Amazon MP3 -- giving Apple a run for the money?

[ArcticStones]

.
Good news, in my opinion: Amazon has launched their much awaited music store (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1055053&highlight=). Two million songs/tracks of DRM-free music is not a bad start!

And the bit rate is acceptable -- 256 kbps.

I did a quick search of a few things that interest me. There is, for instance, an excellent selection of Keith Jarrett and Jan Garbarek, Anouar Brahem, Leif Ove Andsnes, Jordi Savall, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Lakshmi Shankar, Lou Harrison, John Dowland, Cowboy Junkies... An impressive number of albums & tracks on all of them! :)

At 89–99 cents per DRM-free track, it seems to compare favourably to iTunes’ $1.39 for the same, as well as iTunes DRM tracks (only 128 kbps). And if Amazon is opening up the same full catalogue worldwide (which Apple does not), I would say they may have a winner.

The competition between Amazon and Apple is bound to benefit music lovers. :cool:

Thoughts?


-- ArcticStones
.

[cwtnospam]

Something is fishy. (http://www.thesmallwave.com/TSW/Home/Entries/2007/9/26_Some_Real_iTunes_Competition%2C_But_Why_Are_The_Labels_Being_So_Nice.html) If the labels don't like Apple's pricing, why are they so willing give Amazon better deals?

[J Christopher]

Something is fishy. (http://www.thesmallwave.com/TSW/Home/Entries/2007/9/26_Some_Real_iTunes_Competition%2C_But_Why_Are_The_Labels_Being_So_Nice.html) If the labels don't like Apple's pricing, why are they so willing give Amazon better deals?

I don't know if something similar is happening here, but don't forget that Amazon intentionally operated for it's first few years at a loss. This could be another example of that business plan in an effort to prove to the labels that many people currently prone to illegally downloading pirated music are willing to purchase that same music if the price is right, the quality is high enough, the filetype is interoperable between players (eg. MP3), and DRM is absent.

If that is the case, and it works, it would put Amazon into an excellent position as a digital music distributer in the years to come.

[cwtnospam]

That might make sense for Amazon, but it doesn't make sense for the Record Labels. Their beef with Apple really is that they want higher prices. I don't see why they would agree to Amazon's plan so easily while complaining about Apple's.

[ArcticStones]

That might make sense for Amazon, but it doesn't make sense for the Record Labels. Their beef with Apple really is that they want higher prices. I don't see why they would agree to Amazon's plan so easily while complaining about Apple's.

Perhaps the record labels are making almost as much, if not the same, as when they sell a track through the iTunes Store? Perhaps Amazon is sacrificing the lion’s share of its cut, gambling on trading it for a significant market share...

One thing is for sure: this is the most serious competitive challenge to the iTunes Store yet!

[cwtnospam]

Perhaps the record labels are making almost as much, if not the same, as when they sell a track through the iTunes Store?
If that's true, it doesn't help them with their main goal of raising prices. It may even backfire, with two online retailers resisting them. Apple doesn't want to raise prices because they want to encourage iPod purchases, and Amazon probably will want to keep their prices at or below Apple's prices.

Of course, not much the labels have done has made sense, so why should this be any different? ;)