Amazon MP3 store to spread DRM-free love global in 2008

In perhaps the biggest threat to Apple's global dominance of digital music, Amazon just announced the international rollout of Amazon MP3. Right, the on-line storefront offering DRM-free music from all four major labels. That's 3.3 million songs (priced at $0.99 or less) from over 270k artists encoded in 256kbps MP3 files for playback on any PC, any Mac, and pretty much any portable device you might own. Sure, it's beta but so is that gMail account you've been using for the past 4 years. Unfortunately, the best that Amazon can commit to is "this year" which leaves plenty of time for the house of Apple to get their DRM shiznit together.

[rento @ Jan 27th 2008 6:42AM]

I have been waiting too long for this already! Come to the UK my baby!!

[pigfister @ Jan 27th 2008 7:10AM]

well you can get it but be warned global price fixing by the RIAA/IFPI is being utilised denying and credit transactions that originate from a card outside your own territory, just as they fixed it with iTunes and forced apple to implement regional price fixing.

The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

The IFPI Are: The Same A$$ Holes Like 1 ring to control them all.

The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.

[CB17 @ Jan 27th 2008 6:43AM]

Now we just need this DRM free stuff to "spread" to Movies/TV Shows and we'll be golden...

[Reginald @ Jan 27th 2008 7:48PM]

It already has, and I believe it's called BitTorrent.

[r3loaded @ Jan 27th 2008 6:44AM]

Amazon got ALL FOUR on board for MP3 downloads? Wow, there is a God! :):)

[Kurian @ Jan 27th 2008 6:46AM]

Everyone else just got shafted.

[gear @ Jan 27th 2008 6:51AM]

No proprietary format, no DRM, good bit rate and all four of the big record companies onboard and legal. This is it. From Shawn Fanning's dorm room to this has been a long road; but here we are.

[Ted @ Jan 27th 2008 6:51AM]

Nice!! I've been dying for an alternative to eMusic/Napster/iTunes here in the U.K.

[Darren @ Jan 27th 2008 6:51AM]

I can't wait to load Amazon's mp3s into iTunes and onto my 3G iPod and iPod touch. Take that, Apple!

Oh, wait...

Actually, iTunes is still the best way to browse and discover new music. Once I find something I want to get I'll shop around to places like eMusic and Amazon to see if I can get it for cheaper. That is, unless I'm in a hurry and feel that my time isn't worth the 50 cents I might save by shopping around, in which case I'll just buy it right in iTunes and away I go.

[Kelmon @ Jan 27th 2008 7:28AM]

This is true. Amazon does need to work on the interface to make it as convenient as iTunes to find and buy music. However, given that this is a beta product I feel sure this area will be addressed and it will be interesting to see how well it competes. Since I live in Belgium at present and use a Mac and iPod pretty much my only choice is iTunes for a comprehensive library but I have no issue switching to Amazon if the product and price is right.

[Notung @ Jan 27th 2008 7:37AM]

Discovering music in iTunes?

Now u have to tell me...

[jus10 @ Jan 27th 2008 10:28AM]

I do the same thing (hunt in iTunes) but I always buy from Amazon. I won't buy DRMed music and on Amazon I know it isn't. End of story. I'd prefer AAC files and I'd prefer the clicky goodness of iTunes but since Apple has not been blessed by the assholes of the recording industry to do so, I have to do an extra step.

And yes, this does have a negative impact on the amount of music I buy. Consider that asshole record execs.

[Reader @ Jan 27th 2008 8:27PM]

Uhm iTunes gives you a shitty 30 second preview of the song if I remember correctly. The best service I've used to 'discover' music is Napster, but that was subscription based.

[Luis @ Jan 28th 2008 3:35AM]

It's called Last.fm it's the best way to discover music given it's suggestions and previews

[Darren @ Jan 27th 2008 6:54AM]

No. That would be crazy.

[Carlos @ Jan 27th 2008 7:03AM]

...if only the record labels would get the sand out of their you-know-wheres and allow Apple to go DRM-free, the consumer would be able to enjoy this.

[abib @ Jan 27th 2008 7:11AM]

oh really carlos? only Apple can give happiness to the world but not other companies who don't act like a dick and underestimate the intelligence of their customers?

[Carlos @ Jan 27th 2008 7:25AM]

No... What I am saying is that it's annoying that the record labels are trying to break down Apple's share of the market by only offering the ability to sell DRM-free tracks to businesses like Amazon.

The majority of people are buying music online from the iTunes Store because it works so well and integrates into the most popular music player. Therefore, for most consumers to realize the benefit of DRM-free (meaning they can buy a Zune or Sansa if they want and take their music) is for it to be offered by Apple.

