PDA

View Full Version : Apple Inc and Apple Corps Form New Trademark Agreement




mrfrosty
Feb 5, 2007, 08:15 AM
Looks like somethings been settled.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6332319.stm



Willis
Feb 5, 2007, 08:21 AM
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/02/05apple.html

same here.. lol, I was trying to find if a thread had already been started =P

wordmunger
Feb 5, 2007, 08:25 AM
I wonder if this deal wasn't completed in time for a Super Bowl ad, and that's why we didn't see one.

sushi
Feb 5, 2007, 08:27 AM
Looks like somethings been settled.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6332319.stm
Finally! Good news! :D

Queso
Feb 5, 2007, 08:29 AM
Interesting snippet from Apple Inc's press release

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.”

Something in the works?

MacRumors
Feb 5, 2007, 08:32 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Apple Inc and Apple Corps said in a joint statement (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/02/05apple.html) today that they have entered into a new trademark agreement that effectively replaces their prior 1991 agreement over the use of the corporate name "Apple".

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. 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.”

Apple Inc has been victorious (http://www.macrumors.com/2006/05/08/apple-corps-lose-lawsuit-against-apple-computer/) under a recent lawsuit from Apple Corps (the Beatles' record label) regarding the use of the Apple logo on the iTunes Store. Recent rumors fueled by Steve Jobs playing Beatles music on his iPhone (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/09/macworld-sf-2007-keynote-notes/) at MacWorld SF have pegged the Beatles coming to the iTunes store perhaps this month (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/16/beatles-coming-on-valentines-day/) (Valentines Day?).

justflie
Feb 5, 2007, 08:33 AM
Wow. This looks like a total win for Apple Inc. I don't know much about law-related things but I don't think it could have come out any better for stevie boy. :D yay for both :apple:s

Teh Don Ditty
Feb 5, 2007, 08:38 AM
IMHO we will now finally see the Beatles on iTunes. Excellent job by both Apples (Inc & Corps)

SwiftLives
Feb 5, 2007, 08:38 AM
Hmmmmm.

Methinks the Beatles will make an appearance on the iTunes Store tomorrow...

SheriffParker
Feb 5, 2007, 08:38 AM
One trademark battle down, iPhone trademark is next!

I love how Apple is so unstoppable when it comes to legal battles.

failsafe1
Feb 5, 2007, 08:38 AM
Now perhaps fanboy Steve can gush over iTunes content:D But really this is a good thing for iTunes cause any exclusive content is good.

c-Row
Feb 5, 2007, 08:40 AM
Recent rumors fueled by Steve Jobs playing Beatles music on his iPhone (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/09/macworld-sf-2007-keynote-notes/) at MacWorld SF have pegged the Beatles coming to the iTunes store perhaps this month (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/16/beatles-coming-on-valentines-day/) (Valentines Day?).

I mean, what would be more fitting than starting Valentine's Day with a band that sung "All You Need Is Love"? :)

michaelrjohnson
Feb 5, 2007, 08:43 AM
This was a joint settlement...

Can someone provide a better explanation of how Apple Corps, Inc. got anything out of this deal?

jsw
Feb 5, 2007, 08:44 AM
Note: threads merged.

Warbrain
Feb 5, 2007, 08:45 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6332319.stm

That's the BBC link. Well, it's good to know that they finally got past all of this.

Stella
Feb 5, 2007, 08:46 AM
Seems Apple Corp sold out and took it from SJ.

Too bad, oh well.

nodabs
Feb 5, 2007, 08:49 AM
Apple Corps will get their fair share of the deal when the Beatles tracks go on iTunes and become some of the most heavily downloaded songs. :D

fixyourthinking
Feb 5, 2007, 08:50 AM
This was a joint settlement...

Can someone provide a better explanation of how Apple Corps, Inc. got anything out of this deal?

They won't lose any more than they already have. Apple was going to win this legal battle) The Beatles will get to appear on The iTunes Store (the largest download site) instead of Napster or any of the other failures (Zune Store etc etc).

This was settled out of necessity by The Beatles.

NoNameBrand
Feb 5, 2007, 08:51 AM
I love how Apple is so unstoppable when it comes to legal battles.

Yeah! Just ask AppleInsider and ThinkSecret.

