stupid then sarcastic
          1. you don't need the downloader, just if you want to buy a full album
          2. if they put in watermarks, it will happen on the server and not on the client
    • blueorder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12you don't have to install the downloader. I went through the purchase steps and you can click "Skip installation and continue" and then click Download Song and it opens a standard download window.
    • CapeKid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22I just downloaded a complete album for $7, $2 less than its iTunes equivalent (26 Scientists Volume One by Artichoke). The amazon version comes without any DRM so I can put it on my creative zen without hassle and move it around at my leisure. Took less than a minute to get the downloader app and get everything finished. This is how music delivery should be done, pay less and get what you should get when you buy an mp3, complete ownership of your own songs.
      • CapeKid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I forgot to mention, the cheapest I could buy the physical CD on Amazon was $8. And if I did that I would have to wait a load of time to get it.
      • brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Exactly! If it is cheap and easy to legally get music instantly without DRM then it becomes more appealing and can edge out illegal downloading where quality might be questionable and it might be tough to find what you're looking for.
      • Optic7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Agree with most of what you said, and I think this is great, except one thing: "complete ownership of your own songs". This is not like owning a CD because the MP3s you buy cannot be transferred or resold. You're basically stuck with them for life.
        • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No. You bought these mp3s, you can sell or give them away. Look up "right of first sale".
    • cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -3/+6Amazon's into linux bigtime (nix shop). Good for Ubuntu Fans too!
    • freakygeeky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If you look toward the end of the track with a hex editor, you'll see they're using LAME 3.97. That's what I saw toward the end of the demo track "Energy" that I downloaded.
    • Navicerts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I have not tried the music service yet but when they offered movie downloads i installed their software and i needed the password i lost in order to uninstall the software.
    • pfrdawg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The encoder used is Lame 3.97, with the preset -V0 (previously alt-preset-extreme), which is the highest sane VBR preset in Lame. The next preset is 320kbps CBR, which is in my (and Lame developers') opinion overkill.
  • roguepirate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+63Link to store, its kinda buried on their page
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/1638 ...
  • gweedoz, on 10/10/2007, -5/+50Competition is a good thing, but Amazon must have really rolled over for the record companies to get the deal. I wonder if Amazon is going to make any money from this, or if it all isn't going to the record companies? It's hard to complain about DRM free 256kbps (variable bitrate) mp3s for .99, .50 would be better. :-)... it will be VERY interesting to see how Apple responds (if they do at all).
    • chrisgeleven, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4It will never be $0.50 per song. The credit card fees alone would eat up most of it. Then the record labels and the distributor (iTunes or Amazon) wouldn't make anything, which means the artist definitely won't make anything.

      Unless if they went to some type of points model like the xbox to limit the fees.
      • Quix, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11"Unless if they went to some type of points model like the xbox to limit the fees."

        Oh, for the love of all that's holy, please no. Better just to allow you to purchase blocks of music credits, like an iTunes gift card, with a literal dollar amount.

        Points models suck.
      • Fracture98, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Just do a "$0.99/song... $0.50/song if you buy 5 or more songs" type deal.
        • Vektuz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Except you have to buy each song individually by the looks of it. There is no shopping cart system. So each individual song costs them the credit card fees hit.

          Unless I'm mistaken, of course. I'm not counting album downloads, since that requires special mystery software thats not coming near my machine, ever.
        • wilsgrant, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Or they could, you know... just be smart, and wait until the end of the day to process all credit card transactions.
          • jonnyeh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2itunes seems to wait until the end of the week
    • hmmdar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6They will make plenty from this deal by proxy. The money they will make is since more people are on their site they are much more likely to buy other things that amazon makes good profits on.
    • gibsonic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4also known as loss-leaders.

      i think the overall idea is to offer a service that though it may not make much money, it can build up loyal customers that will see and buy other things.
  • euphemizeme, on 10/10/2007, -13/+57Nice to see somebody bring real competition to this market. I refuse to pay the Apple fanboy tax at the iTunes store.
    • freudianslipper, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4WTF does that even mean? Don't be an idiot. Not everyone who enjoys apple products is a "fanboy", nor is everyone a "fanboy" because they pay $0.99 for a track or $9.99 for an album off of iTunes.

