^ I've already gone on record as stating I adore Yabby's entire ensemble. That includes the hair, the crazy contacts, the whole nine. She is just flat gorgeous.
Celedam wrote:They don't precisely because they don't want to become the go-to source for album art.
Curious...is this from something you recall reading, or something you feel stands to reason on its face? Because Amazon Web Services have a redonkulous capacity, hosting something like 1.2 trillion objects (as of 2012), one percent of ALL consumer web traffic, hosting huge sites like reddit, Pinterest, and even serving up their competitor Netflix's back end applications. I doubt a few (million) album covers rehosted on blogs and fan pages would matter a jot to them.
My own guess is that they overcompress the images because they have determined that serving up
blazingly fast low-bandwidth page renders trumps offering
high-bandwidth product images in terms of what drives sales and retains customers. (In a sense, they have this in common with you. Meaning, I'm sure it hasn't escaped your attention that the entire site is free of bandwidth-sucking animated gifs or their flash equivalent.) For Amazon, with their razor thin margins and their proficient analysis of Big Data, even if a process proves to be a fraction of a percent more efficient in attracting/retaining customers over time, they will embrace it.