Queso
Feb 5, 2007, 08:51 AM
Apple Corps will get their fair share of the deal when the Beatles tracks go on iTunes and become some of the most heavily downloaded songs. :D
And thanks to downloads counting towards UK chart positions it's quite possible they could have every spot in the top 10 in the same week. That would be one hell of a PR coup for both Apples.

redAPPLE
Feb 5, 2007, 08:53 AM
I wonder if this deal wasn't completed in time for a Super Bowl ad, and that's why we didn't see one.

no lawyer works on sundays, maybe? :rolleyes:

iGav
Feb 5, 2007, 08:54 AM
Seems Apple Corp sold out and took it from SJ.

Not really a surprise considering The Beatles have always been the biggest corporate whores of them all.

Apple Inc will now take full control of the Apple brand and licence certain trademarks back to the Beatles' record company Apple Corps for continued use.

Time to start bumping up those annual licensing fees Steve!!! :p :p :p :p :p :p

uNext
Feb 5, 2007, 08:57 AM
Such a big deal for the beatles?

Yeah their legends but come on is it this serious?

longofest
Feb 5, 2007, 09:04 AM
Yeah! Just ask AppleInsider and ThinkSecret.

Apple hasn't lost against ThinkSecret yet. The charges against them are different.

Sandfleaz
Feb 5, 2007, 09:05 AM
Being a lawyer for Apple has got to be the best job security around. Even with this issue settled (maybe) there is an endless stream of lawsuits.

tny
Feb 5, 2007, 09:06 AM
This was a joint settlement...

Can someone provide a better explanation of how Apple Corps, Inc. got anything out of this deal?

Money. Apple Inc. no doubt offerred them money for the trademark, then licensed it back to Apple Corps for their uses for a nominal fee.

grebo
Feb 5, 2007, 09:07 AM
I think it's really interesting that Apple Corps now has to license their logo back from Apple Inc. That must have been key in the agreement.

michaelrjohnson
Feb 5, 2007, 09:11 AM
I guess I didn't realize the inevitability of Apple, Inc.'s success in this case.

Porchland
Feb 5, 2007, 09:12 AM
This was a joint settlement...

Can someone provide a better explanation of how Apple Corps, Inc. got anything out of this deal?

My guess: (1) Money. Very good terms on distribution of the Beatles catalog, movies, interviews, etc., on iTS. Apple may have gone so far as to guarantee certain revenue benchmarks. (2) Exposure. Apple will probably license one or more Beatles tunes for an ad campaign, generating big fees and free publicity for for the label. (3) Prestige. Apple Corp. wants a digital distribution deal with a serious player, and Apple/iTS is the gold standard.

But mostly money.

andrewcod
Feb 5, 2007, 09:19 AM
Digg it (http://digg.com/apple/Apple_Inc_and_Apple_Corps_Form_New_Trademark_Agreement)

50548
Feb 5, 2007, 09:30 AM
These are simply AWESOME news! Apple will dominate the online music industry now, paving the way for Beatles on iTMS! All benefits from Apple Corps pass to Apple with little else to be given by Steve Jobs...AWESOME!

GO APPLE!

alywa
Feb 5, 2007, 09:38 AM
Such a big deal for the beatles?

Yeah their legends but come on is it this serious?

Well, it depends on what comes of it. If the Beatles agree to be iTunes exclusive for digital download, then yes, it is a huge deal.

Here's the all-time top 15 (US Sales only) In Millions of Albums Sold

BEATLES, THE 169.0

PRESLEY, ELVIS 118.5

BROOKS, GARTH 116.0

LED ZEPPELIN 109.5

EAGLES 91.0

JOEL, BILLY 79.5

PINK FLOYD 73.5

STREISAND, BARBRA 71.0

JOHN, ELTON 69.0

AC/DC 68.0

ROLLING STONES, THE 65.5

AEROSMITH 65.5

MADONNA 63.0

STRAIT, GEORGE 62.5

SPRINGSTEEN, BRUCE 62.5

Obviously, the Beatles dwarf all of the others. In addition, this is a world-wide phenomenon, which crosses over 3 generations of people now.

p0intblank
Feb 5, 2007, 09:44 AM
Peace, at last! :D

surferfromuk
Feb 5, 2007, 09:44 AM
I'm voting for a 6G special edition Beatles Video Ipod based on the Iphone platform with 'The Beatles Anthology' TV series pre-loaded...

