PDA

View Full Version : Beatles and Apple? Feb 4th Superbowl Announcement?




MacRumors
Jan 17, 2007, 11:53 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

TorontoSun is reporting (http://www.torontosun.com/Entertainment/Music/2007/01/17/3393906-sun.html) that Apple and EMI are on the verge of announcing the digital release of the Beatles' catalog.

As per usual, Apple/EMI is presently mum, but sources with knowledge of the project say that two scenarios are possible for the release of the minimum 11 UK albums.

One early Page 2 report (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2007/01/20070116094130.shtml) claimed the release would come on or around Valentine's Day (Feb 14th). TorontoSun lays out a couple of possibilities for the release, including a more gradual launch over the coming months, or the, instead, entire UK catalogue hitting stores the first week of June.

As previously reported (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/11/20061127103829.shtml), the remastered Beatles collection is expected to be exclusive to the iTunes Store for three months.

The article also claims that Apple has a "special" announcement scheduled for a Super Bowl commercial on February 4th.

Many have noted that Steve Jobs used Beatles songs to demonstrate the iPhone during the Macworld San Francisco 2007 keynote, possibily hinting at an imminent annonucement.



gugy
Jan 17, 2007, 11:56 AM
bring it on!

but, it this really a big deal?

balamw
Jan 17, 2007, 11:58 AM
Finally! A reason to watch the stupid game. :p

Hopefully, it'll be like '84 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(television_commercial)) all over again.

B

r-sparks
Jan 17, 2007, 11:59 AM
I know this sounds naive, but it's a serious point:

Haven't The Beatles made enough money from their songs? Paul McCartney is one of the richest men in the UK. Why don't they just release their songs electronically, for free, to whoever wants them? They're part of our culture now, like folk songs.

Peace
Jan 17, 2007, 12:00 PM
If Apple announced The Beatles on the ITMS during the Super Bowl that would be one great commercial!!

Warbrain
Jan 17, 2007, 12:00 PM
I don't really care. These rumors continue to spawn and it's worthless, absolutely worthless. No one cares. If it happens, it happens. If it doesn't, well, then it's been like the last few years anyway.

Personally, I'm hoping to have a reason to watch the game as my Bears will hopefully be in it.

yoak
Jan 17, 2007, 12:01 PM
bring it on!

but, it this really a big deal?

I have to agree, a lot of hype. Dont most of the fans already own all their recordings on vinyl AND CDs already?
I know my father do;)

Shagrat
Jan 17, 2007, 12:03 PM
bring it on!

but, it this really a big deal?

Meh!

Already own what I want of theirs.

Now Bring on the Rutles!!!

"All You Need is Cash....!"

swiftaw
Jan 17, 2007, 12:06 PM
I know this sounds naive, but it's a serious point:

Haven't The Beatles made enough money from their songs? Paul McCartney is one of the richest men in the UK. Why don't they just release their songs electronically, for free, to whoever wants them? They're part of our culture now, like folk songs.

I think maybe he needs to make some extra money to pay off Heather :)

weldon
Jan 17, 2007, 12:06 PM
It would be a huge missed opportunity to announce the Beatles on iTunes during the Super Bowl and then not have the songs available for another 10 days. If they spend the cash on a Super Bowl spot, they should make the songs available as soon as the ad hits the air.

sbrhwkp3
Jan 17, 2007, 12:06 PM
Wow... no one's really as excited about this as I am? I can't wait to buy their music when it becomes available.

Superbowl commercial too. Nice.

balamw
Jan 17, 2007, 12:07 PM
Now Bring on the Rutles!!!

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewArtist?id=71348821

B

Shagrat
Jan 17, 2007, 12:10 PM
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewArtist?id=71348821

B

At work, can't connect!

Would love to see that program again! Must see if available on DVD...

Shagrat
Jan 17, 2007, 12:12 PM
At work, can't connect!

Would love to see that program again! Must see if available on DVD...

My god!

The Rutles - All You Need Is Cash [1978]

Availability: In stock. Dispatched from and sold by Amazon.co.uk.

All you need is Amazon...!

MattyMac
Jan 17, 2007, 12:12 PM
Sweeeeeeet! A special announcement from apple during the superbowl. CANNOT wait! They are just full of surprises!

MrFirework
Jan 17, 2007, 12:14 PM
bring it on!

but, it this really a big deal?

Maybe not, but I'll bet you a Coke they announce a new iPod (widescreen?) with it.

That's a big deal.

RichP
Jan 17, 2007, 12:16 PM
Beatles + New Video iPod + Help! + Yellow Submarine Feb 4th?:D

balamw
Jan 17, 2007, 12:19 PM
Maybe not, but I'll bet you a Coke they announce a new iPod (widescreen?) with it.

That's a big deal.

I seriously doubt they're going to introduce another iPod that has some of the features of the iPhone before they start selling that device. A Yellow Submarine special edition iPod 5.5G is a definite possibility though...

B

epal
Jan 17, 2007, 12:20 PM
Feb. 4, 1964 is the day the Beatles played their first American live television performance on the Ed Sullivan Show.

BuzWeaver
Jan 17, 2007, 12:20 PM
I know this sounds naive, but it's a serious point:

Haven't The Beatles made enough money from their songs? Paul McCartney is one of the richest men in the UK. Why don't they just release their songs electronically, for free, to whoever wants them? They're part of our culture now, like folk songs.

Its easy for us to say such things, and I do understand where you are coming from, but from a 'reputation' stand point and any number of business interest reasons I'm sure Paul/accountants/attorney's could give us quite of list of reasons why, though we probably would just shrug it off. :)

Hadley
Jan 17, 2007, 12:20 PM
i was wondering why jobs used the beatles a few times during the keynote, considering he had their album covers and everything on the iphone even though you cant get their music through itunes.

im glad that we may finally be able to get beatles music online.

UltraNurd
Jan 17, 2007, 12:22 PM
I'm remembering the awesome PowerMac G4 commercial with the tanks guarding it from... Super Bowl XXXIV?

Maybe we'll get to see our 8-core Mac Pros.

TheBobcat
Jan 17, 2007, 12:26 PM
Yeah like I said in another post, BBC World Service on the radio did a story about the new EMI chief and said he was working on a deal to embrace more digital distribution, including the Beatles catalog.

Shagrat
Jan 17, 2007, 12:29 PM
from the article...
"The second strong possibility is that the entire state-of-the art, 24-bit remastered UK catalogue will hit stores the first week of June, .."

and we will be clamouring to buy it in compressed MP3/AAC form?

The point being????

If the remasters are that good, why would I want it in anything less that 16bit/44.1? And if available in a higher bit depth/sample rate (DVD???) form, then that would be teh way to go.

All in all, a bit underwhelming. And much though I appreciate the Beatles place in musical history, is this REALLY that much of a deal?

dernhelm
Jan 17, 2007, 12:37 PM
It seems as if Apple has been looking for ways to spread their product announcements out. If think from a shareholder perspective (which I am NOT, but know many who are) this would be a good thing. It would be kind of interesting to see if they start to piggy back on big events (like the superbowl) in order to make announcements like these in the future. Or if this is just a one-time knock off with fortuitous timing.

twoodcc
Jan 17, 2007, 12:39 PM
bring it on!

but, it this really a big deal?

well i guess it is....it's gotta be big if it's on the superbowl!

go apple!

Rocketman
Jan 17, 2007, 12:39 PM
bring it on!

but, it this really a big deal?

It establishes a real truce between Apple Inc and Apple Corps. That matters.

It represents the first legal digital distribution of perhaps some of the top 20 most popular musical scores in the world. An exclusive would he a coup.

Beatles and EMI are clearly "old school" having stuck with physical artifact sales and unremastered material. This represents a change on both fronts.

Apple likes making a "splash" and Beatles + iTunes + exclusive + whatever hardware might be emphasized + super bowl = real market impact.

