Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Just tried AmazonMP3. Uh, next please.
Just tried amazonMP3 and it feels like the same clunky browser-based crap as when I tried Walmart's download service back in 2004, and every bit as diffcult to navigate as the rest of amazon's website. I'll never pay for music in an obsolete music format such as MP3, or a space-wasting bitrate such as 256 kbps. Go ahead and ask me how I really feel about it :-)
What galls me, though, is that Amazon is clueless enough to think that putting the name of an obsolete music format in the name of its music download service does anything but tighten the noose that's already going to be around its own neck on this one from the start. That, and they're sufficiently out of touch that the iPod they portray as their leaderboard graphic is an obsolete model. Amazon sells iPods; how do they miss that?
And what really galls me is that this is so transparently a desperate last attempt on the part of some record labels to weaken Apple's position the music industry just a bit. What, don't think is a personal attack on Apple? Look at the two artists AmazonMP3 has chosen to feature at the top of its list: Eminem, who has publicly threatened to sue Apple to get his music out of iTunes, and Lily Allen, who is on record as disliking the way iTunes handles exclusives. Eminem is, of course, part of Universal Music, the label which keeps threatening to suicidally pull its music out of iTunes...and oh yeah, they're the same company that just pulled NBC's television shows out of the iTunes Store.
I'm not against the idea of a successful competing music download service, particularly one that whose songs are compatible with the iPod. And I've said all along that if someone really wanted to unseat iTunes, the first thing they'd do is go after Mac users, and that's one of the few things Amazon got right. Most Windows users want to either vomit or physically attack me when I point this out, but these days the future of computing is being dictated by Mac users. Convince the Mac folks to get on board with your product or service early, and the Windows users will fall in line in a year or two; if you can't sell the Mac users on something new, the Windows users won't have anyone to follow. But making your service compatible with the Mac only helps if your service is worth using, and a browser-based music store with some little app that tries to cover up the fact that this is a browser-based service, is most decidedly not worth using.
Amazon, can I have my 89 cents back?
Just tried amazonMP3 and it feels like the same clunky browser-based crap as when I tried Walmart's download service back in 2004, and every bit as diffcult to navigate as the rest of amazon's website. I'll never pay for music in an obsolete music format such as MP3, or a space-wasting bitrate such as 256 kbps. Go ahead and ask me how I really feel about it :-)
What galls me, though, is that Amazon is clueless enough to think that putting the name of an obsolete music format in the name of its music download service does anything but tighten the noose that's already going to be around its own neck on this one from the start. That, and they're sufficiently out of touch that the iPod they portray as their leaderboard graphic is an obsolete model. Amazon sells iPods; how do they miss that?
And what really galls me is that this is so transparently a desperate last attempt on the part of some record labels to weaken Apple's position the music industry just a bit. What, don't think is a personal attack on Apple? Look at the two artists AmazonMP3 has chosen to feature at the top of its list: Eminem, who has publicly threatened to sue Apple to get his music out of iTunes, and Lily Allen, who is on record as disliking the way iTunes handles exclusives. Eminem is, of course, part of Universal Music, the label which keeps threatening to suicidally pull its music out of iTunes...and oh yeah, they're the same company that just pulled NBC's television shows out of the iTunes Store.
I'm not against the idea of a successful competing music download service, particularly one that whose songs are compatible with the iPod. And I've said all along that if someone really wanted to unseat iTunes, the first thing they'd do is go after Mac users, and that's one of the few things Amazon got right. Most Windows users want to either vomit or physically attack me when I point this out, but these days the future of computing is being dictated by Mac users. Convince the Mac folks to get on board with your product or service early, and the Windows users will fall in line in a year or two; if you can't sell the Mac users on something new, the Windows users won't have anyone to follow. But making your service compatible with the Mac only helps if your service is worth using, and a browser-based music store with some little app that tries to cover up the fact that this is a browser-based service, is most decidedly not worth using.
Amazon, can I have my 89 cents back?
Comments:
Lots of people don't understand the difference between AAC and MP3, quality-wise. And some might not care. AMZN avoided some of the stupidities of their predecessors (WMA, subscription model), but this will likely fail, too. If the labels piss off Jobs, he'll lower the prices on iTunes, and the labels will have no legal legs to stand on, having cut under-the-table deals (presumably) with Amazon.