Let everyone see and remember how great and awesome the Beatles were - and this series certainly does that....then come back and buy their albums on Itunes digitally in Apple lossless format..

Now that would be a beautiful thing...and kind of revolutionary!

MacVault
Feb 5, 2007, 09:47 AM
Bigggg frickinnnnnn whooop... I wanta some fresh Leopard news - news for Mac nerds, stuff that matters!

hagjohn
Feb 5, 2007, 09:51 AM
My guess: (1) Money. Very good terms on distribution of the Beatles catalog, movies, interviews, etc., on iTS. Apple may have gone so far as to guarantee certain revenue benchmarks. (2) Exposure. Apple will probably license one or more Beatles tunes for an ad campaign, generating big fees and free publicity for for the label. (3) Prestige. Apple Corp. wants a digital distribution deal with a serious player, and Apple/iTS is the gold standard.

But mostly money.

I was thinking the same thing.

kdavis
Feb 5, 2007, 09:57 AM
I noticed this yesterday - one of the Circuit City banner ads in rotation on iLounge's home page pictures an iPod with the Beatles' 'Love' cover displayed on the screen. Not that that means anything definite... but it seems curious...

IJ Reilly
Feb 5, 2007, 10:01 AM
I wonder if this deal wasn't completed in time for a Super Bowl ad, and that's why we didn't see one.

That was my thinking as well.

iMikeT
Feb 5, 2007, 10:03 AM
At this point, I don't even have to guess what's coming.

twoodcc
Feb 5, 2007, 10:09 AM
well i'm glad that they got things settled :) :apple:

Rocketman
Feb 5, 2007, 10:09 AM
This was a joint settlement...

Can someone provide a better explanation of how Apple Corps, Inc. got anything out of this deal?

Apple Corps made a trademark claim that was not valid. The court ruled in Apple Computer Inc's favor. Apple Corps was therefore due to pay Apple Computers legal expenses which were pretty large, on the orrder of $10,000,000 (that might be pounds not dollars, so might be twice as much).

As you know McCartney is also getting divorced and that was announced the same week the lawsuit went Apple Computer's way (I read the briefs and AComputer was being harassed by ACorps).

This does several things:

1- It gives Apple Corps unfettered rights and use of the logo they have been using for decades, a green, naturally colored Apple.

2- It clearly gives Apple Computer (now Apple, Inc) the rights of use of its graphicly stylized Apple with a segment cut out without dispute.

How anybody ever claimed they might be confused is strange to me, but it was an out of court settlement the first time and not ruled on by a judge.

3- Apple Corps does not have to pay millions of dollars in court costs to Apple Computer. They chose to settle that portion like they do in America not England.

4-Apple Corps now will benefit from positive publicity not negative around Apple, which is, shall we say, a cultural phenomena right now, actually larger than the Beatles ever were in sheer volume. (perhaps not as a % of the relative populations).

5- For all practical purposes Apple is positioning itself to be a dominant "media content" distributor and Apple Corps certainly will make more money off that than trademark lawsuits, even successful ones, which were not on the horizon.

6- Apple Inc has the responsibility of protecting future Trademark violations for BOTH companies thuse lowering future legal expenses for Apple Corps and assuring a more successful outcome as Apple Inc has better lawyers. The recent claim by Apple Corps should rightly result in their lawyers being censured BTW.

Start there.

Rocketman

misterh
Feb 5, 2007, 10:09 AM
Since the "The Beatles" company was always called "Apple Corps, Ltd." and (at least up until recently) the Steve Jobs company was always called "Apple Computer, Inc.", this has been a ridiculous lawsuit from the very start.

IJ Reilly
Feb 5, 2007, 10:20 AM
Since the "The Beatles" company was always called "Apple Corps, Ltd." and (at least up until recently) the Steve Jobs company was always called "Apple Computer, Inc.", this has been a ridiculous lawsuit from the very start.

It has always seemed rather ridiculous to me. But apparently the issue was make more acute rather than clarified by an earlier agreement between the companies, in which Apple agreed to stay out of the music business.

Ted13
Feb 5, 2007, 10:21 AM
This is potentially huge, as Apple can now be a record company, signing bands directly and cutting out the middle man, the record companies that get 69 cents out every dollar.