Steve spilled the beans by using Beatles songs heavily during the iPhone demo (his dream machine).

Rocketman

balamw
Jan 17, 2007, 12:39 PM
Or if this is just a one-time knock off with fortuitous timing.

Apple has a long history of Super Bowl commercials, going back to the historic Macintosh introduction.

B

dashiel
Jan 17, 2007, 12:44 PM
from the article...
If the remasters are that good, why would I want it in anything less that 16bit/44.1? And if available in a higher bit depth/sample rate (DVD???) form, then that would be teh way to go.

you wouldn't. i wouldn't, but a lot of people will. when it comes down to it people will choose convenience over quality most of the time. though one might hope that jobs, being as big a beatles fan as he is might introduce itunes HD with ALAC encoded tracks. doubt it, but it's possible.


All in all, a bit underwhelming. And much though I appreciate the Beatles place in musical history, is this REALLY that much of a deal?

the beatles are like disney. everyone and their brother has seen the lion king twice-- if you've got kids umpteen million times -- but with any new video format it's not until disney blesses it that it becomes legit. disney and porn, porn paves the way, disney makes it real.

the beatles are the same thing for music. their appeal is universal. not to mention for boomers who have been hesitant with this MP3 thing it will draw them in by the millions.

dornoforpyros
Jan 17, 2007, 12:46 PM
They're part of our culture now, like folk songs.

True, and hopefully they will become public domain, but I believe copyright law (US at least) is 50 years from the creation, so I think we've got at least another 10 years here. That's assuming Sir Paul/Yoko don't go all disney with the copy right laws, which I assume they will.

gugy
Jan 17, 2007, 12:46 PM
as long as there is something else. I can't understand the big deal behind bring the Beatles to iTunes.
OK, no more lawsuits from Apple Corp.
But everybody have "most" of their songs already. So bring a huge collection into iTunes is nice but not very important IMHO.
So hopefully, "something else"(widescreen iPod?) is in the works.:)

balamw
Jan 17, 2007, 12:51 PM
True, and hopefully they will become public domain, but I believe copyright law (US at least) is 50 years from the creation, so I think we've got at least another 10 years here. That's assuming Sir Paul/Yoko don't go all disney with the copy right laws, which I assume they will.

How'd you miss the Sonny Bono/Mickey Mouse act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_copyright_act). It's now 70 years after the artist's death.

B

syklee26
Jan 17, 2007, 12:53 PM
so there are still some people who don't have Beatles' album? geez.

having Beatles under iTunes is more of marketing tools than anything....I don't think the actual sales of their songs would be that good.

JGowan
Jan 17, 2007, 12:57 PM
I know this sounds naive, but it's a serious point:

Haven't The Beatles made enough money from their songs? Paul McCartney is one of the richest men in the UK. Why don't they just release their songs electronically, for free, to whoever wants them? They're part of our culture now, like folk songs.Yes, it was a bit naive. You give away for free the stuff that is no longer making money. Mac software "Audion" by Panic comes to mind right away, a great MP3 jukebox that couldn't go toe-to-toe with iTunes. Konfabulator and Watson are two others. When it won't sell, give it to the few that will take it and call it quits. The Beatles music is timeless -- it is not folk music. The youth of today are discovering the Beatles and love them just as the generations before.

First off, Many people own the rights to songs (not just the fab four and/or their heirs) which is a big reason why it's been so hard to get them online. Some wanted and some didn't. There is a lot of fingers in those 10 hours of music. As far as having enough money... here's a quote from Paul McCartney:

"Somebody said to me, 'But the Beatles were anti-materialistic.' That’s a huge myth. John and I literally used to sit down and say, 'Now, let's write a swimming pool."

Their annual earnings are huge,... tens of millions! why give away for free when it still has a lot of value. Other huge earners are $40M annual for Elvis, Charles M Schulz with $35M annual and $23M annual for J.R.R. Tolkien.

As far as giving stuff away for free once you've earned enough... by that token we should be all getting Microsoft Vista for free this time around... I think Bill Gates certianly has enough money.

"All You Need Is Love?" I think not. More like "Money (That's What I Want)"!

mrmma
Jan 17, 2007, 01:01 PM
so there are still some people who don't have Beatles' album? geez.

having Beatles under iTunes is more of marketing tools than anything....I don't think the actual sales of their songs would be that good.

I think that a primary iTunes market is the under 20 crowd who may know of the Beatles but not enough to buy an album...this is probably a big untapped market for Apple...

For the over 20 crowd, this may be just marketing...

manu chao
Jan 17, 2007, 01:02 PM
Since The Beatles obviously are not on the iTS, the songs Steve played must have been ripped from CD and the album art could not have come from the iTs as well. Did somebody at Apple image-googled the cover, 'stole' it from Amazon or scanned it in? :D

BTW, what ever happened to copy-protection? Did the labels give up, or does nobody simply care anymore since any decent ripping software isn't bothered by it?

brad.c
Jan 17, 2007, 01:03 PM
Really, what's the big deal? It' s just a publicity grab for all involved.

The people who will hurt the most are the copyright/trademark laywers, should this signal an end to the perpetual feud between the Apples.

Anybody who has a modest to keen interest in the Beatles already ripped their CDs long ago. Audiophiles (i.e. encoding snobs) will rail against the inferior quality versus their vinyl heirlooms. Me? I'm happily listening to Sgt Pepper on my 'Pod, since I blew out my ears years ago with a Sony Walkman.

Edit: Funny how the article says "Apple Computers". That's cutting edge reporting, Sunmedia style. See the SunShine girl on page 72.

SciTeach
Jan 17, 2007, 01:03 PM
having Beatles under iTunes is more of marketing tools than anything....I don't think the actual sales of their songs would be that good.

I completely agree with the first part of your statement.....completely disagree with the second part. The Beatles are, well, THE BEATLES!!! True, everyone and their mother have at least one Beatlles album but Apple would rake up the bucks if they started selling them (at least initially. The fad (or is it the fab;) ) would fade).

EagerDragon
Jan 17, 2007, 01:06 PM
Don't care, have all their music I like already on CD's and they are in my iPod. I guess is good for Apple.

brisully
Jan 17, 2007, 01:07 PM
Here's what I envision...


"Hello, I'm a Mac,"

"And I'm a PC,"

"And I'm a Beatle"


Or something like that......

HumanJHawkins
Jan 17, 2007, 01:09 PM
Why don't they just release their songs electronically, for free, to whoever wants them? They're part of our culture now, like folk songs.

1) Because copyright law already specifies how long a copyright lasts, and the coppyright hasn't expired yet.

2) Because the actual catalog is owned by investors. EMI would be open to a serious lawsuit if it intentionally failed to generate such obvious and easy revenue.

And, I am not sure of all the legal ramifications, but I believe you can sing the Beatles songs... I think you can even make money off of your singing them. It is not just the songs at issue, but the actual Beatles recordings of their songs. The fact is that they still sell like hotcakes. Until that changes, or the copyright expires, don't expect to see them given away.

EagerDragon
Jan 17, 2007, 01:13 PM
Maybe not, but I'll bet you a Coke they announce a new iPod (widescreen?) with it.

That's a big deal.

Then they better have the iPod playing a Football game during the commercial.

dornoforpyros
Jan 17, 2007, 01:15 PM
How'd you miss the Sonny Bono/Mickey Mouse act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_copyright_act). It's now 70 years after the artist's death.

B

Ahh yes, I keep getting confused because of the whole Night of the Living Dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Of_The_Living_Dead#Copyright_status_in_the_U.S.) copyright thing. But it sounds like that had to do with a lack of copyright on the original release.

WilliamLondon
Jan 17, 2007, 01:16 PM
I know this sounds naive, but it's a serious point:

Haven't The Beatles made enough money from their songs? Paul McCartney is one of the richest men in the UK. Why don't they just release their songs electronically, for free, to whoever wants them? They're part of our culture now, like folk songs.

