PDA

View Full Version : Apple Sends Press 'Decade of iTunes' Anniversary Keepsake with 100 Free Songs




MacRumors
Apr 25, 2013, 07:00 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/04/25/apple-sends-press-decade-of-itunes-anniversary-keepsake-with-100-free-songs/)


Following the introduction of the new 'Decade of iTunes (http://search.itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZContentLink.woa/wa/link?path=Decade)' milestone feature that debuted (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/04/24/apple-celebrates-a-decade-of-itunes-with-new-milestone-feature/) yesterday to celebrate iTunes' 10th anniversary, Apple has sent out a hard copy of the timeline to journalists, reports CNET (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57581523-37/apple-commemorates-decade-of-itunes-store-with-swag/).

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/04/itunesanniversaryswag.jpg
The paper version of the timeline comes with a gift card that features 100 free handpicked iTunes songs, along with a personal thank you note from senior VP of Internet Software and Services Eddy Cue.When Apple introduced the iTunes Store on April 28, 2003, we thought if consumers had a great, legal way to download music they would embrace it - did they ever. Apple was floored, as were the labels, when customers bought over 1 million songs during the first week. And now, 10 years later, we continue to be amazed by how much customers love the iTunes Store, with more than 25 billion songs sold.

Apple loves music and strives to provide customers with the most innovative features and services on iTunes. We are all very proud of having such an incredible selection of legendary musicians on the iTunes Store and take great pride in exposing music fans to new and emerging artists.

We've put together a compilation of 100 songs that represents milestones throughout the history of iTunes and shows just how far we've come. I'd like to thank our customers, label partners, and artists for being part of such an incredible decade.
-Eddy CueApple's digital 10th anniversary iTunes celebration features (http://search.itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZContentLink.woa/wa/link?path=Decade) a timeline of events that covers the ten-year history of the iTunes Store, beginning in 2003, plus a list of the top-selling songs for each year of the decade.

Article Link: Apple Sends Press 'Decade of iTunes' Anniversary Keepsake with 100 Free Songs (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/04/25/apple-sends-press-decade-of-itunes-anniversary-keepsake-with-100-free-songs/)



komodrone
Apr 25, 2013, 07:02 PM
and then someone makes a Spotify playlist of those 100 songs and shares it.

Avatarshark
Apr 25, 2013, 07:04 PM
Really only press get this, they should give everyone a (or ten) free song to celebrate this event.

srxtr
Apr 25, 2013, 07:04 PM
and then someone makes a Spotify playlist of those 100 songs and shares it.

Where?

Jessica Lares
Apr 25, 2013, 07:09 PM
Some of us own all these songs anyway... But wow, what a freebie!

EDIT: We always get cool singles of the weeks freebies. You guys should really check them out, they've been going on for YEARS. The current one by Frank Turner is his latest single, so I was really pleased to get that one completely free as it was on my to buy list. All his albums are great.

zin
Apr 25, 2013, 07:25 PM
No doubt those journalists can keep the shiny iTunes card and sell it in 10 years for thousands of dollars.

MistaBungle
Apr 25, 2013, 07:28 PM
Members of the press didn't support this venture, we, the customers, did.

(They did but not like we did).

macalec
Apr 25, 2013, 07:29 PM
How nice! I want one of those!!!

Rogifan
Apr 25, 2013, 07:36 PM
Really only press get this, they should give everyone a (or ten) free song to celebrate this event.

Why?

Jessica Lares
Apr 25, 2013, 07:37 PM
And oh yeah, RE: Spotify. Some of these songs aren't on there.

Here is the bigger version of the list if anyone's interested though. :rolleyes:

http://asset3.cbsistatic.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2013/04/25/IMG_1033.jpg

It's not that very impressive to be honest. Alphabetical order, and lots of the same stuff.

iLilana
Apr 25, 2013, 07:41 PM
oh wait... I'm just a regular person.

boccabella
Apr 25, 2013, 07:54 PM
Are there really news organizations that allow their reporters to accept gifts from companies they cover? Wow, that is completely inappropriate.