      Using the term "fanboy" is becoming such a lame way of bashing apple for no reason. $100 says you're either a windows "fanboy" or a "linux" fanboy so stfu please, kthx.
      • intellimouse, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7STFU fanboy.
        • freudianslipper, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1You're right, I'm a flip-flopper...I mean...fanboy.

          Idiot.
        • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Says the user with a Windows logo for an icon.
        • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Says the user with a Windows logo for an icon.
      • cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -3/+2its the millions (of attitudes) that gave apple that stigma.
      • PokerGigolo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Actually, I don't think "fanboy" is bashing apple for no reason, it's actually bashing the users, such as yourself, with good reason.
    • mabhatter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2but it's not real competition. The real question to ask is that why the labels have it out for iTunes so badly when it's selling like crazy, includes DRM, and they get a huge cut.. like .70 of the .99? Steve allowed HIGHER prices on iTunes Plus for the same thing because labels demanded it... why are the labels undercutting iTunes at every store except Urge?

      I think it's because iTunes is the leader and the labels want to be in charge of distribution.. I wonder what deal Amazon signed to get hooked up? More than likely Amazon allowed labels to changes prices whenever.. expect the "sale" prices to go a way quicly. On the other hand even iPod buyers can shop there because there is no DRM so it really is an iTunes competitor unlike MagnaTunes, Emusic, or Amee Street where the labels won't deal with them at all because they have "unsigned" artists.
    • gypsie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You pay barely anything to Apple. It is well know fact that Apple doesn't make much profit on offering media. They make their money selling hardware (iPods,iMacs,iPhones). For songs you pay to record companies. Apple is actually on your side. Look at recent NBC story. NBC wanted to charge more to iTunes users for their TV crap. Apple didn't want go along with it and NBS actually left iTunes because Apple didn't allow them to charge more.
  • Metropolis, on 10/10/2007, -18/+0No Dream Theater? Buried.
  • robalesi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+72This is, in a word, Great. 8.99 is a perfect price for high quality, DRM-Free albums. It never did jive that on Itunes I would have to pay $12.99 for DRM-Free, when I could usually buy the physical album from Amazon.com for 9.99 or less, and then encode it at whatever bit rate I wanted. This is a step in the right direction.
    • madrid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2AND they've got the Radiohead albums.
    • jdaniel284, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Still a little expensive. I think a fair price for a digital album is around the $1.00 - $1.75 range. Until then, Arrg.
    • Fraff5, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The Who is completely missing.
  • yagidem, on 10/10/2007, -27/+4No FLAC, No Ogg Vorbis?
    And are there watermarks?
    • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12"No FLAC, No Ogg Vorbis?"
      Nobody takes them seriously enough to give a damn.

      "And are there watermarks?"
      Guaranteed.
    • TheUngod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8You can always find someone to complain. DRM free music is what we've been asking for for years and now all you have to say is it's not in your preferred format? Enjoy the freedom we deserve.
    • bagelpirate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I hate when my music has a watermark in it
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The tracks ARE watermarked. You can share them all you want, but when your friend is caught with that mp3 (who knows, maybe a future Sony or NBC root kit on your windows pc will find you) you will be responsible to explain how your song got on 100 systems.

      I'll stick to converting cds myself into itunes, better quality with an aac file. (lossless audio)

  • krabat, on 10/10/2007, -21/+2I launch a DRM free MP3 store everytime I open up Soulseek.
    • iFungus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That was quite clever.
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2...and your logs are kept for future legal action. You arent a pirate sir. Join demonoid, or use piratebay which dont keep track of your IP and what you uploaded/download, then you can proudly wear the patch


