Why Amazon Has Convinced Me to Never Buy Music From iTunes Again
By David Walker |
February 12th, 2008
Comments (15)
I have to admit, I’m a bit of an Apple fanboy. I’ve owned three different Macs, currently have 4 iPods in or around the house, use the Airport Extreme Router and my wife and I both own iPhones (both an 8 and 16GB). I plan on buying the AppleTV shortly and intend on purchasing my 4th Mac - either a Mac Pro or Macbook Pro - within the next few months. I even stood in-line for the Leopard launch. Why share all of that? Because, without a doubt, I will catch flack for what I’m about to say and will probably be called an Apple-hater, which I am not. But the truth is, after this weekend, I don’t think I’ll ever buy another song from iTunes again. And it’s all because of Amazon.
To be clear, I normally purchase CDs and rip them myself. On average, I probably buy 7 or 8 CDs for every album I purchase online. But, whenever I have bought online music, I’ve always done it from the comfort of the iTunes interface. Having owned several iPods, I was very comfortable with the knowledge that the music I wanted could be found and purchased easily. Certainly, the fact that the music was DRM-laced was a negative for me, but it was never a big enough one so as to deter me. But, if the choice was there, I’d certainly go DRM-free if given the option.
Well, this weekend marked a first for me. I heard some old songs that I really enjoyed and went looking for the original CDs. As is usually the case, I couldn’t find these titles in any brick and mortar store. So, I immediately jumped into iTunes and found them. However, before I hit purchase, it dawned on me - I wonder if Amazon also has these albums and I wonder how much they are? Quickly, I launched my browser and within a minute, found both albums on Amazon. Even better? The albums cost less than what I had almost paid on the iTunes Music Store. Before I knew it, I had clicked on Buy Now and had begun my separation from IMS.
So why switch? Why make the change and abandon the store of one of the companies I frequent the most? Here’s why:
- DRM-free MP3s - Though it never bothered me before, the thought of being locked down into a single ecosystem forever finally hit me. I’ve never been a fan of DRM, but where Apple was concerned, I turned a blind eye. Maybe it’s the fact that DRM-free MP3s haven’t been available until recently. Maybe it’s the fact that alternate players are starting to look competitive. Whatever it was, a shift happened in my outlook that demanded that I no longer support any DRM, even if it is from a company I admire and respect. And until Apple can convince the major labels to do for them what they did for Amazon, I just don’t know if I can be a party to the DRM-machine that iTunes currently is.
- High Bit-Rate Files - Imagine my surprise when the files I downloaded were encoded in an even higher bit-rate than I normally encode at. Typically, I use 192kbps when ripping CDs. I’ve never been able to tell much of a difference going above the 192kbps, so I’ve opted to save space in exchange for non-perceived audio fidelity. Downloads are different, though. I’d like to be able to burn a CD from these files that sounds very close to the actual store-bought CD. At an average of 256kbps (VBR), the files from Amazon should make for a near identical copy of the original CD. Color me impressed.
- Variable Pricing - Of all the things Apple has fought the studios over, this is the one that is a true double-edged sword. Sure, everyone defends this policy because it keeps studios from pricing new or popular releases at a higher price point. But what about the opposite scenario like the one I encountered? The demand for the albums I was looking for had dropped considerably, with both of them being at least a few years old. Why can’t the market - supply and demand - determine what those albums are worth? Sure, I would have paid $9.99 for each of them, but in reality, they’re not worth as much as a new release or a mainstream title. Even though I only saved about $1.50, the $8.49 price was more in-line with what should have reasonably been charged for these back-catalog titles.
- Great Downloader with Automatic iTunes Import - When I made the decision to buy from Amazon, I had already accepted the fact that I’d have to download the files, rearrange the folders and import them into iTunes. Thankfully, Amazon had already thought through that process and produced a small tool for Mac that downloaded my files for me and automatically imported them into iTunes with Album Art. It was as good an interface as can be expected without being directly integrated into iTunes.
Though my love for Apple products has not wavered, my contempt for DRM has grown. Knowing that the MP3s I purchased can be put onto any player I choose and burned to as many CDs as I like is not something I’m willing to compromise on anymore. Until Apple can find a way to compete with Amazon on these points, I’ll never buy music from iTunes again.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Great article and great points. I too discovered the AmazonMP3 store recently, but I’m semi-proud to say that I’ve never bought a digital music file. I’ve acquired a lot of music online and with certainty I always have the license for music I own digitally either CD, Album or Tape (aghast!). Amazon looks very compelling and I didn’t know about the itunes import tool. very cool.