I think Michael Jackson owns the rights to the Beatles catalogue (along with Sony in some merger a few years ago), though Paul does receive something on the order of 50% royalties of that gravy train.

calculus
Jan 17, 2007, 01:19 PM
With the new (from last week I think) UK chart rules this could mean a 'Top 10' entirely made up of Beatles tracks.

Warbrain
Jan 17, 2007, 01:20 PM
I think Michael Jackson owns the rights to the Beatles catalogue (along with Sony in some merger a few years ago), though Paul does receive something on the order of 50% royalties of that gravy train.

You're exactly right. They still get royalties, but Jackson gets all the publishing money.

marcrumors
Jan 17, 2007, 01:21 PM
You have got to be kidding. Apple is trying to revolutionize the computing and cell phone industries and people are excited about the Beatles? The Beatles? If you like them you have their music already (since nothing new has been released for over 30 years) Im not saying their music isnt good, although its not my taste. But they simply arent relevent.

If Apple is spending Superbowl commercial bucks they should announce something better.

SoldOutMatinee
Jan 17, 2007, 01:23 PM
Umm, when is the Superbowl :confused:

Also, are The Beatles any good?

psychofreak
Jan 17, 2007, 01:23 PM
You have got to be kidding. Apple is trying to revolutionize the computing and cell phone industries and people are excited about the Beatles? The Beatles? If you like them you have their music already (since nothing new has been released for over 30 years) Im not saying their music isnt good, although its not my taste. But they simply arent relevent.

If Apple is spending Superbowl commercial bucks they should announce something better.

Name one rock album released this year without Beatles' influence....

mdntcallr
Jan 17, 2007, 01:24 PM
It's about time to have the beatles available on iTunes. Great move.


I know this sounds naive, but it's a serious point:

Haven't The Beatles made enough money from their songs? Paul McCartney is one of the richest men in the UK. Why don't they just release their songs electronically, for free, to whoever wants them? They're part of our culture now, like folk songs.

That is ridiculous. To remaster and encode and work on this music takes people and time. Yes there are large profits, but the music business needs its hits to pay for its failures. always has. was more failures than hits. the catalog helps pay for development of new artists. always has been this way

psychofreak
Jan 17, 2007, 01:24 PM
Umm, when is the Superbowl :confused:

Feb 4 :

1. READ THREAD TITLE!
2. If you can't read titles, google is your friend...

nemaslov
Jan 17, 2007, 01:29 PM
I know this sounds naive, but it's a serious point:

Haven't The Beatles made enough money from their songs? Paul McCartney is one of the richest men in the UK. Why don't they just release their songs electronically, for free, to whoever wants them? They're part of our culture now, like folk songs.

what are you a communist? They wrote and own those songs (maybe not all of the publishing) but like any artist, deserve to make one dollar or a billion. I hate that attitude they they owe us and we should have it for free. Go out and buy some used CDs. You could probably get their entire catalogue in CD form for 50 bucks.

marcrumors
Jan 17, 2007, 01:29 PM
Name one rock album released this year without Beatles' influence....

Thats not the point. I understand their influence. I just dont want to buy their music. And dont you already have their music? AS long as you can rip your cds to itunes, who cares what is sold and what isnt.

SoldOutMatinee
Jan 17, 2007, 01:30 PM
Feb 4 :

1. READ THREAD TITLE!
2. If you can't read titles, google is your friend...

Ha! I didn't even see that. Thanks. :)

davebarnes
Jan 17, 2007, 01:34 PM
Here's what I envision...
"Hello, I'm a Mac,"
"And I'm a PC,"
"And I'm a Beatle"......
Mac: I listen to music using iTunes and my iPod.
PC: And, I listen to music using iTunes and my iPod.
Beatle (played by Paul himself): And, now the entire catalog of Beatles songs are available exclusively at the iTunes Store.
Enter from stage left, Ringo Starr: What do you think of my new iPod in Submarine Yellow?

nemaslov
Jan 17, 2007, 01:34 PM
This IS a great thing. Yes we have all of the music but you could say that about so many other bands who are also on iTunes.

For me though it will be the remastered CDs. If they are like the LOVE soundtrack the sound will be MAGNIFICENT and probably also 5.1 surround DVDs soo..again like LOVE. So I would NEVER purchase inferior versions from iTunes or anywhere else online BUT it will be a great promotion for all involved.

Stella
Jan 17, 2007, 01:36 PM
Thats not the point. I understand their influence. I just dont want to buy their music. And dont you already have their music? AS long as you can rip your cds to itunes, who cares what is sold and what isnt.

*You* may not, but others might... ( like me! :-) )

Having the Beatles for an exclusive limited period of time would be a major coup for iTunes.

rxse7en
Jan 17, 2007, 01:44 PM
Meh. Beatles don't warrant an ad. Why would Steve-o dump money to promote Crapple Music?

BTW, Stones > Beatles so suck it McCartney! :D

B

seashellz2
Jan 17, 2007, 01:49 PM
Since these are being remastered for the first time in 15 years, (If they ever have been) they will sound better than ever. Certainly they will go to reproducing original packaging and graphics, which many do not have, rather botched cut-up CD graphics.
There may be extras as booklets or bonus tracks.
It WILL be a big deal.
With 3 months head start, people will associate the Beatles with Apple/EMI Apple, iTMS and the iPod.
That cant be bad. Plus during the Super bowl.
On another note, I thought Michael Jacksons rights lapsed back to Apple Corps-sacreligeously, he allowed the songs to be used to hawk tennis shoes, instant breakfast, deoderant and SUV's.
There are some things you just dont do, with iconic music.

As for "who would want to buy compressed Beatles music?" Well Apple has just sold their 2-Billionth 'compressed' songtrack...so somebody seems not to mind.

.Andy
Jan 17, 2007, 01:52 PM
Apple has a long history of Super Bowl commercials, going back to the historic Macintosh introduction.

B

And because of that we get 'journalists' touting exclusive inside information every single year that Apple is going to run a superbowl commercial. I'd wager this is just another wild guess like years past - eventually they'll get it right.....

Laurent
Jan 17, 2007, 01:52 PM
Their current catalog was remastered back in 1987, 20 years ago. These recordings are in need of yet another remastering, with prettier artwork and decent CD cases. Let It Be... Naked proved to me that it was still possible to achieve better results with songs that "everyone already had".

I don't intend on buying those through iTunes thought, except if they includes PDF documents of the original booklets or maybe... A Beatles-branded iPod la U2?

Laurent
Jan 17, 2007, 01:57 PM
Oh, and Steve didn't just randomly picked The Beatles for it's previous Keynote... Everything is always well prepared with him, and this was intentional as well!

Porchland
Jan 17, 2007, 01:57 PM
I called this one yesterday (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1027322&postcount=43) and have been trying to will The Beatles into iTunes existence here for months.

Finally! Yay!

Porchland
Jan 17, 2007, 01:59 PM
Mac: I listen to music using iTunes and my iPod.
PC: And, I listen to music using iTunes and my iPod.
Beatle (played by Paul himself): And, now the entire catalog of Beatles songs are available exclusively at the iTunes Store.
Enter from stage left, Ringo Starr: What do you think of my new iPod in Submarine Yellow?

I like that much better than a "Revolution" silhouette ad.

failsafe1
Jan 17, 2007, 02:04 PM
I don't care about the Beatles but I hope it happens so we can move on to new rumors. I was glad the phone showed up so that rumor could be put to rest. I may purchase one or two Beatles songs but need to save up for the phone.

iGav
Jan 17, 2007, 02:22 PM
Also, are The Beatles any good?

Lets put it this way... like most boy bands, they didn't start selling any records until people saw pictures of them and realised how 'cute' they were.