Frankied22
Apr 25, 2013, 08:25 PM
So...a bribe to the media so they will write bright things about Apple again?

lolkthxbai
Apr 25, 2013, 08:45 PM
Are there really news organizations that allow their reporters to accept gifts from companies they cover? Wow, that is completely inappropriate.

But damn effective and smart!

SteveW928
Apr 25, 2013, 09:18 PM
Is this kind of a 'hint, hint' to daft producers of video media everywhere? I guess to be fair, the music producers kind of went in kicking and screaming as well.

OtherJesus
Apr 25, 2013, 09:39 PM
Members of the press didn't support this venture, we, the customers, did.

(They did but not like we did).
Not that I expect anything free, but I do agree.
I've been buying all my music legally from iTunes since day one.

Like I said, I don't expect handouts but I am confused why journalists are getting this.
Free press I guess.

Jessica Lares
Apr 25, 2013, 10:45 PM
I don't understand the hatred in here. It's a promotional item. Do you know how much promotional stuff gets passed around, especially to the press? A LOT. A majority of record labels throw albums to these people all the time, there's probably multiple copies of albums/singles just floating around in someone's drawers too.

Please don't say that Apple isn't good to us. Like I said, they give us free singles every week. They also had the free song of the day in 2004 when the new version of iTunes launched. They partner with so many magazines and companies to give out free playlists and songs too. And the best thing about it is that it isn't even some horrible indie stuff like most places give out. They're actually from pretty mainstream acts.

The whole point of giving these away to the press was to promote the success of digital music and iTunes. Sure, it was a pretty expensive freebie that was probably worth $200 a piece, but again, if you have been a iTunes user for as long as its existed, you've probably bought most of what was included. Heck, some of the stuff was given out for free in that 2004 promotion too.

ArmCortexA8
Apr 25, 2013, 11:05 PM
I use iTunes to browse only, then use TPB to obtain - works well for me.

512ke
Apr 25, 2013, 11:55 PM
This is a great way to commemorate the success of iTunes over the last decade. As iTunes fades away and it's rivals take over.

ArtOfWarfare
Apr 26, 2013, 12:15 AM
Did someone say boycott iTunes?

Fine, but only because Spotify is better anyways.

(Don't forget to keep buying apps and supporting your local indies, guys!)

skittlescat
Apr 26, 2013, 12:46 AM
I am an tv broadcaster , can I get a copy?

chocolaterabbit
Apr 26, 2013, 12:51 AM
Did someone say boycott iTunes?

Fine, but only because Spotify is better anyways.

(Don't forget to keep buying apps and supporting your local indies, guys!)

If you're telling people to support indies, shouldn't you be telling people to buy from iTunes instead of boycotting them? After all, Spotify pay out almost nothing to indie artists.

Ltd
Apr 26, 2013, 01:48 AM
"...a list of the top-selling songs for each decade."

Shouldn't it ready "...a list of the top-selling songs for each year of the last decade."?

decafjava
Apr 26, 2013, 02:38 AM
Did someone say boycott iTunes?

Fine, but only because Spotify is better anyways.

(Don't forget to keep buying apps and supporting your local indies, guys!)

If you're telling people to support indies, shouldn't you be telling people to buy from iTunes instead of boycotting them? After all, Spotify pay out almost nothing to indie artists.
Absolutely. Plus needing a connection to play your music sucks.

Unggoy Murderer
Apr 26, 2013, 08:55 AM
I use iTunes to browse only, then use TPB to obtain - works well for me.
That's tragic.

ArtOfWarfare
Apr 26, 2013, 09:03 AM
If you're telling people to support indies, shouldn't you be telling people to buy from iTunes instead of boycotting them? After all, Spotify pay out almost nothing to indie artists.

