Gizmodo
Now that EMI and Universal have seen the light and started offering music in DRM-free MP3 format—and according to well-founded rumors, Sony and Warner are also exploring a DRM-free launch in 2008—online music stores finally have the means to get iPod-friendly and take on iTunes. As you know, iTunes only offers AAC files, a small fraction of which are DRM free, so Amazon and Wal-Mart have launched MP3 stores to lure people looking to buy their newly-freed tunes elsewhere. So, iTunes defectors, where should you go? Into the familiar embrace of Amazon, or into the hairy, bologna-scented arms of Wal-Mart? I took them both for a spin, and made the call.
What's For Sale
Much to the joy of the record labels, Wal-Mart and Amazon.com both offer staggered pricing on their wares (as opposed to iTunes which generally supports flat rates for its songs and albums). On Wal-Mart's site, there's a menu on the upper left that lets you sort through albums that cost $7.88, $5.88 or $3.88, and there's also a selection of $2.24 "hit packs." What doesn't make sense is that elsewhere on the page, albums are offered for $5.64 and $4.70, and if you dig around on the site you'll find even more arbitrary pricing. Albums generally top out at $9.44 from what I saw, while single tracks cost 94 or 88 cents.
Amazon's albums also range in price. Just looking at the selection of Nirvana albums shows that you can pay only $5.99 for In Utero, but the price jumps to $7.99 for Nevermind and $9.97 for Bleach. The single tracks aren't uniformly priced here, either, with some tracks costing 99 cents and some 89 cents, even on the same album. Like Wal-Mart, you can browse by price here, but it sticks to dollar ranges ($5 to $5.99, $6 to $6.99, etc.) so it makes more sense than Wal-Mart's arbitrary menu.
Comparison Shopping
How do the prices compare between the sites? Well, from my unscientific sampling, Amazon seems to be the cheaper choice. All of Nirvana's albums, for example, are $9.22 on Wal-Mart, and that's for the censored versions. The listings for the uncensored versions all say "Not available for download. Buy this on CD from Walmart.com." No, no I won't.
Other price discrepancies include Air's Pocket Symphony ($8.99 on Amazon, $9.22 on Wal-Mart), Broken Social Scene's self-titled album ($7.99 on amazon, $9.44 on Wal-Mart), and A Love Supreme by John Coltrane ($8.97 on Amazon, $9.22 on Wal-Mart). More often than not, the prices are better on Amazon.
And a lot of albums that are on Amazon aren't available at all on Wal-Mart. Boxer by The National? Nope, no albums from The National at all on Wal-Mart, nor of Smog. In the Aeroplane Over the Sea by Neutral Milk Hotel, Sound of Silver by LCD Soundsystem and Horn of Plenty by Grizzly Bear are all available on Amazon and missing from Wal-Mart as well.
You've also got to be careful, because some albums available on Amazon in MP3 are only available on Wal-Mart's site in locked-down 128kbps WMA. Wal-Mart does have the decency to state whether or not a track "Plays on iPod," though, so you're cool if you pay attention. See the Band of Horses' Cease to Begin example here:
Praising Amazon over Wal-Mart isn't the same as saying Amazon's selection is amazing. A lot of times they don't have the complete catalog of an artist (Grizzly Bear's newer Yellow House isn't available on either, for example). And obviously you won't find anything from Sony or Warner on there.
But by and large, the selection on Amazon, especially of independent label artists, is clearly superior to Wal-Mart's. And not having to deal with WMA results mixed in with your MP3 searches is much better.
What About Design?
Both stores borrow liberally from iTunes' layout. There are genres on the right, top songs on the left, and featured stuff in the middle. Both have search results that feature tracks in a lower pane and menus above. Both allow you to click on any of the columns to go right to that artist or album as well. The Amazon version feels a bit more elegant to me, but it really is a personal preference: in terms of functionality, neither one really beats the other.
For downloading, Amazon requires both Windows and Mac users to first install a small program called, conveniently enough, the Amazon MP3 Downloader. Once you install it, when you select the song or album you want to download, and the rest happens automatically. By default, the MP3 Downloader sticks it in your music folder and then imports it to iTunes for you, which is convenient. However, for someone like me, who keeps his entire music collection on a different hard drive in meticulously organized folders, it's a little annoying to not be able to choose where each file goes rather than just selecting one default place. For people who just dump everything in their iTunes music folder, however, it's cake.
Wal-Mart also has a program for downloading songs that requires a scary ActiveX script to install—and yes, unlike Amazon's, this thing is only available to Windows XP and Vista PC users. No Macs allowed. The Download Manager is harder to install too, with IE fighting you every step of the way to get it running.
