So now that
iTunes variable pricing is live, cross-shopping with Amazon is going to be a Thing -- and while we're certain slicker utilities will pop up soon, for right now we'd install Advantageous, which is just a little script that automates an Amazon search query from within iTunes. Yeah, it's not perfect -- it fails if you're logged in with iTunes store credit and it's far from bulletproof otherwise -- but it's a fine way to at least have kids or the less computer-savvy stop and check prices with at least one competitor before laying down an extra thirty cents on each purchase. This is has been a public service announcement... with guitars.
[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
Read - Advantageous for Windows
Read - Advantageous for Mac
posted Apr 7th 2009 at 1:19PM
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
erbium166 @ Apr 7th 2009 1:23PM
Nice subtle Clash reference there!
Dr. Spaceman @ Apr 7th 2009 1:24PM
Meh, who pays for music, anyway?
Baracking @ Apr 7th 2009 1:32PM
Your comment whilst true is nevertheless flawed; it does not address the fact that
1. iTunes songs are better than any other songs.
2. iTunes songs last longer.
3. iTunes songs look better.
4. iTunes songs are listened to by cool people.
5. iTunes songs don't crash or have the dreaded blue screen of death.
6. iTunes songs can be played on iTunes players
If you buy songs from anywhere else, then, well, you are just silly.
Is Amazon still going anyway ?
Amazon is so "me-too".
Dr. Spaceman @ Apr 7th 2009 1:33PM
wat
Baracking @ Apr 7th 2009 1:35PM
New Marketing slogan:
"...so... buy iTunes... they may cost more... but they are worth it".
My little sister says that this does work out right;
Apple tax = 30%.
phobic99 @ Apr 7th 2009 1:34PM
The people that want their favorite artists to keep making more of what they like. Maybe?
I never liked the iTunes store for music anyway. Increased prices give me another reason to not use it.
Thanks Apple.
bandigolo @ Apr 7th 2009 1:35PM
People that aren't douchebags.
Not every band has cashflow from external revenue streams like U2 or whatever other crappy mainstream garbage you douchebags listen to.
numerwan @ Apr 7th 2009 1:40PM
iTunes is better because you only have to change your fluids once per month to get the latest tracks...
Talking to Walls @ Apr 7th 2009 1:53PM
thank you for not paying for music. certainly you are making it easier for people to make more music in the future.
yes, piracy happens. apathy doesn't make it better. it's not just the big record companies losing on the money.
UnixSystemsEngineer @ Apr 7th 2009 2:02PM
This is cool, and will promote online music purchasing and price competition.
I buy music when it's easy to do so, though I only bought a few tracks off iTunes back in the day because of the DRM. I'll be spending more on music via Amazon and non-DRM'd iTunes.
Unfortunately we can't buy the CDs that Promo Only sells to radio stations, and the mixes I want are hard to find elsewhere.
Until the record companies get off their asses and allow us to PAY for the content we want, well, we won't pay for it. Simple as that.
Eddy Munn @ Apr 7th 2009 2:09PM
@ Baracking: Music is music,so what the **** are you on about?
Beastage @ Apr 7th 2009 2:21PM
I'll be honest here, I download music illegally ... yes I do... but because of it I purchased music (not from itunes) online and in hard copy in a sum of over 1000usd just last year.
I can guarantee what I could have never been exposed to so much music without P2P.
FishyPops @ Apr 7th 2009 2:28PM
Eddy,
I think that what Baracking is saying, rather sarcastically, is that you are right.
"Music is Music".
I think that he is saying that this seems to be a clear example of how Apple is starting believe their own press; that they can charge the same product at a premium, that you can get elsewhere or less.
Maybe there truly is an Apple tax. When you compare Apples with Apples then what is left over is the tax.
$1.29 less $0.99 = $0.30 = 30$ tax. This seems to be what Apple charges over and above for all its products.
Lars @ Apr 7th 2009 3:02PM
"I think that what Baracking is saying, rather sarcastically, is that you are right.
'Music is Music'."
I really want to believe it is sarcasm. But man, there's so many Apple fanboys out there that say BS like that and are completely serious.
I usually go to Amazon first for songs (good prices, no DRM, high bitrate MP3's--unfortunately no Ogg Vorbis though), if it's not on Amazon then I'll start checking other places. iTunes is on the bottom of my list.
VanillaSpice @ Apr 7th 2009 11:35PM
FishyPops, you are surely not still under the delusion that Apple decides the prices and conditions of the songs? Apple wanted DRM-free songs, so they could compete with Amazon on that feature, and the labels said, "sure, but you have to allow variable pricing, and by the way, *we* will still be the ones deciding on the price, just like we have done before".
iTunes versus Amazon pricing is not representative of an "Apple tax", it is representative of the labels trying to limit iTunes' success so that Apple cannot force their hand (for instance, by insisting on DRM-free tracks without any price increases).