[m @ Jan 27th 2008 3:30PM]

i kind of agree. the label "beta" implies that this is a trial, which could be discontinued. if the labels managed to break apple, there is no guarantee they would keep selling drm-free music through other channels. i doubt they're doing this because they suddenly saw the light and now believe in consumer choice.

[Charles @ Jan 27th 2008 3:37PM]

I agree iTunes is by far the best online music store for exploring and managing my music collection, Amazon has a long, long way to go in this area.

Its strange that iTunes cant offer this same DRM free deal to customers. Apple has fought tooth and nail to get record deals in the US and internationally and it seems like record labels are now giving away better deals to iTunes competitors.

I guess this has to do with iTunes domination of the market and this is the record labels way of adding some competition to iTunes so that Apple doesnt have a strong stance when negotiating.

What I dont get is if the music industry has already opened the flood gates to DRM free MP3s through Amazon at $.99 why not offer this deal to ALL online music stores? Could it be that this is just a way to beat up on Apples market share so that record companies can again control pricing and jack up that $.99 price point Apple fights for?

[mynameisohyeah @ Jan 28th 2008 2:43PM]

"iTunes is by far the best online music store for exploring and managing my music collection, Amazon has a long, long way to go in this area."

You can still use iTunes or anything else as a music manager (the whole point for non-DRM), and exploring music is as simple as clicking related artists. Who explores music through an online store anyway?

[Trent @ Jan 27th 2008 7:12AM]

Why would anyone in the right mind download mp3s from iTunes when you can get stuff at a higher quality and cheaper via Amazon. I just downloaded Amy Winehouse Back to Black for $7.99...saved $2 via crappy iTunes. I also have a monthly 100 download songs via emusic.com (mostly independent/indie stuff) where I pay 25 cents per song. Again, why would I or anyone pay Apple 99 cents?

Loving my red 3g nano filled with emusic and amazon :)

[ssuk @ Jan 27th 2008 7:34AM]

While iTunes music may be DRM-laden, those M4A files are actually AAC files in a nice coat, meaning they're potentially higher quality if encoded at the same bit-rate. However, MP3 is far more versatile since every digital music player will play them, and DRM free, more importantly.

[Trent @ Jan 27th 2008 7:56AM]

A ACC file at 128 is slightly better than a 128 mp3.

However, it is not better than a 192 VBR(goes up to 320) encoded in LAME(best mp3 encoder out there by far) or a 256 CBR. Both emusic and Amazon use LAME too. All of my ripped music is also done so using LAME, not iTunes crappy mp3 encoder or ACC protected crap.

Oh and just another comment. I am getting Sia's new album for $3.50 at Emusic which is cheaper than Amazon or iTunes. Target selling it for $14.99 oh my.

ACC is only slightly better at the same bit rate but loses it's ability to increase quality significantly above 160kbps from what I have read.

[rener @ Jan 27th 2008 7:57AM]

@Thomas:

Proving once again that "no one ever lost money overestimating the stupidity of the public"

This has nothing to do with iTunes. They would sell DRM free music in a heartbeat if Sony, Universal, and WB let them. But the Big (3 out of) 4 won't because Apple keeps a hard line on pricing. Amazon has more DRM-free content now and cheaper prices only because the Big 4 want to hurt iTunes. Why?

Not to benefit consumers.

To fracture the market in hopes other vendors (who don't have Apple's hardware focus) won't hold the 0.99 cent line on pricing but give in to the "variable" pricing model.

Remember, these are the same people who charged outrageous prices for CDs saying they were "new technology" and would come down in price eventually, and then continued to raise their price over time. And we won't even get into ring tones.

The Big-4 want to maximize profits by gouging based on popularity, bundling, etc. and they don't care a fig about consumers.

Example:

Many iTunes users are not tech savvy. They use iTunes because it's dead easy. Many of us probably have family members like this, and trying to explain shopping around to places like Amazon to get music for their iPod is an exercise in frustration. They just want a fast, easy, comfortable way to buy music. And because of the Big 4 and their machinations, they're still getting lower bit-rate DRM (and probably don't even notice or know what it is).

(Which probably also shows that the DRM issue itself is loud on the 'net but perhaps not even noticed by many in the larger population - hence some leverage lost to the Big (3 out of) 4.

[Thomas Ricker @ Jan 27th 2008 11:17AM]

Yup, I agree. Nothing would make some of the big four execs (er hmm, BRONFMAN!) happier than to drive a wedge through apple's stranglehold.

However, I disagree that this will not benefit the consumer. More choice should mean more competition which almost always benefits you and me. I say should because I don't trust the music cartel for a sec.