It works a lot like Amazon's program, hiding in your task bar and waiting to be loaded up with songs by the site, but there are fewer preferences. I couldn't even find an option letting me pick a download destination. It only gives you an option to add it to your Windows Media Library, which is useless to me, but later I discovered a "Wal-Mart Purchased Media" playlist in iTunes. When it finishes, it gives you the option to play the song, which if you do opens the song in Windows Media Player regardless of what your default MP3 player is. Worst of all, I had to search for the location of the downloaded file itself. It ended up in My Documents/My Music/Downloads/Artist/Album, again, totally pointless for my purposes. Not having the ability to select a destination folder is bad design; not telling people where to find their freshly paid-for music is idiotic.
And the Winner Is...
The fact that Wal-Mart forced me to use Internet Explorer (and only works on Windows) is enough for me to never use it (Seriously, Wal-Mart? Seriously?). Beyond that, the prices, selection and downloader were all better at Amazon. It'll be familiar to anyone who's used to iTunes and easy for people who've never bought music online before, which should help them out greatly with their upcoming billion-song giveaway. In the end, which do I suggest? Amazon, to be sure.
What about iTunes?
The real question is whether or not I'd willingly switch to either store from iTunes, if format wasn't an issue. The answer, from a strict functionality standpoint, is "no." The fact that iTunes is a standalone program that also plays all your music makes it a far more elegant solution than either Wal-Mart or Amazon. There's no extra program to download, there's no worrying about where the songs go, and there's no dealing with browsers.
However, the pricing in Amazon's (and Wal-Mart's to a lesser degree) store is very competitive, oftentimes significantly cheaper than iTunes. Combine that with the fact that you get MP3 files that'll play on more devices than Apple's AAC, and you've got a serious contender in Amazon's store, especially for the cheap and anal . It just depends if you're willing to leave iTunes to go to the store. [Amazon.com; Wal-Mart]
Comments
Please, please offer lossless (i.e. FLAC) downloads as an option!
I would be willing to pay more to get downloads in lossless.
The Amazon mp3 store really is terrific. It's what I've been waiting for in terms of price, quality and DRM-free. Sony and Warner jumping on board would be terrific.
Apple is out of their mind for thinking they have a right to tell me what type of hardware I can play MY MUSIC on.
There is no extra program to download with iTunes? Isn't iTunes a program?
Allofmp3 was the king.
Good point, but one thing you didn't cover here is what the bit-rate of the DRM-free mp3s are. I saw some tracks recently on amazon that were 256 kbps and was disappointed they weren't 320 instead. Any chance walmart's one-upped them and provided 320's?
@kibets: Yea iTunes is a program. And theres no EXTRA program you need to download music with it.
Actually, the poster had it a bit off. If you buy a single song off Amazon, it acts like a file download. However, to download albums, you need the utility. In any event, what was Walmarts bit rate? I know Amazon is 228kbps VBR at least, but it'll usually get higher.
@Adam Frucci: Unless something has changed in the past few weeks, the Amazon.com download program is optional. When I went there to get some Guns & Roses, I just declined the installer and it let me download it normally with Firefox.
@clutchdude: Actually, Clutch probably has it right.
I recently bought an mp3 album from Amazon, because it was about three dollars cheaper than iTunes. One of the songs has a spike in it, something I've never had happen with iTunes. Since then I've been paying an extra dollar here or there and have been sticking with iTunes.
I'm surprised to see no mention of emusic. While it may not be iTunes, as far as I know it's the second largest online music retailer, and it's the fastest growing. I'm sure Walmart and Amazon are threats, but at this point I think they're vying for 3rd place, not second. No?
Sounds like if someone supplements Amazon with eMusic they can basically cover most major and indie label bands.
I buy CDs if I know the album is good. MP3 downloads are for one hit wonders.
As I've often liked to say Fuck Walmart, there's no reason why I can't say it again and simply stick to the superior Amazon.com. Doesn't really make a different anyway, since Amazon had the good sense to make a Mac-compatible version of their downloader, so that *all* iTunes users can access the store. It forces IE on you? Yeah, that's a definite fail right there. Nice try Wally-World, your parasitic retail model won't help you in this game. Huzzah for Amazon.
Does anyone know if Walmart bleeps out swears?
(eMusic all the way!)
im curious as to why none of these stores have any sort of plugins for windows media player (and whatever the equiv might be on mac).