I meant to say boycott the iTunes Music Store but continue supporting your local indie app developers by still shopping on the App Store. You should listen to your music on Spotify.

RolyPolyBird
Apr 26, 2013, 10:36 AM
I use iTunes to browse only, then use TPB to obtain - works well for me.

Mate somebody needs to invite you to waffles or what.cd. TPB is for junkies.

That said I also use iTunes just to browse, if I am going to support an artist I do so with a concert ticket or buying directly from the label shop (when they have one).

The13thDoctor
Apr 26, 2013, 12:10 PM
I use iTunes to browse only, then use TPB to obtain - works well for me.

How the hell can you be proud that you do that?

PinkyMacGodess
Apr 26, 2013, 12:17 PM
I use iTunes to browse only, then use TPB to obtain - works well for me.

And I often listen to the free snippet on iTunes and go and buy the real CD.

I know many musicians and try to support them as best I can. It's the parasite 'recording industry' that is sucking their, and our money, living off of their creativity...

"Out in Hollywood, the paper money rolls
They feed their egos, instead of their souls
A million here, a million there, a mindless corporate dance
Get paid for borkin' off, in the south of France
They don't do the shows, but they act like the stars
They fly around in G4's and suck on big cigars
It ain't about the talent, it ain't about the skill
It's all about the silly stupid horse poop deal
You write the big checks, but I pay your bills
Now someone's got to tell you 'bout overkill"

Bubba Satori
Apr 26, 2013, 07:37 PM
Thank goodness for independent and non-conflict of interest iJournalism.

tranceking26
Apr 26, 2013, 08:37 PM
Free music? I've been getting that since I first used the internet. Big deal.

Why did some of the press get something and the actual users/paying customers get nothing, and if we did, what/where ;-)

ArmCortexA8
Apr 26, 2013, 09:03 PM
How the hell can you be proud that you do that?

Easy, when you read the history of Copyright and how its been used for profiteering (which it was never designed for) and how major companies control the creative works via "agents", this goes against the fundamentals of copyright and free sharing - read: http://questioncopyright.org/promise

Excerpt "There is one group of people not shocked by the record industry's policy of suing randomly chosen file sharers: historians of copyright. They already know what everyone else is slowly finding out: that copyright was never primarily about paying artists for their work, and that far from being designed to support creators, copyright was designed by and for distributors that is, publishers, which today includes record companies. But now that the Internet has given us a world without distribution costs, it no longer makes any sense to restrict sharing in order to pay for centralized distribution. Abandoning copyright is now not only possible, but desirable. Both artists and audiences would benefit, financially and aesthetically. In place of corporate gatekeepers determining what can and can't be distributed, a much finer-grained filtering process would allow works to spread based on their merit alone.

We would see a return to an older and richer cosmology of creativity, one in which copying and borrowing openly from others' works is simply a normal part of the creative process, a way of acknowledging one's sources and of improving on what has come before. And the old canard that artists need copyright to earn a living would be revealed as the pretense it has always been."

Excerpt 2 "None of this will happen, however, if the industry has its way. For three centuries, the publishing industry has been working very hard to obscure copyright's true origins, and to promote the myth that it was invented by writers and artists. Even today, they continue to campaign for ever stronger laws against sharing, for international treaties that compel all nations to conform to the copyright policies of the strictest, and most of all to make sure the public never asks exactly who this system is meant to help."

Excerpt 3 "Yet a close look at history shows that copyright has never been a major factor in allowing creativity to flourish. Copyright is an outgrowth of the privatization of government censorship in sixteenth-century England. There was no uprising of authors suddenly demanding the right to prevent other people from copying their works; far from viewing copying as theft, authors generally regarded it as flattery. The bulk of creative work has always depended, then and now, on a diversity of funding sources: commissions, teaching jobs, grants or stipends, patronage, etc. The introduction of copyright did not change this situation. What it did was allow a particular business model mass pressings with centralized distribution to make a few lucky works available to a wider audience, at considerable profit to the distributors."