Rocketman
Feb 5, 2007, 10:25 AM
It has always seemed rather ridiculous to me. But apparently the issue was make more acute rather than clarified by an earlier agreement between the companies, in which Apple agreed to stay out of the music business.

Apple Computer, in a settlement, not a court ruling, agreed to stay out of the music "production" business but BOTH parties agreed Apple Computer could distribute, transmit, store retreive and even sell music. The document is posted in full back on the thread announcing the court ruling on the most recent claim. I posted some coments to that thread as well after reading and actually understanding all the public documents, which included the original settlement agreement and the pleadings from both sides on the current dispute. In summary Apple Corps was seeking compensation for something the agreement expressly allowed Apple Computer to do. They had really crappy lawyers.

Rocketman

Philsy
Feb 5, 2007, 10:30 AM
Well, it depends on what comes of it. If the Beatles agree to be iTunes exclusive for digital download, then yes, it is a huge deal.

Here's the all-time top 15 (US Sales only) In Millions of Albums Sold

BEATLES, THE 169.0

PRESLEY, ELVIS 118.5

BROOKS, GARTH 116.0

LED ZEPPELIN 109.5

EAGLES 91.0

JOEL, BILLY 79.5

PINK FLOYD 73.5

STREISAND, BARBRA 71.0

JOHN, ELTON 69.0

AC/DC 68.0

ROLLING STONES, THE 65.5

AEROSMITH 65.5

MADONNA 63.0

STRAIT, GEORGE 62.5

SPRINGSTEEN, BRUCE 62.5

Obviously, the Beatles dwarf all of the others. In addition, this is a world-wide phenomenon, which crosses over 3 generations of people now.

Gosh, I'm shocked that Garth Brookes is so big in the USA. I remember him having some small success in the UK a few years ago and then fading away.

Project
Feb 5, 2007, 10:33 AM
/cues Rick Ross

"everyday im hustling, hustling, hustling..."

Apple Legal got an incredible coup here to take sole control of the Apple name.

SPUY767
Feb 5, 2007, 10:33 AM
Obviously, the Beatles dwarf all of the others. In addition, this is a world-wide phenomenon, which crosses over 3 generations of people now.

Apple Corps' continued fetish to rerelease albums over and over has something to do with this. The Beatles only have 12 studio albums, yet, with all the rereleases and compilations, the number balloons to 45. Led Zeppelin for instance only has 18 Albums out including the 8 original studio records, BBC Sessions, How the West was Won and a few less notable others.

alywa
Feb 5, 2007, 10:33 AM
Gosh, I'm shocked that Garth Brookes is so big in the USA. I remember him having some small success in the UK a few years ago and then fading away.

Yeah, it is kind of sad. Also alarming is that #16 is Mariah Carey. I purposely chose to stop the list at #15. ;)

timon
Feb 5, 2007, 10:39 AM
Would be interesting if Apple Inc ended up owning a large stake in Apple Corp. That would really stick it to the other record companies. Could be good or could be bad.

Just a thought.

dlastmango
Feb 5, 2007, 10:40 AM
This was a joint settlement...

Can someone provide a better explanation of how Apple Corps, Inc. got anything out of this deal?

$$$$$$$$$

Project
Feb 5, 2007, 10:41 AM
Mariah Carey has an amazing voice. Certainly better than most in the top 15. Whats the problem?

Philsy
Feb 5, 2007, 10:48 AM
Yeah, it is kind of sad. Also alarming is that #16 is Mariah Carey. I purposely chose to stop the list at #15. ;)

Now that is sad. ;) However, I'm sure a list of UK top-sellers would also have some embarrassing names on, just rather fewer cowboy hats :)

MarcelV
Feb 5, 2007, 10:49 AM
This is potentially huge, as Apple can now be a record company, signing bands directly and cutting out the middle man, the record companies that get 69 cents out every dollar.

You're absolutely correct. And this will be the biggest impact of this deal. Apple can now be not just be the distributor, but also content owner.

alywa
Feb 5, 2007, 10:53 AM
Mariah Carey has an amazing voice. Certainly better than most in the top 15. Whats the problem?