I don't have an ipod, and i dont want itunes, and out of simplicity i use windows media player for most of my stuff. computer geek that i am or not, im lazy and since most consumers are lazy or don't know how, they tend to stick to the basics or get all the random crap that kills their setup. for those that stick to the stability of the basics, i'd like to see a plug in for windows media player where if i'm fired up and listening to music, i could have a search bar on the right side or something that connects with amazon.
seems like it would be easy to make. type in your search string, hit enter, then in the built in browser within wmp show the site w/ amazon interface for picking out and purchasing stuff. then maybe have it query the wmp for default media storage places, and when downloaded auto add to library...
i dont know if itunes comes std on macs or not, but if i was a webbased company i'd focus on making my interfaces integrate well with the standards that everyone's used to. then make some crazy installer that will automatically download and install all of my interfaces, some spyware, and pron w/o consent. also have an icon on the desktop that can't be removed.
@weatherman: eMusic doesn't carry major labels which is why they can offer their subscription based pricing scheme. While they won't overtake iTunes, they will be a contributing factor to the downfall of major labels.
I hope.
I blame Apple for not publishing a clear API for iTunes. I'm sure that Amazon (at least) would build a plug in directly into iTunes and let you browse that way if Apple published the spec.
I myself would build an OGG lossless player/converter (I keep all my music in Apple Lossless - but wouldn't be opposed to picking up a few OGG Loggless files especially if I could convert them back).
I'd also build me a nice "fix broken music links" gadget, since moving music, deleting duplicates, etc. often causes me to lose a few 100 tracks which I then have to laboriously re-link one at a time.
Sorry, what were we talking about again? iPhone?
Walmart censors the music? That's retarded. Do they at least inform you that you are paying for 'bootleg' recordings? Because that's what they are, if the artist or label didn't censor the music themselves.
you said at one point, "the national" followed shortly by "not available at Walmart"... i didn't have to read anymore.
Amazon crossed with itunes for the win.
@RalphWiggum: Couldn't agree more. Cheap prices, no hassles... Amazon MP3 rocks.
Amazon is sexy. Wal-Mart is for pie-hungry mullet-embracers. No offense.
@brodie123:
Same here... just knowing that Mal-Wart hasn't got one of my fave songs, "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" by Neutral Milk Hotel is a shop-breaker for me.
I agree with everything you said. I also think Amazon.com is the best way to go. I would expect iTunes to step it up here soon and start offering better prices and the mp3 format.
Either way, it is great to have a legal way to get my hands on digital media. Now, we just need to get the movie industry on board =(
DRM-free digital media, that is ...
@satan gave me a taco:
Allofmp3 wasn't even in the same league. They gave no portion of their profits to the artists. If you were going to use Allofmp3, you should have just been using torrents. At least that way you weren't paying someone else to rip folks off for you.
@phoenixavatar2: To download full albums and get the benefit of the price break, you have to download the installer. However I did it yesterday for the first time and found it very aggravation free and elegant. Surprisingly so.
Although it doesn't give you the option of where to put the files, it figured out automatically that I had iTunes, and where my path is, and put everything there. So it is easy enough to find and move the files if you have somewhere else you want them to go.
so a user that bought a everex gOS from wal mart wont be able to download tunes thru them. sad.
So, Amazon by a furlong?
@soldstatic: Wal-mart has a WMP plugin for its store.
@AlexNC: i'd rather see more music player hardware manufacturers add non-drm aac (which pound for pound sounds better than mp3 anyway). that would give people the additional choice of getting thos from itunes if they wanted. the companies can add ogg and wma support as well as mp3, how hard can it be to include aac?
The amazon kindle promises to keep track of your book purchases so if your kindle is ever lost, stolen, or broken, you'll be able to redownload them. I wonder if Amazon will eventually allow this functionality for music downloads?
"Apple is out of their mind for thinking they have a right to tell me what type of hardware I can play MY MUSIC on."
I hope that's a poor attempt at sarcasm, because Apple has never told you damn thing about what you can do with "your music".
Or is this one of those cleverly disguised "Apple is a Monopoly!!11!" comments?
@His_Shadow: Actually, the EU has been up Apple's ass on the "Apple is a monopoly" aspect of the iTunes/iPod ecosystem.
And what gives with putting "your music" off in quotes? Are you implying that purchasing a CD or downloading a song grants the purchaser a license only? If so, that's great. I have a bunch of old CDs that are all beat up. If I have a license to listen to them, arguably, there is an implied duty on the grantor to replace my CD. Plus, I lost some tracks when my drive crashed, but since I have a license for the media, I can always redownload - again and again and again and again.
Or does purchasing an album regardless of format equal buying the media and all the attendant fair-use rights such as space-shifting and archiving?