      ARRRRRR!!!
  • akf2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Anyone know if this is open to non-USians?
    • marksism, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23you mean TERRIST COMMIES?!
    • TGMD, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3USians? United States is our political organization not our national ID, you don't call people from Britain UKian do you?
    • jasonwea, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It seems not. "Amazon MP3 Purchases are limited to U.S. customers" appears on the download page for the free The Apples In Stereo track.
      • aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1according to Mashable you can buy if you live in Europe. Until Amazon notices that you're getting a good deal, and blocks it :)
    • pfrdawg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0If you fake an acceptable combination of us state and us postal code, you can use the store from europe. Since dollar is very cheap right now for us europeans you get amazing bargains. Use it while you can!
  • jessi74, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5It appears that their approach to long songs is to charge twice as much ($1.94). I like this much better than iTunes forcing you to buy the entire album. Yes Apple, sometimes I only want one song, even if it's longer than normal. Douches.
    • akf2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14heh does that include the last song on an album followed by 12 minutes of ***** silence then a secret acoustic track recorded in their toilet?
    • cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1they were really the only ones before now. Maybe now.. theyll change.. and wont have such a stranglehold on the market
    • BillyK, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Apple doesn't decide what gets sold as album only.
      • jessi74, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Can you give me a source for this? I supposed I always just assumed it was due to length (and there is a definite pattern; long songs are album only fairly consistently across the board).

        Oh, and akf2000, that's hilarious. :)
  • coryhorton, on 10/10/2007, -6/+407.99-9.99 is such a reasonable price for a full album. It almost persuades me to hold off on downloading illegal music.
    • strictnein, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Don't get too excited. Some albums are still $13-$14.
    • cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -2/+1yeah.. but if you lose your favorite song due to bad hardware... what are you out? a buck???
    • mikesly, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7keyword almost
  • atomicwedgie, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6While I love the idea of Apple getting some real competition and I am NOT an Apple fanboy for sure but I Amazons search is a little weak compared to iTunes. If I only know one word of a song title and search for it, I see no way to sort the results by actual title or artist.
    • MScrip, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Google... I can type in part of a lyric and Google finds it.
      • atomicwedgie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Sure... but this involves using more than one site to accomplish a task that should have been easier to do from the site you're ordering from.
    • Erasmus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This is still a beta though, so hopefully they will clean up their search tool.
    • prag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You can always use iTunes to find the song and then show according to price once you know the full name. Good point though. I hope Amazon addresses this.
  • Vektuz, on 10/10/2007, -16/+13This is a pretty good service, but I bet there's strings attached.
    They even have some pretty esoteric stuff in there that the apple store does not. It says it has over 2,000,000 songs when I do the search all - not bad.

    One bad thing though - without the mp3 downloader (as if I'm going to install something like that on my machine, lol!), you have to individually purchase each and every song. That means if you like 4 songs of an album, you have to click purchase on it, then go through the whole checkout process, then download it. For each one. That includes credit card info etc. I did like... one... and realised that it'd take me another hour to get the ten or so songs I wanted. So I quit ;p

    For those of you installing this "MP3 Downloader" - are you insane? We already know that amazon had to roll over and grant the industry anything they wanted in return for this... I can only imagine what is bundled with the downloader. Best to wait a couple days/weeks to let it get a review by the reverse engineers of the world... Its not paranoia when they actually ARE out to malware your PC and have proven it before!
    • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -7/+15you say that like iTunes is not a piece of ***** itself.
      • diggzoid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1can't agree with that - ITMS maybe but iTunes rules.
    • chrisgeleven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Since when has Amazon done something like that?

      The downloader seems very simple. It downloads the tracks and adds them to your media player (iTunes in my case).
    • LwoodY2K, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0You only have to enter credit card and all that the first time, it seems.
    • MScrip, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Haven't 20 million people installed iTunes on their computer? What's the big deal with installing software? Isn't a computer 'supposed' to run software?