But, it would be an undeniable coup for Apple all the same.

gugy
Jan 17, 2007, 02:25 PM
Guys,
Steve Jobs is a HUGE fan of The Beatles. He said it many times, he used Lennon on the Think Different campaign etc.
The Beatles are one the icons of his generation.
I even wonder if this is the reason he named Apple Computer.
The whole lawsuit with Apple corps was a huge dagger in his heart. He's probably been trying to approach the The Beatles for many years, it seems that finally they will join Apple inc. and all the problems will be left behind.
So this is not much more than his personal victory and satisfaction to his personal fan ego and in his mind it deserves a Superbowl ad.

geveke
Jan 17, 2007, 02:31 PM
Oh, and Steve didn't just randomly picked The Beatles for it's previous Keynote... Everything is always well prepared with him, and this was intentional as well!

I think so too. Didn't he also announce the change of the company's name from Apple Computer, Inc to Apple, Inc? I think he bought Apple Corps. Think about it. It's the best way to get out of the legal battle over the name, add the Beatles to the iTMS, and get a Beatles iPod!

theranch
Jan 17, 2007, 02:36 PM
Then they better have the iPod playing a Football game during the commercial.

Not going to happen...the iPhone isn't even out yet so I'm sure they wouldn't sabotage sales of the iPhone by announcing a widescreen iPod. What "might" happen is just the commercial for the iPhone which they couldn't run until they squared away the iPhone name issue with Cisco.

sishaw
Jan 17, 2007, 02:42 PM
Maybe not, but I'll bet you a Coke they announce a new iPod (widescreen?) with it.

That's a big deal.

That would be nice.

Bregalad
Jan 17, 2007, 03:01 PM
I seriously doubt they're going to introduce another iPod that has some of the features of the iPhone before they start selling that device. A Yellow Submarine special edition iPod 5.5G is a definite possibility though...

B

I strongly disagree. Apple has created a huge problem for themselves. The player with large storage capacity for video has a tiny screen. The player with the big screen has very limited capacity, a huge price tag and won't be available for another 6 months. Now that we've seen the future I can't imagine many intelligent consumers would think of paying full price for yesterday's technology (5.5G iPod) now.

If Apple doesn't come out with a large screen iPod before June they'll have kissed a large chunk of revenue goodbye. I don't think they're that stupid.

alansky
Jan 17, 2007, 03:08 PM
But they [the Beatles] simply arent relevent.

I do my best to resist the temptation to flame other contributors, but this has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Does this connoisseur of the arts think Bach is relevant? How about Picasso and Rembrandt? Chuck Berry?

There is nothing more relevant than the art of any generation that stands above the crowd, that distinguishes itself because of its pure, creative excellence.

Are there really people out there who are so retarded that they think anything older than they are is irrelevant?

calculus
Jan 17, 2007, 03:15 PM
I do my best to resist the temptation to flame other contributors, but this has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Does this connoisseur of the arts think Bach is relevant? How about Picasso and Rembrandt? Chuck Berry?

There is nothing more relevant than the art of any generation that stands above the crowd, that distinguishes itself because of its pure, creative excellence.

Are there really people out there who are so retarded that they think anything older than they are is irrelevant?

I am afraid that the world is full of people who don't recognise the worth of anything made earlier than the day before yesterday.

randyg
Jan 17, 2007, 03:19 PM
Hmm...special announcement during the super bowl (are we allowed to type that?). I wonder if that means we get to see Paul McCartney's boobie?

balamw
Jan 17, 2007, 03:27 PM
I strongly disagree. Apple has created a huge problem for themselves.
We agree there.

IF Apple releases a widescreen HDD based iPod It'll have to be very different from the iPhone so as not to cannibalize their own sales. They might be able to pull it off if they release a slightly longer iPod to accommodate the larger screen and keep the mini's smaller click wheel as some of the mock ups have shown. No touchscreen, no wireless, just an iPod. OK maybe it would still have the accelerometer to switch between portrait and landscape.

I could also see a move from the polycarbonate+metal to nano/mini like anodized aluminum with colors.

Nothing that would eat into iPhone sales until fall at the earliest, but we shall see.

I am afraid that the world is full of people who don't recognise the worth of anything made earlier than the day before yesterday.
The Beatles made plenty of good music after "Yesterday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yesterday_%28song%29)" :p

B

ph0rce
Jan 17, 2007, 03:29 PM
Big wow, the beatles...

Porchland
Jan 17, 2007, 03:32 PM
I think so too. Didn't he also announce the change of the company's name from Apple Computer, Inc to Apple, Inc? I think he bought Apple Corps. Think about it. It's the best way to get out of the legal battle over the name, add the Beatles to the iTMS, and get a Beatles iPod!

I wondered during the early days of iTMS whether Apple would buy Warner Music or EMI to improve access to music catalogs and more stable relationships with the other labels, but it never happened.

I wondered again during Disney's licensing negotiations and then later acquisition negotiations whether Apple would eventually acquire Disney. (Don't laugh: Disney's market cap is about $72B -- smaller than Apple -- and about 10 percent of that is Pixar.)

To date, Apple has managed its content relationships by strategic partnership rather than by acquisition or developing its own record label or movie studio.

Laurent
Jan 17, 2007, 03:39 PM
I think so too. Didn't he also announce the change of the company's name from Apple Computer, Inc to Apple, Inc? I think he bought Apple Corps. Think about it. It's the best way to get out of the legal battle over the name, add the Beatles to the iTMS, and get a Beatles iPod!The change of name is also an indicator, I agree. Except that Apple Inc. didn't bought Apple Corps. Ltd., this will never happen in Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr's lifetime...

Porchland
Jan 17, 2007, 03:42 PM
I strongly disagree. Apple has created a huge problem for themselves. The player with large storage capacity for video has a tiny screen. The player with the big screen has very limited capacity, a huge price tag and won't be available for another 6 months. Now that we've seen the future I can't imagine many intelligent consumers would think of paying full price for yesterday's technology (5.5G iPod) now.

If Apple doesn't come out with a large screen iPod before June they'll have kissed a large chunk of revenue goodbye. I don't think they're that stupid.

I think you're right. Apple is going to wedge the widescreen iPod between the iPod (or nano if they do away with the iPod altogether, whatever) and the iPhone.

Apple likes to differentiate its lines:

* iPod shuffle is portable and easy to use, but you give up screen and capacity.

* iPod nano gains the screen and some capacity.

* iPod gives you more screen and capacity.

* widescreen iPod gives you even more screen and more capacity.

* iPhone gives you Internet and telephone but less capacity.

Lots of different features sets and price points, but it's not too complicated for consumers to understand. (On the other hand, I don't really see any reason to keep the iPod around after the widescreen comes onto the market unless there would be a huge price gap between the biggest nano and the smallest widescreen.)

gugy
Jan 17, 2007, 04:02 PM
Ditto Porchland

now, hopefully this widescreen will be her soon!

Doctor Q
Jan 17, 2007, 04:07 PM
One nice result of having the Beatles music in the iTunes Store will be that it'll end the debating over whether it should be added, whether it will be added, and whether anybody will buy the music once it's there.

If it happens as predicted, I'lll still be quite interested to hear how it came about.

glowingstar
Jan 17, 2007, 04:09 PM
i'm just hoping that they're really remastered AND in lossless format....

gauriemma
Jan 17, 2007, 04:12 PM
Feb. 4, 1964 is the day the Beatles played their first American live television performance on the Ed Sullivan Show.

Close. It was February 9.

gauriemma
Jan 17, 2007, 04:15 PM
Since these are being remastered for the first time in 15 years, (If they ever have been) they will sound better than ever.

At which point they'll be compressed to 128 kbps, thereby rendering the 'remastering' moot.

gauriemma
Jan 17, 2007, 04:25 PM
Mac: I listen to music using iTunes and my iPod.
PC: And, I listen to music using iTunes and my iPod.
Beatle (played by Paul himself): And, now the entire catalog of Beatles songs are available exclusively at the iTunes Store.
Enter from stage left, Ringo Starr: What do you think of my new iPod in Submarine Yellow?