For me, I’ve really taken to Rhapsody and the subscription model. At $100 a year I get unlimited music on any PC, TivoHD and Sonos (thanks eHU!) and I love it. If I wanted to buy a Sansa MP3 player I could get all that music on a MP3 device. I really don’t use my ipod that much so I haven’t had the urge to buy a new mp3 player to take advantage of the Rhapsody-to-go. If Apple came out with a subscription model I would jump all over it — although not until that integrated with Sonos (probably never).
Apple blazed a trail with itunes and they need to catch up with the DRM less world much faster. They also need to open iTunes up to integration with other music players. I highly doubt that the majority if users would turn away to another MP3 player so long as Apple continues to innovate here. Trying to protect iPod turf by keeping a closed system is silly. iPod dominates this market and will continue to do so for the forseeable future IMO.
It’s funny that you are getting the AppleTV(2) in spite of your hate for DRM. The AppleTV is laced with DRM for video and has lots of restrictions.
The bottom line summary to all of this is that it is just so frustrating to have all of these very capable devices on the market and so many competing technology solutions to deliver digital content. The only winners here are the Studios who have successfully managed to increase the number of digital distribution channels here and increase their revenues.
I’m not buying another single purpose device laced with DRM to support this insanity. There are plenty of options to acquire DRM-less digital content and its getting easier everyday to do so. If I happen to buy a device like the Xbox360 that also has some media playback functions — great, nice bonus. But I’m not going to be shelling out a dime for an AppleTV or any other device. Despite the fact that I think Apple has the best chance at unifying this ecosystem.
One of the reasons I have come to love the Sonos so much is that they are largely agnostic with respect to the content. They make a great device for whole home audio distribution and are eager to add digital partners like Rhapsody, Pandora, Sirus, Zune marketplace, etc… They are not conflicted. I’d love to see them roll out a video-agnostic solution. Or maybe merge with Slingbox who has perhaps the closest business model (although they haven’t begun to monetize their trojan horse quite yet — that a subject for another topic altogether.).
February 12th, 2008 at 11:34 am
I should probably clarify one thing. My purchase of the AppleTV has more to do with getting my home movies and ripped DVDs to different rooms of the house than it does with renting movies.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Have you simply not heard of iTunes Plus? DRM free, and high bit rates. Apple started selling these BEFORE Amazon did. Unfortunately, not all of the songs available on iTunes are available this way yet. (Look for the + sign next to the price to see which songs are sold this way.)
You also should read Steve Jobs’ Feb.6 2007 “Thoughts On Music” posting
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
February 12th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Come on… Like someone else just said, iTunes Plus, has been available offering what you seem to think only Amazon MP3 offers.
All of the record companie are being investigated for anti-trust violations by not offering full-catalog DRM-free contracts to Apple, as they are to others.
(And 256kbps AAC/MP4 is higher-fidelity yet smaller-file size than equal-bit-rate MP3, simply because it’s an older format — from the same standards group, btw.)
The conflation by 99% of writers with file format and DRM wrapper is getting very tiresome, don’t you think? AAC is not Fairplay DRM and vice versa.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Everyone knows about apples attempt to get drm free music into the market place. Good for them for sure — but fact is that they are way behind in selling the drm free music relative to A-MP3
February 12th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
1. DRM Free music is where Apple is headed. Remember there are contracts that must be fulfilled and likely iTunes will bring on my DRM content from studios other than EMI. Let is not insinuate that Apple “prefers” to sell DRM content when in fact Steve Jobs has already opined to the contrary.
2. AAC is arguably superior at a given bitrate to MP3 so 256k AAC “could” be superior to MP3 and is certainly not inferior. I look for more music to come in the higher bitrate.
3. iTunes does have variable pricing. I’ve seen albums range from $7.99 on up to $13.99 on iTunes.
4. Not really a significant point IMO when compared to native ipod support in iTunes.
Competition is good and we music lovers will benefit but I’ve got tens free tracks and other content (podcasts) and more that make iTunes a better deal when taken holistically. Amazon will have to offer more than just a cheaper price to woo me from my comfy position.