Excerpt 4 "To read the true history of copyright is to understand just how completely this reaction plays into the industry's hands. The record companies don't really care whether they win or lose these lawsuits. In the long run, they don't even expect to eliminate file sharing. What they're fighting for is much bigger. They're fighting to maintain a state of mind, an attitude toward creative work that says someone ought to own products of the mind, and control who can copy them. And by positioning the issue as a contest between the Beleaguered Artist, who supposedly needs copyright to pay the rent, and The Unthinking Masses, who would rather copy a song or a story off the Internet than pay a fair price, the industry has been astonishingly successful.

They have managed to substitute the loaded terms "piracy" and "theft" for the more accurate "copying" as if there were no difference between stealing your bicycle (now you have no bicycle) and copying your song (now we both have it). Most importantly, industry propaganda has made it a commonplace belief that copyright is how most creators earn a living that without copyright, the engines of intellectual production would grind to a halt, and artists would have neither means nor motivation to produce new works."

In the end copying is good, not bad as you are merely copying what already exists. Of course the "industry" does not want people to know the truth because they are profiteering from it.

ijohn.8.80
Apr 26, 2013, 11:36 PM
I am an tv broadcaster , can I get a copy?

You obviously don't plug Apple products very well then if you were overlooked! :p

The13thDoctor
Apr 27, 2013, 05:03 AM
Easy, when you read the history of Copyright and how its been used for profiteering (which it was never designed for) and how major companies control the creative works via "agents", this goes against the fundamentals of copyright and free sharing - read: http://questioncopyright.org/promise

Excerpt "There is one group of people not shocked by the record industry's policy of suing randomly chosen file sharers: historians of copyright. They already know what everyone else is slowly finding out: that copyright was never primarily about paying artists for their work, and that far from being designed to support creators, copyright was designed by and for distributors that is, publishers, which today includes record companies. But now that the Internet has given us a world without distribution costs, it no longer makes any sense to restrict sharing in order to pay for centralized distribution. Abandoning copyright is now not only possible, but desirable. Both artists and audiences would benefit, financially and aesthetically. In place of corporate gatekeepers determining what can and can't be distributed, a much finer-grained filtering process would allow works to spread based on their merit alone.

We would see a return to an older and richer cosmology of creativity, one in which copying and borrowing openly from others' works is simply a normal part of the creative process, a way of acknowledging one's sources and of improving on what has come before. And the old canard that artists need copyright to earn a living would be revealed as the pretense it has always been."

Excerpt 2 "None of this will happen, however, if the industry has its way. For three centuries, the publishing industry has been working very hard to obscure copyright's true origins, and to promote the myth that it was invented by writers and artists. Even today, they continue to campaign for ever stronger laws against sharing, for international treaties that compel all nations to conform to the copyright policies of the strictest, and most of all to make sure the public never asks exactly who this system is meant to help."

Excerpt 3 "Yet a close look at history shows that copyright has never been a major factor in allowing creativity to flourish. Copyright is an outgrowth of the privatization of government censorship in sixteenth-century England. There was no uprising of authors suddenly demanding the right to prevent other people from copying their works; far from viewing copying as theft, authors generally regarded it as flattery. The bulk of creative work has always depended, then and now, on a diversity of funding sources: commissions, teaching jobs, grants or stipends, patronage, etc. The introduction of copyright did not change this situation. What it did was allow a particular business model mass pressings with centralized distribution to make a few lucky works available to a wider audience, at considerable profit to the distributors."

Excerpt 4 "To read the true history of copyright is to understand just how completely this reaction plays into the industry's hands. The record companies don't really care whether they win or lose these lawsuits. In the long run, they don't even expect to eliminate file sharing. What they're fighting for is much bigger. They're fighting to maintain a state of mind, an attitude toward creative work that says someone ought to own products of the mind, and control who can copy them. And by positioning the issue as a contest between the Beleaguered Artist, who supposedly needs copyright to pay the rent, and The Unthinking Masses, who would rather copy a song or a story off the Internet than pay a fair price, the industry has been astonishingly successful.