      I hope Amazon isn't bundling spyware and *****... but we'll have to see.
      • Vektuz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Thats basically my point. I suggest people wait and see before just downloading and installing software, especially software to do with music and such - especially when the offerer is a large company that has known to accede to 'anything' the recording industries want. Its only common sense.
        • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3oh, for a minute there I thought you were talking about Apple and iTunes.
      • madrid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The Mac OS X version of the downloader appears free of crapware.
    • neatflux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Now why would Amazon risk the vitality of their new enterprise with something like spyware?
    • IllBeBack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yeah, because Amazon.com has been SO untrustworthy the past umpteen years I've been using their service.
      Get a grip and take off your tinfoil hat!
  • Grandforks85, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Vektuz, this is just a beta website. This whole thing is brand-spanking new and I guarantee they'll fix a bunch of the problems you're talking about. Particularly being able to download and buy multiple tracks at once, without having to buy the entire album.
    As far as the software is concerned, I'm a little wary myself about downloading it. This is how they get you.
    I downloaded a song and everything went very quickly and smoothly, I'm impressed by the service. Itunes is going to have some true competition.
  • fishrjv, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13We should get as many people as possible to use this service just to reinforce to the RIAA that this is what we want
  • so1omon, on 10/17/2007, -0/+12The fact that the Apples In Stereo are in the number 2 slot for todays top downloads gives me hope for the world.
    • unfinity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The track "Energy" is free...

      Works out well actually - let's everybody test out the service for free and hear this song at the same time.
      • geminitojanus, on 11/10/2007, -1/+1If you've downloaded the track "Energy", please post a hash of it as a reply here. An easy way of doing a simple MD5 hash on a *nix is:
        md5sum -b filename.mp3
      • TKDEE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1After clicking continue shopping after downloading, Apples in Stereo had moved from #2 to #1
        • TKDEE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The last 10 seconds of the song seem to have gotten chopped off from my original down load. I'm trying again, for the most part this seems like an awesome implementation of digital downloading. So far I haven't seen anything that would persuade me not to just buy the disk. Note: I'm not saying "Give me XYZ and THEN I won't pirate". If people see this and say "Oh No it's not OGG, I still need to pirate" I'd say you are basically looking for excuses.
      • Phoenixfury, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Hey great tip and this song sounds great! I was wondering if they were going to offer any freebies like some other online music stores do. :)
    • ohnnyj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Are there any more free tracks? A way to find all free tracks?
  • munkyxtc, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4free shipping on $25?

    /joke
  • tdous, on 10/10/2007, -11/+18Good. I'd much rather buy music from Amazon than Apple.
  • littleodie914, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Hmm, I couldn't find Third Eye Blind, The Postal Service, or The Strokes.

    Maybe they should have waited to sign more labels before they went live?
    • tdous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah. Need the bad with the good ;)
    • fribhey, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4The Postal Service is good.
      The Strokes used to be good.
      Third Ey Blind was never good.
      • crawf061, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I hope your ears fall off because they are obviously not doing you any good in their current state
    • digitallysick, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Third eye blind was good, back in the 90's
    • sparkrainfir, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3if they would wait, those labels wouldn't hop on. i think all the positive press this thing is getting, and how super easy it is to use is going to help convince the labels that it's a good idea to partner with amazon...
    • mikesly, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Its called a "Public" Beta for a reason
  • fani, on 10/10/2007, -0/+34No DRM at 256Kbps. Sign me up, Amazon...
    • PunkRampant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And still cheaper than iTunes, no less.

      iTunes DRM 128kbps - .99 per song, 9.99 for album
      Amazon 256 kbps - .89 per song, 8.99 for album
    • kaytrio, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Oh, and IMHO, mp3>m4a(AAC) compatibility-wise at least...
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hopefully all the record companies follow so I can buy DRM free on Apple's site, which has millions more artists and songs. If it isnt on itunes, I get it on bittorrent ;)
  • GodsFavorite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It's a little hard to search by album name or by a song as the default is artist.. but that is not that bad.

    Also, ther is not a clear distinction when it comes to whether you are buying from AmazonMP3 or from Amazon.com, the music store is a little quick to take you to the regular store. I will definatly use this product though.
  • sk545, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3rage against the machine? It doesn't show up in the results, only covers. WTH?
  • rb89, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9It's a sad day when I'm sitting here trying to figure out what the catch is. Anyone else?
    • JohnDesmarais, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2The only thing that comes to mind (and this is pure speculation) is the possible idea that the pricing is designed purely to damage the iTunes Music Store business enough to knock it out of the top spot - at which point Amazon will start raising the prices.
    • mechaboy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Sounds like a normal day to me.
    • iDug, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0"Can I download another copy of my MP3 files after the initial purchase?