# posted by 
: 10:24 AM
: 10:24 AM
Too bad you are a dumbass Maczealot so your opinion worths shit about an Apple competitor.
# posted by : 10:56 AM
: 10:56 AM
Wow, this post is so ignorant.
"I'll never pay for music in an obsolete music format such as MP3, or a space-wasting bitrate such as 256 kbps."
So first you go on hinting that MP3 is low quality, and then end the sentence saying that it's too high quality. You seem to be rationalizing your viewpoints with directly contradictory statements. I mean, could Apple have spoon-fed something more ridiculous? You seem to be hinting that you'll only accept 128 kbps AAC songs with or without DRM. Hmmm...
If you want to save space on your iPod, download the "space-wasting" version as an archival copy and then re-encode it at a lower bit rate, or even in AAC if that makes you feel cool. Hard disk space is cheap as dirt these days, and much easier to manage than hundreds of jewel cases. Hell my shiny new 160GB iPod has plenty of space for high bit rate songs now.
The web-based interface is fine and in fact works at least as well as iTunes does in my experience. There is a preview button and a buy button for every item on the list (just like iTunes!) and of course rather than cramming a glorified web page into iTunes you can use a real browser with readable fonts. Plus you can preview ALL the songs returned by a query with one button push (unlike iTunes). I can't imagine how you can consider it more challenging to use than iTunes.
MP3 is the most widely used and compatible format. It is the ONLY compressed format that anyone should be selling because it will have the widest future-proofing due to its widespread use and support. This is why WMA and OGG are also crappy formats to use. It is definitely older and less efficient at compression, as you hinted, so as a consequence, it should also be provided in a high bit rate format so that it sounds great -- which Amazon has done (with 256kbps VBR encoding).
The FACT is that the Amazon songs are high quality, easy to buy and download, less expensive than what you find on iTunes, and have no DRM. Songs that are over .99 are generally ones that you'd have on iTunes as 'Album only' songs due to their length or track count. The service is great, and I'm glad to finally see an a la carte music download provider with no DRM at decent prices.
Stop taking things that happen to Apple personally and you'll make a lot more sense. Finally, as an old-time Mac user, I'm embarassed by your closing anti-Windows tirade... what's the relevance? Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?
Post a Comment
"I'll never pay for music in an obsolete music format such as MP3, or a space-wasting bitrate such as 256 kbps."
So first you go on hinting that MP3 is low quality, and then end the sentence saying that it's too high quality. You seem to be rationalizing your viewpoints with directly contradictory statements. I mean, could Apple have spoon-fed something more ridiculous? You seem to be hinting that you'll only accept 128 kbps AAC songs with or without DRM. Hmmm...
If you want to save space on your iPod, download the "space-wasting" version as an archival copy and then re-encode it at a lower bit rate, or even in AAC if that makes you feel cool. Hard disk space is cheap as dirt these days, and much easier to manage than hundreds of jewel cases. Hell my shiny new 160GB iPod has plenty of space for high bit rate songs now.
The web-based interface is fine and in fact works at least as well as iTunes does in my experience. There is a preview button and a buy button for every item on the list (just like iTunes!) and of course rather than cramming a glorified web page into iTunes you can use a real browser with readable fonts. Plus you can preview ALL the songs returned by a query with one button push (unlike iTunes). I can't imagine how you can consider it more challenging to use than iTunes.
MP3 is the most widely used and compatible format. It is the ONLY compressed format that anyone should be selling because it will have the widest future-proofing due to its widespread use and support. This is why WMA and OGG are also crappy formats to use. It is definitely older and less efficient at compression, as you hinted, so as a consequence, it should also be provided in a high bit rate format so that it sounds great -- which Amazon has done (with 256kbps VBR encoding).
The FACT is that the Amazon songs are high quality, easy to buy and download, less expensive than what you find on iTunes, and have no DRM. Songs that are over .99 are generally ones that you'd have on iTunes as 'Album only' songs due to their length or track count. The service is great, and I'm glad to finally see an a la carte music download provider with no DRM at decent prices.
Stop taking things that happen to Apple personally and you'll make a lot more sense. Finally, as an old-time Mac user, I'm embarassed by your closing anti-Windows tirade... what's the relevance? Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?
# posted by : 2:54 PM
: 2:54 PM