They have managed to substitute the loaded terms "piracy" and "theft" for the more accurate "copying" as if there were no difference between stealing your bicycle (now you have no bicycle) and copying your song (now we both have it). Most importantly, industry propaganda has made it a commonplace belief that copyright is how most creators earn a living that without copyright, the engines of intellectual production would grind to a halt, and artists would have neither means nor motivation to produce new works."

In the end copying is good, not bad as you are merely copying what already exists. Of course the "industry" does not want people to know the truth because they are profiteering from it.

okay mate, don't you get it? By saying that pirating software or music does not harm the artist or developer in anyway shape or form is completely retarded. It really doesn't matter whether you consider pirating or stealing to be the same thing. It also really doesn't matter whether you think piracy is stifling creativity or not. What really matters is that YOU are actively taking somebody's hard work and sharing it online, making it so the the artist or developer does not receive (for lack of a better term) "royalty" for their work.

You might not think that piracy is such a big deal, but to somebody who's major source of income is primarily from online content. Its a pretty big friggin deal. For example, RoosterTeeth primarily makes it money through CD sales, Youtube views and other merch. If people were to start copying content and start uploading it to their channels, it would cost them quite a lot of views and ad revenue. Same goes for their music and DVDs, if one person uploads it online for free, there wouldn't be that much of a demand for their soundtracks or DVDs.

So you can start quoting whatever you think the definition of piracy is. In the end the only people that are getting screwed over, are the small companies and the people who are actively trying to make an actual living off of their work. So don't be so proud that you pirate, if you want to 'stick it to the corporations' there are better ways to do it, such as buying from the artist directly. Pirating is definitely not a way to do so.

jns2001
Apr 27, 2013, 07:34 AM
Absolutely. Plus needing a connection to play your music sucks.

ON Spotify you can dowload to your iDevice and play without the need of a connection.

MacGuffin
Apr 27, 2013, 04:51 PM
I don't understand the hatred in here. It's a promotional item. Do you know how much promotional stuff gets passed around, especially to the press? A LOT. A majority of record labels throw albums to these people all the time, there's probably multiple copies of albums/singles just floating around in someone's drawers too.

Jessica, it isn't "hatred" but instead a little thing you might bump into one day, quite by accident I'm sure, called critical thinking.

Have you never wondered how the illusion of good press for a product is maintained, ie, bought and sold?

Go look up "payola" in Wikipedia. A mind is a terrible thing to waste on corporate propaganda!

Angra-mainju
Apr 29, 2013, 06:43 AM
and then someone makes a Spotify playlist of those 100 songs and shares it.

and then somebody legally iTunes Match it ;)

stuckwithme247
Apr 29, 2013, 07:56 PM
Absolutely. Plus needing a connection to play your music sucks.

To be fair, they let you sync music for "offline play" with both the desktop and iPhone apps.

CrushChee
Apr 30, 2013, 12:58 AM
Really only press get this, they should give everyone a (or ten) free song to celebrate this event.

stuckwithme247
Apr 30, 2013, 11:35 AM
Really only press get this, they should give everyone a (or ten) free song to celebrate this event.

Feel free to buy it if you really want it that bad. There aren't any exclusive songs on there as far as I know... Really, they should give away over $100 of music to everybody? Yeah right...

Fralle
May 4, 2013, 05:23 AM
Feel free to buy it if you really want it that bad. There aren't any exclusive songs on there as far as I know... Really, they should give away over $100 of music to everybody? Yeah right...

I as a collector of everything iPod AND iTunes wants this card and booklet bad! I'm not interested in the value or the free download of songs. Only the card...but Apple couldn't care less :(