      Your Amazon MP3 Music purchases can only be downloaded once. After you have successfully downloaded the file to your computer at the time of purchase, we recommend that you create a backup copy. We are currently unable to replace any purchased files that you delete or lose due to a system or disk error. ......... "

      Does this qualify as a catch?
      or probably the tags of the newly purchased songs say Amazon somewhere rather than Itunes?

      For me this is a no issue.
    • arctic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Competition FTW!
  • Paperfingernail, on 10/17/2007, -0/+16This will completely change the MP3 store industry around. Now, people can buy from iTunes or Amazon and still have it work on their iPods. And since Amazon is cheaper, better quality, and unrestricted, people would be crazy to not try it. Now we'll see if Amazon can capitalize on this.
  • JohnDesmarais, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4I smell a lawsuit. The reason Apple doesn't have a lower price is that the price the major music labels charge them won't allow it (unless Apple wanted to lose money). If the major labels are offering Amazon a price that won't allow Apple to compete, then they are guilty of price fixing in an attempt to damage Apple's iTunes Music Store. This should be an interesting fight to watch.
    • froman118, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I don't smell a lawsuit, I smell competition. Amazon is probably taking a smaller cut than Apple so they are able to offer songs at a lower price. Businesses undercut competitors every day to get people into their store. Amazon doesn't care if they are making as much on each song as Apple because if you go to Amazon for music downloads then you might be more likely to go back for books, MP3 players, computers, vacuum cleaners, etc...
      • shark72, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You are correct. Apple adds a 40% markup; Amazon adds about a 20% markup.
    • prag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Perhaps Amazon gave Universal more flexible terms. Apple will likely need to agree with similar terms in order for Universal to allow them to go DRM free. This is all very interesting. I'm riveted!
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Apple makes a lot of money from iTunes. Don't be naive.
      • JohnDesmarais, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sure. A little more than 10 cents per song. Apple pays 65 cents per song. Add in the credit card transaction fee (typically 25 cents plus 2-3 percent of the total transaction - but we can probably assume that Apple has negotiated a better deal than this) and your left with a little more then 10 cents of the 99 cents for Apple. If Amazon can make money at 89 cents, then they must be paying the labels less then the 65 cents Apple does. If the major labels involved have colluded to set the the pricing such that Apple cannot compete then that would be price fixing - which is a "bad thing."
      • gypsie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You pay barely anything to Apple. It is well know fact that Apple doesn't make much profit on offering media. They make their money selling hardware (iPods,iMacs,iPhones). For songs you pay to record companies. Apple is actually on your side. Look at recent NBC story. NBC wanted to charge more to iTunes users for their TV crap. Apple didn't want go along with it and NBS actually left iTunes because Apple didn't allow them to charge more.
    • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Since Amazon is like the number one online retailer, it isn't like they don't have bandwidth to spare. Maybe their administrative costs are lower than Apple's, allowing them to get a decent mark up at a lower price. Maybe as was said earlier, they'll take a lower price hoping you'll buy something else from their site. Whatever the reason is, Apple just got some competition and that is almost always a good thing.
      • gypsie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There is no competition to Apple. Apple isn't record company. Apple is hardware company. Apple could not care less where do you get your song as long as you use it on their hardware. Now, once people download song from Amazon, what they are going to do with it? They store and organize it where they have rest of their songs so they can easily transfer them to their iPods. Yes, they'll put it in iTunes. No competition. Addition.
  • sk545, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2I don't see a catch, there is no DRM. But who knows, maybe it come embedded with spyware?
    • astrotrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Good point... they make you use their Application to download the music.
      • IllBeBack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not true. They do not MAKE you use their software. Try again.
    • jbmercha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is amazon, not sony.
    • kitwaites, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Amazon's brand is worth too much for them to bundle spyware with their software - let's face it, if they did, someone would find out about it eventually and they'd get dragged over the called, a la Sony.
  • tikal26, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I don't think that the problem was about charging more and DRM, but about apples specific DRM. I don't think that they restricted so that their music can only be played in apple products. They wanted to have control over things and apple was not letting them. I am not sure I am all comfortable with the way they keep track of the mp3, but I believe is a the in the right direction.
    • JohnDesmarais, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0How do they keep track? Via watermarks?
  • faxxy, on 10/17/2007, -0/+17Competition is BEAUTIFUL!
    • jbmercha, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Competition is Beautiful!!! (Digg me, not him)
  • jydesign, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I've got to agree with user:"Quix" - What happened here? The selection is odd on this BETA, but there are many MP3 albums on Amazon now that are on iTunes, but iTunes doesn't have them as "iTunes Plus". Sigh, it's great for consumers though. If there's an album I want to purchase, I'll def. check Amazon first now - it's a no brainer sadly. If Apple can't do the same and convert all content to "iTunes Plus" at the same prices or better, I don't see the store continuing to grow beyond those seeking the iTMS convenience, or those that don't know any better...