Paul: That's one fab iPod, Ringo.
(An urn is carried in and placed on table next to Paul.)
Paul: What do you think of Ringo's iPod, George?
(silence)
Ringo: Well, he always WAS the quiet one.
Paul and Ringo: Ha! Ha!
(Yoko enters. Paul, Ringo, PC, and Mac beat the living crap out of her.)

FADE TO BLACK.

drlunanerd
Jan 17, 2007, 04:31 PM
I know this sounds naive, but it's a serious point:

Haven't The Beatles made enough money from their songs? Paul McCartney is one of the richest men in the UK. Why don't they just release their songs electronically, for free, to whoever wants them? They're part of our culture now, like folk songs.

Ha ha. EMI though are desperate for the money - the Beatles "Love" album has flopped, Robbie Williams has been a poor return on investment, and they're haemorrhaging cash just standing still being a wasteful greedy record company. Donations gratefully received.

nemaslov
Jan 17, 2007, 04:54 PM
We agree there.

IF Apple releases a widescreen HDD based iPod It'll have to be very different from the iPhone so as not to cannibalize their own sales. They might be able to pull it off if they release a slightly longer iPod to accommodate the larger screen and keep the mini's smaller click wheel as some of the mock ups have shown. No touchscreen, no wireless, just an iPod. OK maybe it would still have the accelerometer to switch between portrait and landscape.

I could also see a move from the polycarbonate+metal to nano/mini like anodized aluminum with colors.

Nothing that would eat into iPhone sales until fall at the earliest, but we shall see.


The Beatles made plenty of good music after "Yesterday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yesterday_%28song%29)" :p

B


Different audiences. A widescreen iPod only would be a large capacity 80 or 100 GB hard drive and NOT a small flash drive like the phone. I never would need the iPhone. I LOVE how a small Razr phone is flat and fits into my pocket BUT I would love an iPod bigger than an 80GB. Mine is already full. I am ok with TWO devices.

JonDann
Jan 17, 2007, 05:00 PM
he is might introduce itunes HD with ALAC encoded tracks. doubt it, but it's possible.

Just read on TUAW that the new iTunes Producer 1.5.1 (the software the companies use to upload content) allows upload to the iTS of Apple Lossless. You may be right.

nemaslov
Jan 17, 2007, 05:12 PM
Ha ha. EMI though are desperate for the money - the Beatles "Love" album has flopped, Robbie Williams has been a poor return on investment, and they're haemorrhaging cash just standing still being a wasteful greedy record company. Donations gratefully received.

Actually you are wrong. The LOVE album has NOT flopped as it was one of the hits of 06 still #9 on Billboard and no small feat for music that was originally recorded over 50 years ago. One of the top albums in the UK, the #1 in Canada and on and on. No not huge like some Amercan idol BS, but not bad for "music everyone already has."

epal
Jan 17, 2007, 05:18 PM
Close. It was February 9.

Ah. A good example that Wikipedia isn't perfect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatles

japanime
Jan 17, 2007, 06:23 PM
Ah. A good example that Wikipedia isn't perfect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatles

Indeed.

It was, as Guariemma pointed out, Feb. 9.

jwdsail
Jan 17, 2007, 07:08 PM
I doubt very much that Apple would spend that much cash on a Superbowl Ad for only the Beatles catalogue... It deserves an ad for sure, but a Superbowl Ad????? Meh.

But..

Let's consider that we have just seen a demo of a new iPod at Macworld. Er, well, the iPhone, but let's consider that the UI could easily be used on new HD based iPods right now.

Now a 60 sec spot showing off the new iPod AND the Beatles makes sense to me.. Perhaps a Beatles Edition similar to the U2 iPod?

Also, we're still waiting on new MacPros (8-core), the AppleTV could use a ad..(not sure if it warrants a Superbowl ad but still) and there's even iLife07...I'd love to see an updated version of the Wedding DVD ad... when that ad was made I had many people approach me wanting to get a Mac to make DVDs just like that.. Only problem was that at the time that task required the most expensive Mac made. Now that you can do all that on a Mac mini, isn't it time for an update?

Still, it could be all those things... Lets have the 1984 ad.. and when she throws the hammer, have the image dissolve into the "The first 30 years was just the beginning" image and have a montage of announced, and even brief glimpses of unannounced Apple products fly by, then "Welcome to 2007".



;-)


Let the rabid speculation begin!



jwd

weldon
Jan 17, 2007, 07:11 PM
I would so buy a special Beatles edition of the iPod.

Peace
Jan 17, 2007, 07:14 PM
I doubt very much that Apple would spend that much cash on a Superbowl Ad for only the Beatles catalogue... It deserves an ad for sure, but a Superbowl Ad????? Meh.

But..

Let's consider that we have just seen a demo of a new iPod at Macworld. Er, well, the iPhone, but let's consider that the UI could easily be used on new HD based iPods right now.

Now a 60 sec spot showing off the new iPod AND the Beatles makes sense to me.. Perhaps a Beatles Edition similar to the U2 iPod?

Also, we're still waiting on new MacPros (8-core), the AppleTV could use a ad..(not sure if it warrants a Superbowl ad but still) and there's even iLife07...I'd love to see an updated version of the Wedding DVD ad... when that ad was made I had many people approach me wanting to get a Mac to make DVDs just like that.. Only problem was that at the time that task required the most expensive Mac made. Now that you can do all that on a Mac mini, isn't it time for an update?

Still, it could be all those things... Lets have the 1984 ad.. and when she throws the hammer, have the image dissolve into the "The first 30 years was just the beginning" image and have a montage of announced, and even brief glimpses of unannounced Apple products fly by, then "Welcome to 2007".



;-)


Let the rabid speculation begin!



jwd


A nice iPhone ad during the super bowl would be worth it to Apple,Inc.
Toss in the Beatles on the music portion of the ad and there ya go!

Doctor Q
Jan 17, 2007, 07:23 PM
I would so buy a special Beatles edition of the iPod.Naw, let's get Beatles iPhones. They look like regular iPhones but they have mop-top hair on the top of the display.

me354
Jan 17, 2007, 08:40 PM
this is probably nothing..probly just a promo for the beatles cd.. but might be worth pointing out :confused:

Laurent
Jan 17, 2007, 10:01 PM
Ha ha. EMI though are desperate for the money - the Beatles "Love" album has flopped, Robbie Williams has been a poor return on investment, and they're haemorrhaging cash just standing still being a wasteful greedy record company. Donations gratefully received.
LOVE hasn't flopped, what the hell are you saying? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_%28The_Beatles_album%29)

balamw
Jan 18, 2007, 12:06 AM
Different audiences. A widescreen iPod only would be a large capacity 80 or 100 GB hard drive and NOT a small flash drive like the phone. I never would need the iPhone. I LOVE how a small Razr phone is flat and fits into my pocket BUT I would love an iPod bigger than an 80GB. Mine is already full. I am ok with TWO devices.

Again, I'm not saying no widescreen iPod, just not one that shares too many of iPhone's advanced features.

IMHO a Yellow Submarine iPod is far more likely than a "true widescreen video iPod" at this point.

B

flir67
Jan 18, 2007, 12:46 AM
On another note, I thought Michael Jacksons rights lapsed back to Apple Corps-sacreligeously, he allowed the songs to be used to hawk tennis shoes, instant breakfast, deoderant and SUV's.

As for "who would want to buy compressed Beatles music?" Well Apple has just sold their 2-Billionth 'compressed' songtrack...so somebody seems not to mind.

not sure I thought "BOFA" gave MJ a billions loan for collertal rights since he was broke then. thats when I think he sold neverland to get out of debt.

thats the last time I remember it being mentioned at least.


but if apple owns it now, so be it.. I'm all for that.