Just remember, in all cases, the content creators and distributors decide on all the prices and conditions of sale of their products, not the retailers (Apple and Amazon).
Dyranios @ Apr 7th 2009 1:24PM
This is has been a public service announcement?
bdav @ Apr 7th 2009 2:01PM
One followed me home the other day...
a ham sandwich @ Apr 7th 2009 1:25PM
wow. i tried it and got "it seems the new itunes version broke some things with this script. please try again later."
epic fail considering this engadget plug will give them a major traffic boost. :P
bdav @ Apr 7th 2009 1:28PM
Hmm no luck here with 8.0.2 on Mac, was going to upgrade to see if that works but I guess not!
a ham sandwich @ Apr 7th 2009 9:20PM
UPDATE: it appears fixed!
whew. that was quick!
jperezjr @ Apr 7th 2009 1:26PM
wow, that sucks. just shop from zune marketplace or get a zune with zune pass and keep 10 songs for free a month.
bdav @ Apr 7th 2009 1:30PM
People buy those things? (ducks)
In all seriousness, that thing needs some cross-platformness already.
Baracking @ Apr 7th 2009 1:40PM
hey, help me out here. I am new....
I am considering getting a Zune or an iPod. I am interested in compatibility.
When you talk about "cross-platformness", does that mean that on my Zunes I can play:
1. Music stolen via Limewire.
2. Music purchased via iTunes
3. Music purchased from the Zune store
4. Music via Amazon
5. Music Ripped from my CD.
and does that mean that on my iPod I can play:
1. Music stolen via Limewire.
2. Music purchased via iTunes
3. Music purchased from the Zune store
4. Music via Amazon
5. Music Ripped from my CD.
????????????????????????????
El Taco @ Apr 7th 2009 7:04PM
@Barracking
yes, just make sure that iTunes songs are MP3's and Zune Store songs are MP3's. The 10 a month you can keep I'm pretty sure are MP3's.
Gus @ Apr 7th 2009 1:41PM
Amazing how much people will go through when the perfect solution is just so simple: buy the CD. You can rip it to whatever you want. I realize how alluring it is to just buy singles, but is it really worth jumping through all the hoops for an only decent quality file that's not even guaranteed to work with any device you want? Used CDs are cheap, half.com is great.
bandigolo @ Apr 7th 2009 1:45PM
I like your style. I just wish that sellers would stop trying to rape me on shipping. Otherwise, yeah that's the preferred solution.
Also on another note, there is a direct correlation to "douchebag iTunes users" and "people that buy singles instead of full albums". Here's a thought: stop letting MTV and the Billboard 100 tell you what music is good and just go find out for yourself!
chispito @ Apr 7th 2009 1:47PM
I don't think you understand how cheap an entire album often is on Amazon MP3. Every weekend they feature five albums for $5 each, and every day they feature a single album at a greatly reduced price. And usually, these are decent albums we're talking about.
Level 5 @ Apr 7th 2009 1:50PM
Gus +1 - I agree with you 110%
I can't believe how ridiculous people are. Unless you only want a single, I can't see a single reason, not one single reason you wouldn't to go cop a CD, and rip in into the format YOU CHOOSE, the format your PMP requires, or both, or whatever. Then file it or box it up, and never worry about it until you might need to rip the file again. Even 1,000 CD's doesn't take more than a few boxes from Office muffuggin' Depot or whever, and a small chunk of space in your closet. If you pirate music well, that is what it is, take the hit of having to re-encode it if you want it in a different format, gotta pay to play.
I listen to mostly electronic music (House DJ ftw!); thank GOD there's Beatport, I can get WAV's of what I really want, and then rip it to the format *I* want.
Gus @ Apr 7th 2009 1:52PM
Eh, you're preaching to the choir here, lol. Unfortunately the whole mainstream mentality is probably never going to change.
As for shipping, I try to buy several CDs from the same seller so that it's at least not a complete ripoff. That can be hard to do if you have diverse musical taste, but it's worth a shot. Besides, if it's a lesser-known band that I really want to support, I try to buy the brand new copy anyways, especially if I know the cut that the artist making from the purchase.
phobic99 @ Apr 7th 2009 1:54PM
I agree but a lot of people are... guess what? Lazy. Why go through the hassle of buying a CD, waiting for it to arrive (if you bought it online) and ripping it when you can have the songs you want instantly instead?
*I* still buy CDs, but I'd say the majority of people that use digital media players prefer downloading VS ripping CDs.