    FYI, check out the info window via iTunes on the free track that Amazon offers up as a demo - there's info in the "Comments" portion of the track that reads "Amazon.com Song ID: 201470018" - I wonder if there's are other identifiers in the track aimed at inhibiting file-sharing?
    • iDug, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1use an advance tag editor , select all downloaded files and delete the comments or whatever.
    • madeingermany, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1did you download "Energy - The Apples In Stereo"?
      http://www.amazon.com/s?url=search-alias%3Ddigital ...

      It seems to be the Song ID and we just tried it: if two people download the same song, both will have the same number in that Comments section.


      • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But they don't hash to the same value, so there is a digital watermark in use, but finding it is turning out to be a pain, so they've used a rather good stenographic program to embed it.
        • madeingermany, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1we ran cksum on the two songs bought from different accounts on different computers and they have the same length and checksum

          http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/09/some-of-amazon ... says the label might have embedded an Amazon-specific watermark, but I can't find anything user-specific.
    • GoNoles, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And tags or watermarks would be bad because...?
  • stu42j, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I was actually about to buy an album when I realized that the only way to get the full-album discount is to install the Downloader. Since I use Linux, this is not an option for me. I guess I'll have to stick with emusic.com for now.

    My other main complaint is that double-CD albums are over-priced. More than buying the actual CD.
    • digitallysick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Will it run in wine?
    • neatflux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1From the site: "A Linux version of the Amazon MP3 Downloader is under development, and when released will allow entire album purchases."
      • stu42j, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I look forward to the Linux version but it would still be nice to be able to get the discount without installing a client. For example, I may be on a computer that I am unable to install on.
    • Optic7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They're working on a Linux version of the software.
    • DonkeyBeliever, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1I just downloaded some songs in Ubuntu... Just click cancel when it asks you if you want to install the software!
  • jydesign, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4...oh yeah, and the iPod they show on the landing page isn't even a current model - no fanboys on that project...
  • IbnDigg, on 10/10/2007, -14/+9if there will ever be an "itunes killer" i think this is it.

    About time, i don't have an ipod. And sorry boys, but the Mac isn't all that.

    Digg me down :)
    • bytor4232, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2I'll dig you up! If I didn't need the ical support for my calendars, smart playlists, and audiobook options I wouldn't own an iPod but something a little cheaper. I'm kinda stuck with the iPod line myself.
    • postalblowfish7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2just because you say "digg me down :)" doesn't mean that you win. your comment is still asinine.
    • arctic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why did you bring the Mac into this? You deserve to get dugg down for being an asshat.
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This is an iTunes killer much like the Zune was an iPod killer.

      I give them 2 years at most. Though I bet they sell a few more songs than the Sony store did before it folded this year. Listen, when EVERY OTHER label is on itunes, why would I go this one store? Seriously, not that I love itunes, just its the only real MUSIC STORE on the web, which has almost every artist in it.

