Amazon MP3 vs. iTunes

In my eternal quest to “grow up” in the most absurd ways possible, I’ve begun to purchase music. I still don’t feel bad about freely obtaining music from huge bands worth millions, but the thought of stomping on the head of a struggling newcomer just doesn’t sit that well with me. Who better to give your money to then the guys still playing in dive bars and hole in the walls across the Tri-state area? Fuck, what better people to be friends with, for that matter?

Anyway, I used iTunes for the first few dozen songs I bought. What did I get? A ton of 128kpbs music ensnared by DRM. Nightmare, let me introduce you to Goob and his six computers running three different operating systems all synced with various iPods. You two are going to be great friends.

Then I found Amazon MP3. Better quality (256kbps), DRM-free, and cheaper to boot! I love my Mac, iPods, Apple tech support (I was sent a brand new Macbook battery last week, which is a whole other post altogether), and pretty much the entire efficiency package of everything Mac-related.

Yet Apple needs to realize that sleekness and ease of use are no substitute for superior product and cheaper prices. Just ask Wal-Mart.

Boo iTunes, Hooray Amazon MP3 (even more so if you drink Pepsi and save those codes under the bottle caps).

3 replies on “Amazon MP3 vs. iTunes”

  1. See, I haven’t switched over yet because its just easier for me to use iTunes and all. I can tell you, though, if you don’t mind taking a little bit of time, what you buy on iTunes, you can burn to CD, then rip that CD to your computer and it’ll be free for you to use and transfer as much as you’d want because it’d just be a regular ripped CD. Of course, its a few more steps, but if you didn’t mind it, well, yeah.

    That, and the majority of folks can’t hear the difference in the encoding above about 160kbps or so. I know for me, most of mine I keep between 96kbps and 160kbps, just because it saves on size and sounds just as good as anything that might be anything better than that. Of course, I can tell a slight difference with 256-average-vbps ones, but its not worth the size in the end for a 45-60 minute album. That’s why I can fit over 1,000 songs on my 4gig iPod nano, just because I keep most of them around 96kbps.

  2. See, I can understand sticking with iTunes if that’s what you’ve been using for a while, have all your music synced with, etc.

    But for the extra few, however easy, steps involved to make the music no longer restricted with iTunes, Amazon starts off with.

    With the music I’ve purchased, Amazon has had the same price probably 75% of the time and the other quarter has been a dollar or two cheaper.

    That’s already two small ticks in Amazon’s favor. The music encoding is like icing on the cake.

    And then if you already drink Pepsi products to begin with, which is probably a third of the country? – well, they’re getting free music to boot.

    Amazon isn’t light years ahead of iTunes. It’s still easier to find songs in iTunes and Amazon looks like it was built in 1998. But when it boils down to it, I value my money and time most and Amazon wins on both occasions.

  3. I use both. I drink Pepsi and love the Pepsi Cap deal with Amazon.
    I don’t like to steal music, I met your Dad a couple of times Goob (I’m a friend of JB) just really can’t steal stuff but I think if it’s something out of print where lawyers are keeping artists from rereleasing stuff that should still be out there (George Harrison’s Extra Texture and Dark Horse CDs come to mind, then I like Limewire.
    For me, Itunes for podcasts, an organized music library and Amazon for the tunes.

Comments are closed.