Gus @ Apr 7th 2009 1:56PM
@chispito
I bought ten of my favorite albums online last week at an average of $6 a piece, including shipping. That extra dollar is totally worth it for me to get exactly what I want.
bandigolo @ Apr 7th 2009 2:05PM
@ chispito
I also buy full MP3 albums off Amazon occasionally. But as Gus says, when the price is comparable, the hard copy is a no brainer.
chispito @ Apr 7th 2009 2:30PM
I'm not saying don't ever buy CDs, I'm just saying I've saved a ton of money buy buying MP3 albums. I can't tell the difference in quality at 256kbps, any player I ever buy (except the DSi) can play MP3s, and they're all backed up along with my photos on an external hard drive. I guess it's my own stupid fault, but I had almost my entire CD collection stolen out of my car about eight years ago and since then haven't been that enamored of the medium.
Also, I think the OP is misplacing blame on the consumers for buying singles, instead of on the artists, producers, and record companies that can't put out a decent full length album to save their lives.
bandigolo @ Apr 7th 2009 1:42PM
Didn't Apple try this $1.29 bull shit back in October 2007 when they stripped DRM?
If anyone has any information about "where your $0.99 goes" when purchased through Amazon vs. iTunes, I'd be very interested in reading about it. Given the iTunes market share, I'd be willing to be that the artists get more $ per download on Amazon. Could be wrong though.
Level 5 @ Apr 7th 2009 1:56PM
Who gives a shit how much more or less an artist gets? The should be fully aware of the payout rates BEFORE allowing their music to be put on these stores. If the payout is more at Store 1 than it is at Store 2, don't put it out at Store 2, or at least stagger the release to Store 2. These people will have paid a premium to have the digital download first, end of story. A grand majority of indy label (not indy music but LABEL) artists don't use either service, they either sell CD's at shows or use CD Baby or some shit. That leaves us with majority of the remaining players being national artists. And believe me, Lil Wayne doesn't give a shit about that 30 cents.
bandigolo @ Apr 7th 2009 2:09PM
First off, it's "indie" not "indy." This isn't auto racing. Second, I'm not arguing your point about making the decision to sell at Store A or Store B and paying the respective fees. All I'm suggesting is that IF there is a disparity, as a PURCHASER I'd like to know so that I can buy songs from the store that pays the artists the most. That's all I'm saying.
nsdcx @ Apr 7th 2009 2:43PM
@ Level 5
I care how much the artist gets. I'd rather buy from Store A that gives 50% to the label than Store B, which gives the label 25%. Knowing the way record labels work, I would guess that 1% of whatever the label gets goes to the artist. So I'd choose Store A any day.
Even if it's a difference of $0.01 a song, it all adds up.
Level 5 @ Apr 7th 2009 1:43PM
This iTunes vs Amazon bullshit is just that. I'm no Apple fanboy, but a 192kbps MP3 or even a 256kbps MP3 isn't the same quality as a 256kbps AAC. Period. Audiophiles feel free to chime in on this, but rip these all back to wav and do a sonic analysis in Sound Forge or Soundbooth or Audacity. LESS of the higher frequencies are stripped away in the AAC format. It's newer than MP3, that's the whole point, to be more efficient at the same or lower bitrate, and to compress less of the sound away in the process. It's not an Apple vs Amazon debate, it's AAC vs MP3. Should Amazon offer the newest music in 256kbps AAC or higher (or comparable), then we'll talk, and an app like this would be useful. Until then, it's bullshit (complete with crashes!).
Not all people have the same hearing ability. Me, yes; I can hear the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a WAV. Others may not. Honestly, a 256kbps sounds closer to the original WAV than a 320kbps MP3. Barely, but yeah, it does.
Enough of that though. Taking what I say into consideration, you're paying a $0.30 premium for a digital copy closer to the original. So hell yeah man, I'd pay more for literally MORE of the sonic elements of the original. In some cases the files are the same price. Fine, get the files for cheaper on Amazon if you can't hear the difference. This debate is so asinine.
That all said, both firms needs to consider FLAC or ALAC as an option, stat.
Gus @ Apr 7th 2009 1:52PM
Considering the ridiculous amount of white earphones I see every day, I guarantee you that the majority of the market share (which is all these companies care about) would be able to tell the difference between the AAC and MP3 even if they had the ears of a bat. High fidelity is just not a priority for 90% of music buyers.
Calling You an iLiar @ Apr 7th 2009 2:07PM
you sir are a liar... cannot hear the difference
so apple fanboy ... you lose ... you get nothing ... good day sir.
r3loaded @ Apr 7th 2009 2:11PM
I have good hearing, good headphones and good speakers (not audiophile stuff costing in the hundreds/thousands though). I can't tell the difference for any format above 200kbps from the original recording. A lot of the quality also depends on the initial recording in the studio, where sound engineers like to heap on tons of compression on modern pop tracks.
bandigolo @ Apr 7th 2009 2:12PM
FLAC is awesome but impractical due to size. I can't tell the diff between AAC and MP3 @ 190k+ unless it's a bad rip. More importantly, I can't tell the diff between Amazon downloads and iTunes downloads.
