shahine.com/omar/

iTunes sucks for so many reasons. I woke up today intent on buying avoiditunes.com but realized that anything I would do with it might be unethical as a MSFT employee.

I still don't think I'd use Amazon MP3 though - the quality is still sub-par and the price is comparable - and in a lot of cases, actually higher than the equivalent used CD.

I don't disagree but just based on my own experiences iTunes still has a much bigger selection. Which makes no sense to me since Amazon must have an existing relationship with these record companies and it is absolutely in their best interest to work with Amazon. I guess some people just can't let go of that DRM.

Also, I have to wonder how strong a competitor Amazon can be when it is piggy backing off of iTunes (because buying an mp3 off of Amazon just adds it to iTunes). In the end, from an average user perspective, Amazon is just reinforcing Apple's brand. For now (with Apple having the dominant position) it doesn't really matter but I can't help but think it puts a ceiling on Amazon's growth potential.

I would like to point out two problems with amazon.com

1) It works only in the US. That means I cannot use it.
2) Amazon also offers a LOT of tracks as Album Only.

Now, I can't use iTunes either - sorry, your country is not supported -, which might change if the European Union kicks Apple hard enough that they start to obey the actual laws around here.

If amazon comes here though I will use amazon, more convenient staying on the same site after buying some books.

I can see two differences that might impact both pricing and availability;

1. iTunes carries the digital booklet, which you get only with the album, and

2. it is often commented that Amazon's MP3 quality is frequently inferior to iTunes AAC encoding.

None of this may matter to the casual purchaser - the album only tracks may be seen as less worthy by most potential purchasers unless you are an album only sort of person in which case I'd probably take the iTunes deal for the booklet.

Of course Amazon hasn't taken on the international sales challenge like Apple. Why doesn't Amazon offer downloadable music in the UK - it isn't as though there is no market for it here? Could they keep the pricing as competitive here?

A shame Amazon MP3 only works in the USA. Leaves the rest of us 5 billion folk with no real competition to iTunes.

I really like Amazon's service, but I have to point out that it really just depends on the artist and album if the song is available individually. For example, if you do a search on Avril Lavigne, you will find a song called "Girlfriend", which is only available if you purchase the whole Album. I don't know if more songs are available without this requirement than iTunes, but it is wrong to imply that Amazon doesn't ever have this restriction.

Roland - The European Union doesn't have to kick Apple's butt - it has to kick the recording labels' and their agents' butts. Unfortunately contracts that existed prior to the European Union's creation are still in effect meaning that Apple is forced to negotiate with each individual agent. It cannot negotiate with a single European entity until those contracts lapse or are canceled. Apple has no power to cancel them - the labels do.

Amazon can sell only in the US because it has successfully negotiated contracts within the US. Unlike Apple, it has not yet negotiated with each European agent. Of course one way to get around this is to get a US credit card. Hmm, this might be difficult, but PayPal might be helpful.

I just downloaded the complete Daft Punk Alive 2007 Album for a whopping:

49 cents

Actually I'm sure it'w lower than that since I am sure I have downloaded more than 30 albums this month alone to try out new music. The Zune Pass at $15 a month really shows it's economic advantages when you compare it to the Buy model vs the Rent model.

Of thsoe 30 albums, I might be delete 20 of them if I don't realy find I like them.

So I guess I just saved myself $239.80 on iTunes or $179.80 from Amazon.

It plays on my Zune which means it plays in my living room (xbox 360), my car (Aux input), my bathroom (Aux input on clock radio), hell it even plays on my wife's Zune for the same price.

Maybe I'm fortunate that I'm not bound to using CDs anymore, so maybe for some owning music they may not listen to more than a few times makes sense to them.

No subscriptions, please...I can't stand the "smoke & mirrors" people try to present to justify renting music. It's worse than DRM! What says "We own this music" more than you renting songs from the record companies? Stop renting and they stop letting you listen to their music. At least w/ iTunes, I can rip the DRM songs to CD and they're mine to do as I wish.

