What is Digg?
391 Comments
- 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. - 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/+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. - 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.
- 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. - roguepirate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+62Link 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).
- 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.
- 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 ... - fani, on 10/10/2007, -0/+34No DRM at 256Kbps. Sign me up, Amazon...
- 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.
- kevinmoore, on 06/13/2009, -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 - 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. - 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.
- 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.
- kshakir, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25http://amazonmp3.com
- marksism, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23you mean TERRIST COMMIES?!
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. - faxxy, on 10/17/2007, -0/+17Competition is BEAUTIFUL!
- 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.
- akf2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Anyone know if this is open to non-USians?
- 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... - 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?
- 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.
- 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
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13yes
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+108-track yes, thank you.
- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -7/+15you say that like iTunes is not a piece of ***** itself.
- 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.
- 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.
- huggybarrel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7move out of the 90's
- 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. - tdous, on 10/10/2007, -11/+18Good. I'd much rather buy music from Amazon than Apple.
- 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?
- mikesly, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7keyword almost
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The files have no DRM, idiot. You can make copies and back them up in a separate location.
- 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.
- 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.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 387 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is