You are right, and clearly the millions who buy her albums agree. I'm just not a fan of vocal pop music (ie Carey, Celine Dion, and for that matter Streisand). I like my musicians to play instruments. Of course, I vote with my wallet, as everyone else does.

generationxwing
Feb 5, 2007, 10:54 AM
Mariah Carey has an amazing voice. Certainly better than most in the top 15. Whats the problem?

She's ******* crazy, can't act for ****, thinks she's better than "ordinary" people, dresses like a whore to overshadow her obvious lack of talent, and refuses to accept getting older (see dresses like a whore).

brepublican
Feb 5, 2007, 10:57 AM
Good new for Apple Inc! Already have enough Beatles to last me, but it can only drive the iTMS to greater heights :apple:

freebooter
Feb 5, 2007, 10:58 AM
It makes me sick that any greedy b@stard$ think they can fence off portions of the English language, and so can sue any one who uses a word they think they own. "Apple" is a group of letters denoting a kind of fruit, and no one owns it! :mad:

Gosh
Feb 5, 2007, 11:00 AM
Gosh - this is bigger than Vista (I know)!:)

Philsy
Feb 5, 2007, 11:04 AM
It makes me sick that any greedy b@stard$ think they can fence off portions of the English language, and so can sue any one who uses a word they think they own. "Apple" is a group of letters denoting a kind of fruit, and no one owns it! :mad:

As far as I understand it, it's because Apple Computer (as was) was using the name with relation to music, which was a conflict with the Beatles record label.

No one could stop you from using the word 'Apple' in relation to something totally different, say a chain of fruit shops...

nemaslov
Feb 5, 2007, 11:06 AM
This was a joint settlement...

Can someone provide a better explanation of how Apple Corps, Inc. got anything out of this deal?

My guess it that for Apple Inc (computer) to get the entire bite of the Apple, they probably paid a big chunk to the Beatles' Apple. Then charges back to the Beatles's to use Apple. Having said that, the Beatles probably didn't pay anything, but worked a deal for music exclusivity for a limited time.

Bring on the remastered CDs. Don't really care for downloads, but the promotions will help them all!!

Amdahl
Feb 5, 2007, 11:09 AM
Recent rumors fueled by Steve Jobs playing Beatles music on his iPhone (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/09/macworld-sf-2007-keynote-notes/) at MacWorld SF have pegged the Beatles coming to the iTunes store perhaps this month (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/16/beatles-coming-on-valentines-day/) (Valentines Day?).

Beatles by Holiday 2007! Zune phone by Holiday 2007! What a great Valentines Day it will be.

Happy holiday everyone!

Shagrat
Feb 5, 2007, 11:12 AM
She's ******* crazy, can't act for ****, thinks she's better than "ordinary" people, dresses like a whore to overshadow her obvious lack of talent, and refuses to accept getting older (see dresses like a whore).

Hey, why don't you tell us what you REALLY think of Maria Carey!:cool:

PS Wasn't she referred to as Pariah Carey because of the dodgy people she used to hang around with?

Shagrat
Feb 5, 2007, 11:15 AM
This is potentially huge, as Apple can now be a record company, signing bands directly and cutting out the middle man, the record companies that get 69 cents out every dollar.

Wow, never thought of that! Now who would you rather sign with?

Apple Records Inc or Microsoft Music TM ??????

nemaslov
Feb 5, 2007, 11:17 AM
It makes me sick that any greedy b@stard$ think they can fence off portions of the English language, and so can sue any one who uses a word they think they own. "Apple" is a group of letters denoting a kind of fruit, and no one owns it! :mad:

yeah? And McDonalds is only a farmer's name.... E I E I O :D

IJ Reilly
Feb 5, 2007, 11:20 AM
Apple Computer, in a settlement, not a court ruling, agreed to stay out of the music "production" business but BOTH parties agreed Apple Computer could distribute, transmit, store retreive and even sell music. The document is posted in full back on the thread announcing the court ruling on the most recent claim. I posted some coments to that thread as well after reading and actually understanding all the public documents, which included the original settlement agreement and the pleadings from both sides on the current dispute. In summary Apple Corps was seeking compensation for something the agreement expressly allowed Apple Computer to do. They had really crappy lawyers.