MacinDoc
Jan 18, 2007, 12:59 AM
A nice iPhone ad during the super bowl would be worth it to Apple,Inc.
Toss in the Beatles on the music portion of the ad and there ya go!
Do you think Apple will spend millions of dollars advertising something that isn't shipping until June?

Evangelion
Jan 18, 2007, 01:36 AM
I seriously doubt they're going to introduce another iPod that has some of the features of the iPhone before they start selling that device.

Mark my words: yes they will. iPod is getting old. And no, true video iPod is not an alternative to the iPhone. iPod is not a replacement for iPhone. iPhone just MIGHT replace iPod for some users, but not vice versa. And even then, I don't think that no-one is going to buy a $499 - $599 phone just so they could use it as a video iPod. That's why it makes sense to release a true video iPod, based on iPhone-technology (but without the camera, WiFi and phone) and with bigger storage-space.

Evangelion
Jan 18, 2007, 01:46 AM
I think Michael Jackson owns the rights to the Beatles catalogue (along with Sony in some merger a few years ago), though Paul does receive something on the order of 50% royalties of that gravy train.

I believe that The Beatles owns all the rights to the original recordings. What MJ owns is the rights to the new releases. So if someone wants to re-record some Beatles-song, MJ gets the money.

Evangelion
Jan 18, 2007, 01:57 AM
Not going to happen...the iPhone isn't even out yet so I'm sure they wouldn't sabotage sales of the iPhone by announcing a widescreen iPod.

um, how exactly would a music-player sabotage sales of a cell-phone? Do you think that people will rush to buy iPhone for it's music-capabilities? Music-capabilities are a nice bonus for sure, but the iPhone is a PHONE. They are in two separate markets. As a mediaplayer iPhone has some serious shortcomings. Yes, the UI and form-factor is great, but it simply has too little storage-capacity. Some music and some videos and it's full.

iPod is getting old and it's facing increased competition. Apple has the technology they need to take the iPod to the next level, way beyond any of their competitors. I have a 6GB iPod Mini, and I'm ready to move on to more advanced device. iPhone is not an alternative. I already have a company-issued phone and it takes about one year for the iPhone to become available here. And it has too little storage.

balamw
Jan 18, 2007, 02:08 AM
Mark my words: yes they will.
I don't doubt we'll see a refreshed iPod soon, just not one that has anywhere near the "wow factor" of the iPhone. The stuff you want to get rid of in the iPhone to make it cheaper, isn't sufficiently expensive. The display and battery in the iPhone make up a big chunk of the cost.

Just think about it this way the 8 GB nano and the 30 GB iPod are the same price, how do you think that comes about? The HDD costs less than the flash, but the larger display and battery offset that difference.

If you want an HDD based iPod with the iPhone's display and UI you'll need a bigger battery than the iPhone which will offset the cost of removing the camera, phone and WiFi, result in making the device cost as much as the iPhone without the Cingular "contribution"/subsidy of the device cost. Or, just wait for the components to come down in price as the iPhone becomes routine.

No one's going to buy a $700 iPod, even if it did have 100+GB of storage.

I hope I'm wrong, but a Powerbook G5 would surprise me less.

B

Evangelion
Jan 18, 2007, 04:30 AM
I don't doubt we'll see a refreshed iPod soon, just not one that has anywhere near the "wow factor" of the iPhone. The stuff you want to get rid of in the iPhone to make it cheaper, isn't sufficiently expensive. The display and battery in the iPhone make up a big chunk of the cost.

iPod already has a screen and a battery. Are there any indications that the battery in the iPhone is substantially more expensive than the one in the iPod? They both have more or less same playback-time when it comes to video and audio. Screen is more expensive in the iPhone, but the price-difference between the iPhone-screen vs. iPod-screen might not be that huge. However, I do expect the new iPod to be a bit more expensive than the current model.

And yes, cell-phone, WiFi and camera do cost quite a bit of money. And part of the cost in the iPhone is the R%D they invested in it. If they release a similar iPod, they could amortize the R&D sooner, as well as getting economies of scale when it comes to components.

Just think about it this way the 8 GB nano and the 30 GB iPod are the same price, how do you think that comes about? The HDD costs less than the flash, but the larger display and battery offset that difference.

Again: What makes you think that the battery in iPhone costs substantially more than the battery in the iPod? And we have no idea what Apple's margins are on the iPhone.

How can Microsoft sell Zune for the same amount of money as Apple sells iPod, even though it has WiFi, bigger screen and recordlabel-kickbacks? And take in to account that Zune is brand new product and they sstill have to pay for it's R&D, whereas iPod is mostly based on R&D that has been paid for.

If you want an HDD based iPod with the iPhone's display and UI you'll need a bigger battery than the iPhone which will offset the cost of removing the camera, phone and WiFi

So, you think that the price-difference between the iPod-battery and the iPhone-battery is more or less the same as the price of WiFi, cell-phone, and camera? Uh, OK...

Fact remains that it would be quite dumb for Apple to have two mediaplayers in the market with vastly different UI's. Apple has already done the needed R&D, it would be dumb for them to NOT use it in the iPod.

weldon
Jan 18, 2007, 10:55 AM
I believe that The Beatles owns all the rights to the original recordings. What MJ owns is the rights to the new releases. So if someone wants to re-record some Beatles-song, MJ gets the money.
Specifically, MJ bought the publishing rights to the Beatles catalog before 1969, previously controlled by Northern Songs. He outbid McCartney for the rights when they were put up for sale. The Beatles still own the rights to their performance of those songs, but the holder of the publishing rights also gets compensated when anyone sells those songs on an album or performs them in public.

McCartney now controls one of the largest song publishing companies in the world because he saw how much money he lost with the loss of control of Northern Songs. Song writers make a little less than a penny for each song they wrote which appears on an album.

As an aside, song publishing can be lucrative. "Happy Birthday" generates about $2 Million each year from performances in movies, etc. And no, you don't need to pay a royalty if you sing it to your kids at home.

balamw
Jan 18, 2007, 12:21 PM
And yes, cell-phone, WiFi and camera do cost quite a bit of money. And part of the cost in the iPhone is the R%D they invested in it. If they release a similar iPod, they could amortize the R&D sooner, as well as getting economies of scale when it comes to components.

How can Microsoft sell Zune for the same amount of money as Apple sells iPod, even though it has WiFi, bigger screen and recordlabel-kickbacks? And take in to account that Zune is brand new product and they sstill have to pay for it's R&D, whereas iPod is mostly based on R&D that has been paid for.


1) Microsoft has demonstrated before that they may be willing to lose money or first generation products like the original Xbox. Apple has yet to take this approach.

2) You can't have it both ways, either WiFi is an expensive feature or it isn't. The fact that WiFi enabled Zunes can compete with iPod on price is simple. Same resolution screen, no clickwheel and cheaper case materials. The WiFi is incidental to cost/price.

3) The same goes for the camera and the cell phone module. GSM phones are so cheap and include cameras that the providers can give them away so assume that the whole phone would cost no more than $200 without subsidy. The GSM module is a few relatively inexpensive chips and the camera in most cell phones is a self contained module. Getting everything to work together is the hard part.

Even with the continuing advances in power management and battery tech, the power cost of running a HDD is much harder than flash. This means a bigger and thus more expensive battery.

B

Peace
Jan 18, 2007, 12:44 PM
Do you think Apple will spend millions of dollars advertising something that isn't shipping until June?


It's just as realistic as Apple spending millions of dollars for a commercial about The Beatles.If they do the Beatles during superbowl might as well put it on the iPhone.