      Would you walk into HMV if it only sold cds from one record company? 90% of what you wanted would not be in there.

      ALL online stores should be ALLOWED to go DRM free.
  • MonkeyFondue, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9Now if only they would add the option of FLAC or some other lossless codec then I would be extremely happy.
  • torgone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Crap. No Devo ..
    • BigJuiceMan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1or Fishbone!
    • astrotrain, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Just go out and buy the Greatest Hits album, and use CDEx on it... same price as AmazonMP3
    • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Crack that whip...
      • astrotrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Give the past the slip ...Step on a crack Break your momma's back
    • Bluejaye, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Q: Are we not men?
  • tracker198x, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Creative Zen Vision M >> Ipod.

    Why?

    -longer battery life (over 100% longer)
    -higher bit screen than stupid ipods' = more colours
    -supported by amarok, wiindows media player, etc...
    -dont have to use itunes or deal with crap software and crap music formats
    • digitallysick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Will it let you drag and drop files over to the player? or are you forced to sync them to your player from software on your pc? Can you connect it to your pc , and play music directly off the player ? if so im buying one
      • akf2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Do your ears hang low? Do they wobble to and fro? Can you tie them in a knot? Can you tie them in a bow?
      • truegodofwar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1ROFL!!!
      • tracker198x, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you can drag and drop from windows explorer actually, all you need is the firmware upgrade from the website to make it mass storage compliant. AND you can play songs from the player.
        • digitallysick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thats nice, my brother had a Motorola mp3 player like that i liked it alot more than my ipod
    • BigJuiceMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4can you wear it like hat?
    • astrotrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1SanDisk SDMX1 >> Ipod, Creatived, etc

      Drag drop any .mp3 to and from the player, use it also as a USB drive if needed.
  • IEatHamburgers, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Guess I've gotta boot into my Windows partition since 89 cents is under the minimum purchase point on the debit card... unless they get the shopping cart going or someone can get this MP3 downloader running under Wine :)
    • jtms1200, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ubuntu for the win? Fedora 6?
    • neatflux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1From the site: "A Linux version of the Amazon MP3 Downloader is under development, and when released will allow entire album purchases."
  • GruntboyX, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4At last i can legally purchase music and not feel like i will be out lots of money if the store goes belly up? IE Google Video..
    • akf2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2yeah Google Video is another black mark on Google, no one talks about it though, why does no one talk about it, EVERYONE TALK ABOUT IT
    • arctic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Google Video sold stuff? I was under the impression it was free to watch videos...
  • golbguru4m, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Finally something good sees the light of the day! People need to shove something like this up RIAA's every now and then.
    • BillyK, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What are you talking about? This wouldn't exist without the RIAA's blessing.
  • Stark, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4new foo fighters isn't there... oh well.
    • postalblowfish7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3you're not missing out on much
  • sdpenner, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5I think the "catch" is the limited selection and clunky UI
    ugh
    Besides that, it's a cool experiment. Let's see if it sticks...
  • delhokie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+26"The Wall" is $16.99 on iTunes, $8.99 on Amazon, same 256Kbs quality (MP3 vs AAC). Bought on my mac, imported into itunes with the Amazon downloader. Easy as it could be-- this will be a great competitor to itunes and drive innovation and price savings we can only hope.
    • extra88, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1In general, 256Kbps AAC file will sound better than a 256Kbps MP3, even when the MP3 is VBR encoded. Not that I would care.
      • mmaf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Youre wrong, the differences in AAC and MP3, can only be found at bitrates lower than 128. AT 192 or higher MP3 and AAC sound identical.
        • aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3not strictly true... but your average person wouldn't notice. Since AAC has much better compression, a 256 AAC is about equal to a 320 mp3. But, like you said, to all intents and purposes, on crap headphones on cheap mp3 players, you won't notice the difference.
  • getatmedigg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Link to Amazon download store??
  • astrotrain, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6AmazonMP3 is kinda like eMusic with a large diverse selection... and then add the Universal and EMI music into that and turn on the blender button. Now just need to get some more record companies to ditch RIAA and then on here, and nice replacement for iTunes.