Also a bit of pet peeve. The Apple TV is not laced with DRM other than the HDCP on the HDMI outputs. It is the “content” that is wrapped with DRM. As David clearly proves by clarifying he’s playing his own “ripped” DVDs without issue (I assume)
DRM doesn’t work and Apple knows this. Amazon is today’s harbinger of the future where DRM goes bye bye for music and catalog titles see better pricing.
cheers.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Not everybody, apparently. The author of this article doesn’t even mention iTunes Plus, making his comparison of Apple & Amazon missing an important fact, and one that will become a bigger issue as Apple starts selling more DRM-free, higher resolution content.
February 12th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Guys, there’s a reason I didn’t mention iTunes Plus, but I can certainly add it in to the original article. For one, iTunes Plus started off with a price premium of $1.29 per track, completely backing up one of the key points I made for abandoning iTunes (variable pricing). Also, considering EMI is currently the only major label supporting DRM-free music in iTunes, you can’t honestly compare iTunes Plus to Amazon MP3s.
Oh, and I realize that Steve is on-board with DRM-free music, but unless he budges on some of his hard-and-fast policies, the big studios will not be rushing to sell DRM-free MP3s through iTunes.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:34 am
Apple dropped the price on their DRM-free iTunes Plus tracks in their library to 99c way back in October. Not sure what your point is here? Note also that there are over 6 million tracks in Apple’s library now, 2 million of which are DRM-free compared to only 3 million total tracks in the Amazon store.
Of course Apple also provides TV shows, movies (to rent or buy), and over 100,000 free audio & video podcasts (many now in HD video), games, ringtones as well as Audiobooks in the same iTunes online store. All this is a click or two click away in the iTunes software for the 125 million iPod and iPhone users out there which makes it far easier to load audio and video tracks onto your iPod or iPhone compared to Amazon’s slower, limited webpage-based solution.
Also, the AAC format is a far better choice than MP3. Apart from significantly higher quality at any given bitrate (meaning Apple’s 256Kbps DRM-free tracks are higher quality than Amazon’s 256k MP3s), AAC (Advanced Audio Coding) format is an open standard developed by Dolby, Sony, Nokia, Bell Labs and Fraunhofer and ratified by the MPEG (Motion Picture Experts Group) as the successor to the ancient MP3 format which was the old standard (originally called MPEG 1 layer 3 Audio). Unlike the MP3 format, which requires royalty payments on distributed content, no licenses or payments are required to be able to stream or distribute content in AAC format:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding
AAC is used by a growing number of modern devices capable of music playback including the Microsoft Zune, Windows Media Player, Quicktime, Sony Walkman Players, the latest Creative Zen models, the Sonos system, Sony Playstation 3, Nintendo Wii, Sansa, stacks of mobile phones etc.
In contrast MP3 is enmeshed in litigation that has already seen Microsoft ordered by a federal jury in San Diego to pay $1.52 billion to Alcatel-Lucent, for allegedly infringing on their patent technologies related to MP3 compression.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070222-8910.html
So the question is do you want an old dying format or the latest highest quality version. Of course in iTunes, you can convert your AAC format files to MP3 with minimal loss of quality if you have an old MP3 CD player or something, but you will lose much more quality going the other way.
AAC is significantly better.
Also, don’t penalise Apple when it is the Music Labels colluding to try and force Apple to allow their consumer-unfriendly higher prices, forced bundling and albums full of filler. Amazon is just a handy cudgel. Apple is the good guy here, at least give them that.
Mind you, I’m all for competition and I do hope Amazon makes a go of it (unlike MTV’s Urge, Wallmart, Sony’s terrible Connect, the abominable PressPlay, etc etc) and helps to keep Apple honest, but I just sometimes wish bloggers such as yourself would do a less-superficial comparison of the services at times like this.
-Mart
February 13th, 2008 at 9:43 am
I realize that has changed, but it also changed due to market pressure - namely, from Amazon. The point is still a salient one. Apple still had the tunes - that I purchased - at a higher price point than Amazon.
I don’t think I ever commented on these other options. I still use iTunes for everything else, including Podcast subscriptions. My only beef - if you can even call it that - is Apple’s lack of widespread studio support for DRM-free MP3s.
Dude - seriously, I never contended that AAC was inferior or that MP3 was better. You may be right in what you say, but the idea that MP3 is a “dying format” is a bit of a stretch. It’s the ONLY format currently supported by virtually every player on the market. It may not be the IDEAL format, but it is - hands down - the most universally supported.