Doctor Q
Jan 18, 2007, 01:07 PM
It's just as realistic as Apple spending millions of dollars for a commercial about The Beatles.If they do the Beatles during superbowl might as well put it on the iPhone.I think Apple should spend their money on an ad about Apple Inc., not about one particular product. They rarely if ever have made it clear in a single ad that they make both computers AND iPods, and now they have Apple TV and iPhone to push also. They are to blame for the confusion when casual consumers aren't sure whether "iPod" is a company or what exactly Apple sells.

If they go for a Beatles ad, I think they should focus it on people a few years older than they do with dancing or brightly colored silhouettes. The market for Beatles music includes people of all ages, but it would be a chance to entice more baby-boomer consumers into the iTunes/iPod (and Mac) sphere.

Ironically, some of the iPod ads already border on a psychedelic style that might be associated with the Beatles or their era.

zac4mac
Jan 18, 2007, 02:16 PM
After seeing the ?iPhone I'm sure iPods are in for a change.
Agree with most of what Evangelion says. I expect the HDD based iPods to be like the phone but shorter, no wifi, no phone, same OS, in 40-60GB and 100GB.
I hope the nano changes little- I've had every version of iPod and IMO the nano is perfection incarnate. My red 4GB revB is 4 months old (daily use) and not a scratch on it and no case/cover. Big pods can be visual, smaller ones tactile.

The silhouette ads have always reminded me of 60s psychedelia.

Z

Karpfish
Jan 18, 2007, 02:59 PM
video ipod, release of beatles, and beatles video ipod.

benbow
Jan 19, 2007, 02:44 AM
Well it looks like I may be able to attend my first Superbowl party at a friend's home. I'll check out his new HD TV and watch the $$$$$ Apple ad.

My speculation is that Apple may introduce at this classic TV event one or more HD TV models with the Apple TV guts built in.

What brought this to mind is seeing a pitch for HP's new MediaSmart 37" LCD TV which can wirelessly display digital content from a Windows (Vista?)PC.

"The incredible new HP MediaSmart 37" LCD HDTV is equipped with high-speed wired and wireless connectivity* that transmits digital entertainment content directly from your PC. Enjoy all the movies, music and photographs stored in your computer on HP’s stunning high-definition LCD TV. Plus, you can access millions of songs and thousands of movies and videos over the Internet directly through your HP MediaSmart TV and Web media services." HP Newsgram 1/17/06


Of course the HP TV interface appears to be a crude imitation of Front Row but hey it has that simple iconic interface for TV droids to master.

I might buy the Apple version if the 30" iMac does not surface soon.

dokein
Jan 19, 2007, 07:27 PM
Considering that Cirque du Soleil is doing pregame entertainment, I'm betting the announcement will some tie in with the new Beatles LOVE album (and possibly Valentines Day). And who knows? Or maybe Apple Corps Ltd will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Apple, Inc., too.

mrthieme
Jan 20, 2007, 09:12 AM
Well it looks like I may be able to attend my first Superbowl party at a friend's home. I'll check out his new HD TV and watch the $$$$$ Apple ad.

My speculation is that Apple may introduce at this classic TV event one or more HD TV models with the Apple TV guts built in.

What brought this to mind is seeing a pitch for HP's new MediaSmart 37" LCD TV which can wirelessly display digital content from a Windows (Vista?)PC.

"The incredible new HP MediaSmart 37" LCD HDTV is equipped with high-speed wired and wireless connectivity* that transmits digital entertainment content directly from your PC. Enjoy all the movies, music and photographs stored in your computer on HPs stunning high-definition LCD TV. Plus, you can access millions of songs and thousands of movies and videos over the Internet directly through your HP MediaSmart TV and Web media services." HP Newsgram 1/17/06


Of course the HP TV interface appears to be a crude imitation of Front Row but hey it has that simple iconic interface for TV droids to master.

I might buy the Apple version if the 30" iMac does not surface soon.
I doubt this would be introduced this way, but I am hoping for the same product.

MacinDoc
Jan 20, 2007, 10:03 AM
How can Microsoft sell Zune for the same amount of money as Apple sells iPod, even though it has WiFi, bigger screen and recordlabel-kickbacks? And take in to account that Zune is brand new product and they sstill have to pay for it's R&D, whereas iPod is mostly based on R&D that has been paid for.
Didn't MS state that it was selling the Zune at a loss in order to establish a position in the market?

catracho
Jan 20, 2007, 11:06 PM
Apple isn't in the list:

http://www.superbowlnetwork.com/ads/2007/

balamw
Jan 20, 2007, 11:12 PM
Apple isn't in the list:

http://www.superbowlnetwork.com/ads/2007/

You trust this list why?

This website is not affiliated in any way with any league of any sort

B

Detlev
Jan 22, 2007, 11:53 PM
...people are excited about the Beatles? The Beatles? If you like them you have their music already (since nothing new has been released for over 30 years)

Um, Love came out just a few months ago. The nineties and eighties saw several releases. Sir Paul toured and put out albums. Yeah, people get excited about the Beatles, still. Each one of their releases in the past two decades have required midnight openings for the masses of people wanting to get the albums/CDs (yes there have been limited vinyl editions). It is no small thing to have exclusive distribution of their catalog.

Doctor Q
Jan 23, 2007, 12:07 AM
There is a Beatles store in Harajuku (http://www.tokyoessentials.com/harajuku.html), Tokyo. That proves that the Beatles are still cool! :)

I visited that store last year, and I was surprised at the high prices they were still getting for old Beatles records.

Laurent
Jan 23, 2007, 01:52 PM
Um, Love came out just a few months ago. The nineties and eighties saw several releases. Sir Paul toured and put out albums. Yeah, people get excited about the Beatles, still. Each one of their releases in the past two decades have required midnight openings for the masses of people wanting to get the albums/CDs (yes there have been limited vinyl editions). It is no small thing to have exclusive distribution of their catalog.Not to mention Let It Be... Naked, which was a perfect way to revisit the album! More raw... rock & roll! I'm just hoping for the combination of Mono, Stereo and Dolby 5.1 versions of all of their albums...

Peace
Jan 24, 2007, 08:26 PM
Visualize...


The PeeCee guy and the Mac guy standing there in front of you,the only difference is it's Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr dressed in Sgt.Pepper uniforms.

weldon
Jan 24, 2007, 08:37 PM
The PeeCee guy and the Mac guy standing there in front of you,the only difference is it's Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr dressed in Sgt.Pepper uniforms.
Who would want to be the PC guy? I imagine something like the Mac guy introducing his friends to PC.

BGAYLOR07
Jan 29, 2007, 12:50 AM
Mark my words: yes they will. iPod is getting old. And no, true video iPod is not an alternative to the iPhone. iPod is not a replacement for iPhone. iPhone just MIGHT replace iPod for some users, but not vice versa. And even then, I don't think that no-one is going to buy a $499 - $599 phone just so they could use it as a video iPod. That's why it makes sense to release a true video iPod, based on iPhone-technology (but without the camera, WiFi and phone) and with bigger storage-space.

I sure hope they do this. It would be great. I listen to a podcast called MacBreak Weekly and they are speculating that it will be a Beatles edition true video iPod. I'm getting excited just thinking about it! :D

Leia1912
Jan 29, 2007, 12:30 PM
To run with the idea of Mac/PC guys dressed up as Beatles, this is the commercial I envision. It crosses Apple's advertising messages, but heck, just run with it! :P

We see a white room, like the Mac/PC guys. Instead of the typical characters, however, we see Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney.

Paul: Hi, I'm a Mac.
Ringo: And I'm a PC.
Paul *looks over at Ringo* : No, you're not, you're Ringo!
Ringo *looks away from the camera, at Paul*: Then what about you?
Paul: I AM a Mac, I'm Paul *Mac*-Cartney (*spelling here just to indicate the sound made*)
Ringo *looks downcast* : I wish I were a Mac.
*video image cuts to a tinted background, with white Apple font popping up. The text reads: "You can be, Ringo." *
*revealed beneath the text: the iconic image of the Beatles crossing the road, done iPod-style. I've seen a great example of this on one of the Mac forums online. Text then pops up: Announcing the Beatles on iTunes.*

balamw
Jan 29, 2007, 02:54 PM
Who would want to be the PC guy?