    I still don't like the fact of having a separate application to download the music, soon as I pick 'buy' I want it
    to ask me where to save it (default download behavior), and not load up another app to download it.
    • prisoner24601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You can skip the software. I did and it works just fine. That's what I love the most about this: you can use it as just a store to get an mp3 from without having to intall yet another music manager application on your PC. Amazon "offers" you a program, but it's not required.
    • iDug, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The Software is required to save complete album downloads .
      Individual songs .. downloads to you Default internet download folder.
  • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Why isn't Apple doing this?
    • jbmercha, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Monopoly
    • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Because so far they aren't allowed to. All the online digital content stores that sell copyrighted material have to follow the rules as set by the holders of said copyright. Amazon got a deal from Universal to sell non-DRMed audio. Hopefully other stores (including iTunes) will be allowed to do so as well soon. No matter the reason, I'm just happy that more music is available without DRM.

      Competition is good
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Because the other record companies dont allow them to, which is why Apple has every other artist and Amazon only has a limited few. Once all the record labels wake up and smell the 80's, all music will be sold DRM free (as it had been for hundreds of years) and iTunes will also be DRM free. Most of the restrictions on iTunes are because of ***** lawyers and stupid old men running record companies, who dont even know that kids dont know what a ***** record is.

  • mre5765, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1From the FAQ:

    `` Can I download another copy of my MP3 files after the initial purchase?

    Your Amazon MP3 Music purchases can only be downloaded once. ''

    Idiots.
    • nrose101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What is the big deal. That is the same as iTunes.
      • mre5765, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm not an iTunes fan boy, but the company that is behind iTunes at least sells an online backup solution: http://www.apple.com/dotmac/

        I can see assessing a small fee for re-downloads, but why should I have be get into the data management business for virtual products?

        I can download my email from gmail and yahoo as many times as I want and it stays there.

        The comment by GodIsntReal says it all. Not only are torrents free but they are likely to preserve music for re-download.
      • inkswamp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, Apple will let you re-download in some cases, but you have to write to their support email and explain. I've done it.
    • truegodofwar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The files have no DRM, idiot. You can make copies and back them up in a separate location.
    • outsid3rNo17, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think you should have the right to download at least twice. Internet backup, especially one from a trusted company like Amazon, is the only completely safe way to protect an investment of hundreds of dollars (or more).
    • aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1if you don't back up your files, then YOU'RE the idiot. If you buy a cd and your daughter uses it as a frisbee, do you expect them to send you a new one? No, its your responsibility to look after your purchase.
  • GodIsntReal, on 10/10/2007, -22/+3I still cannot understand why people still BUY music just download it from torrents and get it better quality and usually before it even comes out everywhere else. Mmmm free non-drm music.
    • Lotheron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Because some people like doing the right thing?
    • Bluejaye, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Because some people aren't thieves?
    • arctic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2If you were Kevin Rose or Alex Albrecht you would be dugg...
    • misconstrued, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Sans DRM and at a fair price I'll buy before I download it off torrent sites.
    • outsid3rNo17, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Because some have to pay for it so that some others can steal it. If everybody just stole it, they wouldn't make it anymore.
    • nunchuks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3nothing against using p2p, just gets SUPER old hearing the first 6 seconds of a song...silence....fist 6 seconds of the song..silence.. my sanity's worth a buck.
  • cros, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Looks like you need to have a US billing address for your credit card to buy music. Sucks.
    • raesene, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1not for me.. it doesn't seem to validate the address you enter ...
      • AdelVeridon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Correct - all you need to do is give a US address - I've bought 3 albums so far with an Aus credit card.

        Get in while its still beta.... how novel, I am rebelliously flaunting the law by *paying money for something*.

        This is how you know that copyright laws are used to protect corporations not artists - the artist gets the same no matter where the music is bought, but the corporation wants to be able to set higher prices for Australians because apparently they hate us.
    • JohnDesmarais, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Give 'em time. The record labels force foreign distributions to be negotiated separately. If this venture works for Amazon they'll eventually start offering it in other countries.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 122 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.