Rocketman

I understand, but if the issues were so completely clear, then Apple would have staying in court and had the thing resolved once and for all that way, having to make no concessions. I suspect that other side issues were involved, including but not limited to the Beatles catalog. Apple Corp must have been exerting some sort of leverage.

Peace
Feb 5, 2007, 11:25 AM
This is potentially huge, as Apple can now be a record company, signing bands directly and cutting out the middle man, the record companies that get 69 cents out every dollar.

I don't believe that's entirely correct.Apple Corp is a subsidiary of EMI LTD.And they own several other record labels..Apple could not sign any band that has a contract with EMI.

aricher
Feb 5, 2007, 11:27 AM
What's this? The Rutles are finally coming to iTunes?

All You Need Is Cash! (http://www.rutlemania.org/rutles4.html)

Some_Big_Spoon
Feb 5, 2007, 11:27 AM
Buy them. Sony does it, and gets away with it, so why couldn't Apple? Just buy Apple Corps, start a record label, and put artists first. You'd get mass defections and tons more $$.

JGowan
Feb 5, 2007, 11:37 AM
Bigggg frickinnnnnn whooop... I wanta some fresh Leopard news - news for Mac nerds, stuff that matters!It's huge news and VERY VERY long in coming. Dont read the thread if it bothers you.

calculus
Feb 5, 2007, 11:50 AM
Mariah Carey has an amazing voice.

I am certainly amazed every time I hear it...

Eric Lewis
Feb 5, 2007, 11:50 AM
uh this is going on forever!

butaro
Feb 5, 2007, 11:53 AM
I mean, what would be more fitting than starting Valentine's Day with a band that sung "All You Need Is Love"? :)

porn on itunes? :P lol

Philsy
Feb 5, 2007, 11:53 AM
I am certainly amazed every time I hear it...

This reminds me of an article I once read on F1 racing drivers' taste in music - Phil Collins crept up a worrying number of times... :eek:

JGowan
Feb 5, 2007, 11:54 AM
It makes me sick that any greedy b@stard$ think they can fence off portions of the English language, and so can sue any one who uses a word they think they own. "Apple" is a group of letters denoting a kind of fruit, and no one owns it! :mad:Thanks for the definition, Webster, but YES THEY DO.

Philsy
Feb 5, 2007, 11:56 AM
Thanks for the definition, Webster, but YES THEY DO.

Not strictly speaking true.

calculus
Feb 5, 2007, 11:57 AM
This reminds me of an article I once read on F1 racing drivers' taste in music - Phil Collins crept up a worrying number of times... :eek:

He's another one on my 'music for people who don't like music' list.

tallyho
Feb 5, 2007, 12:07 PM
Beatles by Holiday 2007! Zune phone by Holiday 2007! What a great Valentines Day it will be.

Happy holiday everyone!

:confused: erm...what's this holiday - sorry "Holiday 2007" - of which you speak?:confused:
We don't get Valentine's day as a holiday in the UK - do you?

BillyShears
Feb 5, 2007, 12:16 PM
This is potentially huge, as Apple can now be a record company, signing bands directly and cutting out the middle man, the record companies that get 69 cents out every dollar.

I'm not sure that would be a good idea. What you say sounds good, but consider the difficulty of Apple negotiating with other record labels for setting iTunes Store policy. They'd be negotiating with the competition.

Ted13
Feb 5, 2007, 12:20 PM
I don't believe that's entirely correct.Apple Corp is a subsidiary of EMI LTD.And they own several other record labels..Apple could not sign any band that has a contract with EMI.
Apple couldn't sign any band that has a contract with someone else, period. But they can sign bands with contracts that have expired or new, as yet unsigned ones.

By the time digital downloads surpass CDs in sales, Apple will be in position to become the biggest record company, if they so choose.

Ted13
Feb 5, 2007, 12:32 PM
I'm not sure that would be a good idea. What you say sounds good, but consider the difficulty of Apple negotiating with other record labels for setting iTunes Store policy. They'd be negotiating with the competition.
Agreed. For that reason, Apple may well have no interest in becoming a record label.

However, the competition might not be very competitive. Unlike movies with their big budgets, records with the benefit of Macs running Logic or ProoTools can be made for, please pardon me, a song. The only value today's record companies offer is in promotion. But that too can change -- iTunes is one of the most visited sites on the net, and if you throw a potential partnership with Google in the mix, Apple could promote bands much better than their existing labels ever did.