Ringo will do anything for a paycheck. You've seen "Caveman (http://imdb.com/title/tt0082146/)" right? FWIW I actually really enjoy that movie.

B

pilotError
Jan 29, 2007, 03:51 PM
I could see a video of the Beetles playing for the first time in the U.S.

Then they slowly pan back to see the iPod playing in Widescreen mode.

Then back a little further with Paul holding the new video iPod and commenting about having the Beetles in your pocket and on iTunes...

Bobthemonkey
Jan 29, 2007, 07:23 PM
Paul then grabs an iPhone with the spare hand and calls Ringo?

charkshark
Jan 29, 2007, 11:42 PM
I could see a video of the Beetles playing for the first time in the U.S.

Then they slowly pan back to see the iPod playing in Widescreen mode.

Then back a little further with Paul holding the new video iPod and commenting about having the Beetles in your pocket and on iTunes...

Hehe....That's good...I don't really see it happening though.....I think it will simply announce the availability of beatles music on iTunes.

samstod
Jan 30, 2007, 12:37 PM
If I was working at Apple's marketing dept, I would start off with the begining of Sgt. Pepper's Lonley Heart Club Band, right after the instrument tuning ends. Screen is black. From the bottom we see a black widescreen ipod rise up. This would be a special beatles edition iPod, which would be the only widescreen version for a while. It would be similar to the u2 ipod in the fact that it is black, but the back is etched with colorful yellow, green, etc designs that are reminicent of the Yellow-Submarine era designs. It fully enters the screen and on cue with the the words "It was Twenty-Years ago today..." we get an explosion of color with flowers, and other similar designs and patterns. The widescreen illuminates with footage of the beatles playing the song (or just of other general beatlesesq weirdness). As the song continues "Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play. They've been going in and out of style..." We rotate around the ipod, and we see it in both widescreen and full screen views. We then get a front on view of the ipod as the song finishes "So let me introduce to you, the act you've known for all these years. Sgt Pepper's Lonley heart club band." The ipod is in widescreen mode for this, and above it white text comes up.

"Beatles + iPod."
"Let It Be Different"

In my crazy dream world the real catch is that this is a special beatles edition iPod that comes preloaded with the Beatles catalogue (Though, this is reflected in the price, either 399 or 499 with 30gig or 80gig hds). Once you register it with itunes, it also loads your library with the songs. It would be the only widescreen ipod available until the iphone comes out to make it stand out from the other ipods. Around July I would release the general version of the widescreen iPods.

Doctor Q
Jan 30, 2007, 02:29 PM
If I was working at Apple's marketing dept...Attention Apple: Hire this person.

steve_hill4
Jan 30, 2007, 02:35 PM
Paul then grabs an iPhone with the spare hand and calls Ringo?

Who, ironically enough, answers whilst working on some drum loops in GarageBand and states, "If only 40 years ago, then people would have thought I was a great drummer."

JackSYi
Feb 4, 2007, 03:01 AM
Steve Jobs played the Beatles when he introduced the iPod. But I really do look forward to this announcement actually happening.

Joedy
Feb 4, 2007, 06:58 AM
If I was working at Apple's marketing dept, ...
"Beatles + iPod."
"Let It Be Different"
....

Sam,

Wonderful marketing idea and very catchy, indeed.

-joedy

zeppiecr
Feb 5, 2007, 07:35 AM
08:30 05Feb2007 PRN-Apple Inc. and The Beatles' Apple Corps Ltd. Enter into New Agreement <AAPL.O>

CUPERTINO, Calif. and LONDON, Feb. 5 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Apple(R)
Inc. and The Beatles' company Apple Corps Ltd. are pleased to announce the
parties have entered into a new agreement concerning the use of the name
Apple and apple logos which replaces their 1991 Agreement. Under this new
agreement, Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to "Apple" and
will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their
continued use. In addition, the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the
companies will end, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple
Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes(R). The terms of
settlement are confidential.
Commenting on the settlement, Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO said, "We love the
Beatles, and it has been painful being at odds with them over these
trademarks. It feels great to resolve this in a positive manner, and in a way
that should remove the potential of further disagreements in the future."
Commenting on the settlement on behalf of the shareholders of Apple Corps,
Neil Aspinall, manager of Apple Corps said, "It is great to put this dispute
behind us and move on. The years ahead are going to be very exciting times for
us. We wish Apple Inc. every success and look forward to many years of
peaceful co-operation with them."
NOTE: Apple, the Apple logo, Mac, Mac OS, Macintosh, and iTunes are
trademarks of Apple. Other company and product names may be trademarks of
their respective owners.
SOURCE Apple Inc.

Natalie Kerris of Apple, Inc., +1-408-974-6877, or nat@apple.com; or Moira
Bellas for Apple Corps Ltd., +44(0)20-7483-9213, or moira@mbcpr.com; or
Elizabeth Freund, +1-718-858-3550, or zeliz@aol.com
For Related News, Double Click on one of these codes:
[PRN] [APL] [BUS] [DPR] [EUROPE] [GB] [LAW] [LEI] [NEWR] [PUB] [REC] [WEU] [LEN] [AAPL.O]

For Relevant Price Information, Double Click on one of these codes:
<AAPL.O>
Monday, 05 February 2007 08:30:24PRN [nPnSFM105a] {EN}ENDS

tny
Feb 5, 2007, 08:25 AM
ZeppieCR didn't include the link

<http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/02/05apple.html>


08:30 05Feb2007 PRN-Apple Inc. and The Beatles' Apple Corps Ltd. Enter into New Agreement <AAPL.O>

CUPERTINO, Calif. and LONDON, Feb. 5 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Apple(R)
Inc. and The Beatles' company Apple Corps Ltd. are pleased to announce the
parties have entered into a new agreement concerning the use of the name
Apple and apple logos which replaces their 1991 Agreement. Under this new
agreement, Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to "Apple" and
will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their
continued use. In addition, the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the
companies will end, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple
Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes(R). The terms of
settlement are confidential.
Commenting on the settlement, Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO said, "We love the
Beatles, and it has been painful being at odds with them over these
trademarks. It feels great to resolve this in a positive manner, and in a way
that should remove the potential of further disagreements in the future."
Commenting on the settlement on behalf of the shareholders of Apple Corps,
Neil Aspinall, manager of Apple Corps said, "It is great to put this dispute
behind us and move on. The years ahead are going to be very exciting times for
us. We wish Apple Inc. every success and look forward to many years of
peaceful co-operation with them."
NOTE: Apple, the Apple logo, Mac, Mac OS, Macintosh, and iTunes are
trademarks of Apple. Other company and product names may be trademarks of
their respective owners.
SOURCE Apple Inc.

Natalie Kerris of Apple, Inc., +1-408-974-6877, or nat@apple.com; or Moira
Bellas for Apple Corps Ltd., +44(0)20-7483-9213, or moira@mbcpr.com; or
Elizabeth Freund, +1-718-858-3550, or zeliz@aol.com
For Related News, Double Click on one of these codes:
[PRN] [APL] [BUS] [DPR] [EUROPE] [GB] [LAW] [LEI] [NEWR] [PUB] [REC] [WEU] [LEN] [AAPL.O]

For Relevant Price Information, Double Click on one of these codes:
<AAPL.O>
Monday, 05 February 2007 08:30:24PRN [nPnSFM105a] {EN}ENDS

weldon
Feb 5, 2007, 08:51 AM
Under this new agreement, Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to "Apple" and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use.
Amazing.

failsafe1
Feb 5, 2007, 08:54 AM
Things make more sense now. Seeing how Apple computer is now Apple inc. I would guess this might be part of what they can do now that they won this suit.