Still, I could go for the subscription model if it more rewarded me as a customer. Meaning, if I have an active subscription, I can purchase songs for 50% off, ie .50¢ or less; otherwise, I pay .99¢ for songs. That way I get to really hear full albums and decide if I prefer listening to a song casually (rent) or permanently (buy).

/

Wow, a Microsoft employee who hates iTunes...I bet Google is sh*t, too, huh?!

FYI, record companies decide which songs get sold individually and at which services this happens. So Apple is really hand-tied on this one, but still that's part of the iTunes experience regardless of whose fault it is. So if Amazon can do it better, so be it. But that song quality has got to pick up first!

Only comment is stop complaining about iTunes and create your own company if you think the job can be done better. The real group people need to focus on are the record companies and even some of the artists you like. Email the artists and tell them you want better access to their music. Tell them you want things for free. More artists like Madonna will move to different relationships with their content producers. This will allow more flexibility for the artist to choose how their music is downloaded (for example to be ad-revenue generated rather than priced per song).

Complaining about iTunes or Amazon is a waste of your time. I respect everyone's opinion and value a freedom of speech. But complaining to the wrong group provides no value to help deliver on what you want.

Anyone following recent events knows the lables have been searching for leverage against Apple's iTunes Store and it's fixed price policy. Apple will sell any non-DRM material as long as it's AAC compressed. It's the lables that want variable pricing and album only access. They're using Amazon as a vehicle to promote this marketing method. It's early days for Amazon's service and I'll bet the lable's plans are to entice customers with low pricing for an initial period and roll out their real intentions once the customer base reaches critical mass.
Amazon isn't dumb so their tracts can be played on any device to attract the largest audience. Apple's profits lie in the hardware and they aren't threatened by Amazon. They're content to let the senario play out, expecting complex multi-layer pricing and restrictions to frustrate customers once it's fully deployed.

Omar, before you go slapping down your commenters (not a smart thing for a blogger to do in the first place), study up.

Notice that Amazon is charging double for the tracks that are album-only on iTunes.

Why do you think that is?

I hope the lightbulb goes on.

I believe these particular tracks are "Album Only" based semi-arbitrarily on their length.

Omar, I have noticed anecdotal evidence that Amazon DOES indeed have more pull than Apple, for the simple reason that the labels seem to want to "take apple down". Amazon pays the labels less money per track, has a larger selection of DRM free songs than Apple, and from labels that Apple does not have that with, and will be paying even less with the Pepsi deal. I think you should rethink your statement doubting Apple has less pull here...

Am I missing something. I thought there would be more to this article. Really just comparing 1 album between the two services?

Amazon have more weight than Apple, simply because Apple have been stubborn about individual track pricing. Steve Jobs thinks that varying the value of an individual song is worthless, and that all songs should be 99cents; not $1.89, or $1.29, or whatever a record label wants to charge for a new release, etc.

Amazon are paying the labels varying amounts, depending on the price agreed for each song, whereas Apple have a definite flat-rate, which means they can't inflate the price for longer songs, as with the Daft Punk example above, meaning they force Apple to release the songs as "Album Only." The same goes for certain 'rare' songs on soundtrack albums, that a label thinks is worth more.

The question is, should Apple compromise? iTunes is still the dominant music download service in the world, the record labels - even the big USA ones - are still giving exclusive EPs, bonus tracks, bonus videos and pre-order-only exclusives to them, and Amazon MP3 even piggybacks off of the iTunes program, so there's no avoiding it. Ideally, when it comes to renegotiation, Apple will say, 'well you've got no problem with DRM-free on other stores, so you agree DRM is useless' - it is still a new thing, though. EMI were the leaders, and even they were adamant it should be $1.29, with the choice of a lower quality, DRM-enabled cheaper version.

Also, I forgot to mention, Amazon can afford to pay the labels the same, and make less profit, as they are subsidising their music store from their physical goods retail. The iTunes Store is a separate entity to Apple. Their aim is to have a lower price than iTunes, DRM-free, undercutting and getting more and more customers, which means that, even though the price is lower, they still make some money and strengthen their retail brand - the integration between "MP3 Download" and "Audio CD" on their store is entirely intentional and deliberate. They want to keep you there for longer and get you buying more stuff - things they will make a larger profit on.