Level 5 @ Apr 7th 2009 2:22PM
Calling You an iLiar - Wow literal name eh?
Look Pattycakes McGee. It's not my fault that you DID NOT READ where I said this has zero to do with Apple or Amazon, and instead involves the format and bitrate. So here's the deal. YOU lose. And you fail miserably. I also flat out mentioned that not everyone can hear said difference. You obviously can't even decipher between what's actually on your screen and what you WANT to read. I also stated that I DON'T USE EITHER SERVICE and that I usually get used CD's either from Record & Tape Traders in Baltimore Metro, or off EBay or Half. Again, you fail to even read the post. Your Apple radar went off (what, do you ctrl/command-f the shit or something?) and you're like OMFG FANBOY!
Fuck off, and respond to what's written, asshat.
Schwinn @ Apr 7th 2009 2:27PM
http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html
Quote from the article: "In plain language, this means that our musically trained test listeners could reliably distinguish the poorer quality MP3s at 128 kbps quite accurately from either of the other higher-quality samples. But when deciding between 256 kbps encoded MP3s and the original CD, no difference could be determined, on average, for all the pieces. The testers took the 256 kbps samples for the CD just as often as they took the original CD samples themselves."
In other words, well trained/qualified ears in a controlled, high-end environment couldn't tell the difference... so you'll understand if I don't believe you. If it wasn't a blind test, it was likely incorrectly performed.
What's more, this is a test from 2000... MP3 encoders have improved quite a bit along the way since then. Of course, you can always find a crappy encoder that is easy to tell... but then maybe you should get a quality encoder to begin with, instead of blaming the format?
chispito @ Apr 7th 2009 2:37PM
I can't tell the difference between Lossless and 256 MP3s. I have good equipment (Headroom amp with AKG K701s or occasionally my Sen. HD 555s). At about 192, MP3s start to sound a little different, but I couldn't exactly describe or quantify that difference, and I don't think it would especially bother me. Anyway, the point is I definitely can't tell the difference on my Zune with my Portapros or through any car sound system.
It's possible I don't have real audiophile ears though, but if that's case then it's a blessing.
Level 5 @ Apr 7th 2009 3:01PM
Schwinn - I can see where you wouldn't believe me, and since you actually backed up your perspective with facts (unlike these people who are quick to shout "fanboy" all over the place), I think that's awesome. I'll explain how I can tell the difference.
I produce music. Before mastering I always check my final mixes etc. I usually use .WAV's while listening but I had an old 4GB PMP that I used, so I went ahead and encoded it 320kbps MP3. I thought I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I did feel like some highs were missing, so when I got home that day I A/B'ed the original with the MP3. Sure it enough, the difference was there. Right there in my face. I thought maybe I did a shitty encode (I use LAME but this encode didn't have the highest quality vs speed setting), so I re-encoded it. Same thing. I use studio headphones, but I agree, with standard buds or cups, most people can't tell. Hell I use 128kbps AAC for my car's iPod because the difference is so small that I don't care. But I feel there is something there if the sources are scrutinized and high end equips are used like in the test you referenced.
Was it a huge difference that I noticed? No, it was as a matter of fact less than drastic. Was it enough of a difference to re-check the encode AND the mix, thus giving myself a better final before I mastered it? Oh hell yes. With the proper levels and mastering, the difference might just be unnoticeable. However in my instance, the difference was with the format, which by nature does take highs out, and that's how I noticed it myself. So to your credit, no; this was not a blind test. And in 99% of cases if I did notice a difference in music that's not my own, I wouldn't care.
The point is that ANY one medium; CD, vinyl, MP3, WMA, AAC is an interpretation of the original audio. Unless you're right there listening to the original being performed, it's an imperfect medium. So why not pay for what, by nature is closer? Even if you might not be able to tell the difference without (or even with) scrutinizing.
chispito @ Apr 7th 2009 3:19PM
Isn't that the same argument with all audiophile debates? You perceive a subtle difference, and so that justifies the premium in money/inconvenience (in the case of buying the CDs and ripping them to WAV)? Well, whether you do or not, it doesn't make the more expensive or more cumbersome option worth it to the other 99.5% of people.
iTunes charges more and the only difference won't be a difference to almost anyone in an objective analysis. Good for you if it gives you peace of mind and ear, bad for anyone else who could be getting the same enjoyment for less.
rento @ Apr 7th 2009 2:35PM
Apple fails
marc @ Apr 7th 2009 4:08PM
does anyone know for a fact that apple picks the price points? it was my understanding that the labels were the ones that insisted on the variable pricing from apple.
bandigolo @ Apr 7th 2009 5:50PM
Not sure who to "blame it on" per se, but I'm sure it means more money in both Apple's and the Labels' collective pockets. But if consumers don't bite, then it'll drop back to $0.99 guaranteed.