I don’t think I’m penalizing Apple. But, the fact remains that Steve Jobs has refused to budge on variable pricing and that continues to be the sticking point for the major studios. I have no doubt that Apple will eventually get the DRM-free tracks as well, but until they do - and until they compete in price - I see no personal need to support Apple in this specific area.
As for this being a “superficial” comparison - this article is an opinion, one I’m certainly entitled to. You’re welcome to disagree and make your points - which you have - but to call it superficial is to disregard my right to an opinion. I’m not claiming that these reasons are enough for others to use Amazon over iTunes, only that they were enough for ME to do so. That’s not superficial, it’s personal preference.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Another point not yet made in this discussion is that as iTunes migrates to DRM-free music, is that they have an “Upgrade My Library” feature that allows you to get the DRM-free/higher quality versions of previously purchased songs, as they become available. I did this for songs bought years ago, and it was amazing simple, a single button purchase. Something to consider for people who object to DRM on principle, but don’t want to wait for a particular album on iTunes to go DRM-free.
I am not against buying from Amazon. (I buy my SACD’s from them.) But I am very suspicious of the fact that they are selling songs in some instances for less than Apple, who have the profits of their iPods to help keep the music prices low. Amazon is likely competing with themselves, many people who used to buy CD’s from them are probably now considering their MP3’s. What I really fear is that if they start getting market share away from Apple with low prices, is that they will at that point allow the music industry to raise the prices, and their strategy will have worked. So we consumers have to be vigilant about these choices, the bargain of today may end up costing us more tomorrow!
February 13th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Those are good points, though not ones that would sway my decision right now. Your point about pricing is interesting, and there is probably some likelihood that Amazon is losing money on some tracks to establish a foothold in the industry. It’s not an uncommon practice, but eventually they will have to turn it into profit.
Basic economics really requires that there be 3 major competitors in any given space for consumers to benefit. With only 2 competitors, the likelihood for corruption and back-door dealing is far greater (for which our current 2 party political system is a perfect example). Hopefully, a third contender - in size and selection - will rise to put pricing pressure on both Apple and Amazon. If this happens, we won’t need to worry about pricing skyrocketing.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Hi David:
There is of course is a 3rd competitor, and it’s way bigger than the other two..
I like your point about our corrupt 2 party political system, things would probably be much better if we could download a better one from PirateBay or TorrentReactor-
February 13th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I didn’t mean to imply you did. I just wanted to highlight one other important yet neglected advantage of the iTunes store.
And my point is that if you go for AAC you get a higher quality, more modern audio format that will see you well into the future and yet which still gives you the ability to convert to the lower quality MP3 if you really need it for older devices.
Ah, but that’s the point - it is not just about variable pricing. The Labels want to go back to the bad old days of bundling and album-only purchases as well. They want to force consumers to buy unwanted filler to boost their margins. The variable pricing beastie is also very much a two-edged sword. They seriously want to be able to put higher prices on popular tracks (as well as your wished-for lower prices on oldies). For the vast majority of buyers (ie those buying the popular tracks) that means higher prices most of the time.
Apple is trying to fight for us the consumer believing that if they capitulate, more people will vote with their mice and go back to pirating music which after all is the “cheapest” option of all.
Sorry David, you’re right, that part of my comment was uncalled-for.
-Mart
February 14th, 2008 at 4:10 am
Mart,
I appreciate your sentiments and you bring up a good point I didn’t think about initially. The idea that the labels want to bundle tracks and over-charge for popular tracks is a legitimate concern. Truthfully, I believe the only way to stop this is to create enough competition in the marketplace that the labels have no choice but to offer pricing that remains competitive.
Also, as consumers, I believe we’ve got a responsibility to “quietly protest” pricing like this. If we don’t like that the labels are charging $1.59 for a popular track then we should express that by not purchasing those tracks. I’m not suggesting we pirate the music - but simply refraining from purchasing until a track drops in price can send a very clear message to these labels.
I realize that the fight Steve is having with the labels is partly beneficial to the consumer, but there are elements of his fight that are too stringent. I like the idea of having a price ceiling, but letting the bottom end be flexible. I also like the idea of fighting the desire to “bundle” tracks. I don’t like that the fight has put Apple at a competitive disadvantage. Like I said, I’m a huge Apple fan.
That said, you DID bring up some good points that I have subsequently thought more about and I appreciate you participating in this discussion.