Thomas

[EJ @ Jan 27th 2008 11:27AM]

Well said. I generally agree with you about the studio's intentions, but I think there's a also valid argument that even if they were able to "crack" Apple, the record labels would still have to compete with "free". Many of their biggest consumers, the under-25 demographic, are young, tech-savvy and poor. Even in the wildly unlikely scenario that they were able to mess with the market and bring back the $15 album, they'd lose $1.50 from a price-sensitive, resourceful teenager for every $1 they gouged out of grandma. Piracy is the elephant in the room here - say what you will about it, but it's tilted the fundamentals of the music business firmly into the consumer's direction. I'm not losing any sleep over this laughable scheme.

[Duscrom @ Jan 27th 2008 1:24PM]

I love how everyone thinks Apple is just the greatest people, out to help YOU!

BS, I say. Apple isn't going DRM free because they don't have to. They still have the 3rd largest retail store in the US for music. And even if this is everyone against poor little apple, cause they are such a small and weak company, then you know Maybe some competition needs to go around.

I mean, read yourself iTunes prices? iTunes charges $1.29 for DRM Free songs, .99 for DRM songs.. and anywhere from $9.99 to 13.99 for full CDs. Amazon MP3 does this for 89. for many songs, .99 for others, and usually 8.99 to 9.99 for full albums. And on top of all that, won't lock me into their hardware. If iTunes goes DRM free, Apple loses.. especially as more and better media players come out.

[rener @ Jan 27th 2008 1:42PM]

@ Thomas:

I agree with your that competition is a good thing, but think the Big 4 will do everything they can, use their oligopoly (cartel) powers to push less strong-willed vendors into an overall higher price point. (Like gas stations have competition, but the price increases are non-competitive).

Aside from the video producers, the record companies seem like the slowest, most closed-minded and tech-unsavvy people on the planet. They have shown absolutely no understanding of economies of scale and volume pricing.

Perhaps it's because they understand that they no longer serve a purpose. In the old days, creators needed the Big 4 to produce and distribute their music, which the Big 4 did by basically putting the creators in debt and overcharging the consumers, bilking the business at both ends.

No artists can go directly to the 'net (or to iTunes or Amazon MP3 and dozens of other places), hence directly to the consumers, cutting the Big 4 out of the picture.

DRM -- FUD -- and playing iTunes, Amazon, etc. off against each other, along with funding RIAA lawsuits is a desperate attempt to cling to relevance, at the everyone's expense.

Apple, Amazon, et. al. could equally flip the switch on their own "record labels", with much more enlightened promotional/resale terms, which is the ace in their hole (unlike the phantom DRM-free ace the Big 4 are trying to play).

To pricing competition, the biggest is still "free". Like with TV/Movies, where Torrent-Net will cut the profits out of all but the top-level content (stuff people think is so good they'll willingly, happily pay for it), artists won't be able to make 1 or 2 great songs and fill the rest of the album with crap (the way Hollywood won't be able to skimp on script and expect people to flock to theaters for lack of any other options).

I think that's where we consumers will finally, truly benefit: competition in quality of content.

I buy stuff on iTunes (and Amazon for the brief 24hrs. they let me before cutting Canadians out) because it's easier and I believe in paying for good content so I'll get more of it. But if/when prices fall to a certain level (.50 cents? I'm not sure), the ease of use will overcome most of the "free" competition to.

[rav97 @ Jan 27th 2008 3:14PM]

You can buy and download individual songs directly from Amazon's web site. You can do it with a Linux PC, or a PS3, or a Nokia S60 phone, or really anything that has (1) a web browser and (2) the ability to save files to the local filesystem.
Why do you think that being able to download songs through a dedicated app (iTunes) available only for OS X, Windows (no Linux version in sight), and a couple of Apple-made pocketable devices (iPhone, iPod Touch) would serve the the average consumer's interests better than what Amazon is offering?
Even when it tries to be open, Apple is still a lot more closed than its competition. I guess it's the force of habit.

[John @ Jan 27th 2008 8:18PM]

Yeah, I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that Amazon.com is a HUGE outlet for (physical) CD purchases, and therefore they had the extra leverage that Apple doesn't have to force record companies to sell DRM-free. Record companies look at iTunes and see a business front for the "epidemic" of illegal music downloads. I mean really, how many iPod owners have at least one illegally-owned song on them? On the other hand, Amazon.com has no hand in that, they just rake in the dough from physical CD sales and make the record companies happy. Therefore, they get the goods.

[Joe @ Jan 27th 2008 8:22AM]

$0.0000003 per song. iTunes killer!

[Liam @ Jan 27th 2008 8:29AM]

There simply must be a price war in Europe, especially int the UK. It's still £8 an album (more than I would pay in a shop for back-catalogue stuff, and about $15-16), 79p a track.

[BatteryAcid @ Jan 27th 2008 8:36AM]

All of those media players standing equally side by side look so peacefully.

Cant wait! I use Songbird with Skreemr integration and limewire simply because i'm always moving my music and can't stand DRM.