@omg-ponies: Oh Snap!
@His_Shadow:
Really? Apple doesn't use a proprietary DRM encryption called FairPlay that prevents certain hardware from playing it? So when I buy a song for $0.99 I'm not limited to only the devices they like? You should really let manufacturers like Creative and Sonos know that they've got it all wrong, you seem to be much more in the know than them.
What Amazon needs to do is make standalone music browser/store, and make it look as close to iTunes as possible, and then auto sync anything from the Amazon browser to iTunes. I'd switch immediately if you could sync your iPod directly from the Amazon browser/store instead of importing from store to another.
Oh and include cheaper music videos/TV shows/movies.
Of course there always is Zune, the new browser does kick ass, unlike its laggy autistic older brother, and they have over a million DRM-free tracks.
@firesign: and why should manufacturers cater to itunes?
@omg-ponies: @RalphWiggum: well done!
this amazon store looks good. it's about time someone started offering drm-free music from major labels. maybe now i will actually buy music online (i have always bought cd's because i refuse to buy something that is drm'ed).
Wal-Mart is evil! One of the local stores was so pissed about the Eagles selling their new album exclusively at Wal-Mart that they stopped selling all Eagles albums!
Geeez.. you'd all think you have no options. buy/borrow/steal the CD, burn it at whatever bit rate you want and whine no more.
Is Wal-Mart evil to you? Don't shop there and TFSU
Is Amazon a thorn in your side? Don't shopt there and TFSU.
Bloody whiners.. Unplug, get some friends and swap CDs.
Or, if you are more economically inclined - use your collective market force. Here endeth the lesson
I hatez walmart cuz they use better integration and globalization to their advantage and other companies arent smart enough to. Cuz walmart is an extremely effective business I hatez it. Screw the sucessful! Lets force inefficiency! Prevent basic economic principals!
I'd be interested in seeing a comparrison between itunes and Urge on windows media player. I've been using that since I Have a Windows PC and a creative Zen media player...so I have no need for itunes...other than podcasts.
Aren't all of you newbies to the iPod the same who were defending 96 bit WMA's and Rio players just a few years ago? Old Apple fans remember the frustrating time after Napster went corporate. It was 96 bit WMA heaven for all of you and the record labels too.
Then Job's tricked the Record labels into allowing downloads that were comparable to CD's. Of course, they were only trying to slow illegal downloads at the time. They never considered that people would actually rather pay for quality downloads. But the fact that people were willing to pay for quality downloads, triggered the greed nerve in their fat CEO head. Now the Labels want you to think that you have won and they are going to cannibalize their own CD sales by selling DRM-free tracks.
Now, you say iTunes sucks, but DRM-free at "iTunes-like" is cool. Ok. However, Just keep in mind that the weaker iTunes gets, the more level the playing field becomes the stronger the Record labels become again. In the beginning of 2007 Job's had they're backs against the wall, as well as studios, and you guys want to let them tap-out.
Now 128 bit ACC's are not good enough. Fine, but the Labels are not raising the bitrate to lossless levels (which would probably make the internetz explode on the first day of sales). The music is only DRM-free. As in, "Don't download a song and convert it to DRM-free MP3 files, we'll save you some time, you lazy bastards. Because we love you."
Maybe you guys should go get your old Rio's out of the drawer and remember what Record label heaven was like.
Anyway, that's my two cents. Have fun downloading DRM free tracks from "iTunes-like-fill-in-the-blank-eMarketplace-online" while it lasts.
@NOAMJAMSKI file\preferences\music directory
I look for my music on iTunes because I prefer their "essentials" section and they have a better selection. But if I find a song, I'll try to download it on Amazon. Afterall, who wouldn't prefer to have a song that will play on my ipods, iphone, car, and other cellphone. And, also, seeing as I have multiple ipods and multiple computers, it's rather a pain to have certain ipods only work on certain computers.
DRM sucks. Yes, I've downloaded my fair share of stuff of unsanctioned stuff in the past, but a buck to get a high quality recording I know will work is okay with me. The record companies should have realized that the old ways were dying a long time ago!
Now, if the Hollywood would take their heads out of their collective a**es, we might see some progress in the digital downloads of movies (nevermind the High def DVD fiasco).
APPLE TO WAL-MART: SURRENDER NOW It’s not official yet, but for all the speculation it might as well be: Apple’s poised to overtake Wal-Mart for the No. 1 music retailer slot this year. Apple Second Only To Wal-Mart in Music Sales, But For How Long?
Comment on this post
Reply by EmailLogin with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?