[CUBSWILLWIN @ Jan 27th 2008 9:05AM]

anyone notice that if you look closely at the picture, only the first 4 are mp3 players. The rest are actually phones (which obviously play music)

[Jon Shipman @ Jan 28th 2008 10:42AM]

And my phone is the first one pictured :-D

[bondsbw @ Jan 27th 2008 9:18AM]

I call foul. At that price, we get 33,333.333 songs per penny. But they will only sell you 33,334 songs at a time, at a price of $0.0100002. What the crap Amazon? I have to pay an extra penny since there isn't a such thing as a coin worth $0.0000002... which means they profit almost a FULL PENNY every time someone does this.

I'd have to buy over 1.6 BILLION songs before I would get to an even amount. That's $500!!!!

No, thanks... I'll just stick to my CDs thank you very much.

[Dino @ Jan 27th 2008 9:34AM]

Apple would love to sell DRM-free music, they just don't want to sell music that can be played on any MP3 player so they can hand-cuff you with ipod/itunes. Talk about a double-standard! And that is why they should be boycotted.

Amazon is offering exactly what is best for consumers and they will be rewarded with my dollar-votes!

Finally!

[Vanillacide @ Jan 27th 2008 10:08AM]

ACC format can be played on any MP3 players, it's an open standard; some describe it as the next generation of MP3, MP4 if you like. It is not Apple's proprietary format.

If you buy DRM free tunes from iTunes, such as EMI ones, they will even play on a Zune.

ACC is not like Microsoft's WMA format.

[Dino @ Jan 27th 2008 11:40AM]

Thank you for the correction.
Is it possible now to buy a song on iTunes and then immediately copy the file (which contains the artist name and song title by default) onto my Sansa View mp3 player? I am not interested if it can be done another way, only this way.
Two years ago, I returned my one and only ipod after two days because ipod/itunes couldn't do it back then.

[rav97 @ Jan 27th 2008 3:49PM]

@Vanillacide:
I've met music players which play MP3 but not AAC. I've yet to meet one which plays AAC but not MP3. If Apples wants to reach the largest audience possible, they'd offer their DRM-free songs in MP3 format.
But Apple isn't the least bit interested in reaching the largest audience possible, is it? Until they are, Amazon gets my money.

[JC999 @ Jan 27th 2008 6:14PM]

Apple *does* already sell DRM-free music with no burn limits via iTunes Plus. They initally charged more per track for plus, but now it's the same price as non-plus. Granted it's in the 256kbps AAC format rather than MP3, meaning you can play it on your iPod but not on players that do not support AAC, and the selection is limited at this point. I'm not apologizing for Apple, but everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that they *do* have some non-DRM offerings.

[rmjb @ Jan 27th 2008 9:35AM]

This can't come too soon. In my little country itunes isn't here and there is no way to get legitimate downloads except maybe emusic, which doesn't have anything I recognise anyhow.

Amazon, you have another customer in waiting here in Trinidad and Tobago.

- rmjb

[Bob @ Jan 27th 2008 9:53AM]

If anyone's curious, it's likely the first countries to get this will be Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, France, China, and Japan. See here for details:

http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/01/27/amazon-mp3-expanding-internationally-more-drm-free-in-2008/

[BobTurbo @ Jan 27th 2008 10:25AM]

I can't believe people think 256kpbs mp3 is acceptable. I will keep buying higher-quality and cheaper CDs until online music is lossless.

[Dave @ Jan 27th 2008 10:53AM]

You are so full of it.
You can not tell the difference.
Fools like you walk around thinking you've got some special ability to hear the slightest nuance of warbble in some buried note...
YOU'RE FULL OF IT!
@128k, or even 160k maybe, but you or anyone else would *FAIL* trying to distinguish a 256k MP3 from original AIFF on anything but the purest test tones.

[BobTurbo @ Jan 27th 2008 11:46PM]

That is what people on the internet were saying about 128kbps years ago as well. I have tested 192kpbs CBR MP3 (blind but not completely perfect test) and WMA 192kpbs and they were clearly distinguishable from the WAV. MP3 was lacking in dynamic sound and WMA screwed up the tricky bits (as did MP3).

Unless you have 256kbps CBR MP3 listening tests that involve decent quality equiment (read: not internal sound card) and a large sample size, then you are another fool on the internet with emotional issues because they just ripped their entire collection of music in a lossy format.

[aleks @ Jan 27th 2008 11:24AM]

I hate to spoil the party but I've been buying Amazon mp3s right here in Korea for months. Was I not supposed to?

[Derek @ Jan 28th 2008 12:04AM]

Ditto...except I'm in Australia.

[dramamoose @ Jan 27th 2008 11:26AM]

This could be a godsend. I like eMusic, don't get me wrong, but sometimes I wish they had some more music.