Most bands hate their labels as they get cheated out of the vast majority of the revenue their music generates. If Apple were to offer them a 50/50 split on iTunes revenue they would have a lot of takers.

Porchland
Feb 5, 2007, 12:33 PM
I'm not sure that would be a good idea. What you say sounds good, but consider the difficulty of Apple negotiating with other record labels for setting iTunes Store policy. They'd be negotiating with the competition.

The TV networks/studios seem to navigate this terrain pretty well, but that's a whole different deal. The networks/studios often make shows that appear on competitor's networks, but that's a market where no one has the kind of market share Apple does in online music sales.

ABC can put a show like "Scrubs" on NBC because it's profitable for ABC (and NBC) to do that, but Apple is effectively the only online market for the record labels.

TV shows might make more sense. I could see Apple pulling together a production deal with some brand-name talent to produce, say, a sitcom that's only available on :apple:TV. Apple would control the secondary rights, so they could theoretically release it on DVD, syndicate it on cable, etc. The networks would have less of a problem with this than the record labels would Apple signing up John Mayer because TV is not concentrated on a single network or platform.

EDIT:

That said -- and after reading some other posts -- I could see Apple as a home for independent record producers. The labels are essentially promoters/distributors and are largely unnecessary if there are other effective means for distributing and promoting.

The labels will argue that the next Green Day or Beyonce is never going to emerge without a label that is willing to spend the money to bring the artist along, e.g., buy space in Rolling Stone, place the song on "Grey's Anatomy," etc. I'm not sure I buy it.

uNext
Feb 5, 2007, 12:35 PM
Well, it depends on what comes of it. If the Beatles agree to be iTunes exclusive for digital download, then yes, it is a huge deal.

Here's the all-time top 15 (US Sales only) In Millions of Albums Sold

BEATLES, THE 169.0

PRESLEY, ELVIS 118.5

BROOKS, GARTH 116.0

LED ZEPPELIN 109.5

EAGLES 91.0

JOEL, BILLY 79.5

PINK FLOYD 73.5

STREISAND, BARBRA 71.0

JOHN, ELTON 69.0

AC/DC 68.0

ROLLING STONES, THE 65.5

AEROSMITH 65.5

MADONNA 63.0

STRAIT, GEORGE 62.5

SPRINGSTEEN, BRUCE 62.5

Obviously, the Beatles dwarf all of the others. In addition, this is a world-wide phenomenon, which crosses over 3 generations of people now.

Thats cool and all but because they will be bringing the beatles over does that mean more incentives for customers? lower prices?

Thats what i mean, i see people making a big deal out of this like if they will eat better because apple can finally release the beatles music on itunes.

Shoulndt they concentrate more on the "secret" features leopard will have?
or are they just giving in to and letting the operating system slowly slip away?

I see news like this and i start to miss apple computers. tHEIR WHOLE FOCUS WAS BASED ON computing, this new apple inc is just so not exciting. I mean i rather pay for a physical copy and rip it.
Instead of being tied down to an ipod which i personally think is piece of crapple.

I swear RIApple whines so much that people are stealing their ideas that it has to be a diversion so no one will notice that they almost never have an original idea.. The idea for every RIAApple product came from somewhere else. I'm not saying they could 'never' come up with an original idea but it's pretty darned rare.

Mulyahnto
Feb 5, 2007, 12:45 PM
She's ******* crazy, can't act for ****, thinks she's better than "ordinary" people, dresses like a whore to overshadow her obvious lack of talent, and refuses to accept getting older (see dresses like a whore).

Ok, ok, she can't act, but she DOES have talent as far as singing is concerned. The other points you make. That's all in the eye of the beholder.

mixel
Feb 5, 2007, 12:46 PM
I see the fact that Apple are keeping quiet about OS related stuff as a good thing. I don't understand the negativity when Apple do other things.. Oddly enough Apple have entirely different teams of people working on legal stuff to software development. :P It's not a case of concentrating on one thing to the detriment of another.

This whole Beatles thing is great for a lot of people and isn't doing any harm.

10.5 will come when it comes. Apple haven't rested on their laurels for years and aren't likely to start now.

MacNut
Feb 5, 2007, 01:02 PM
So what it comes down to is the older Apple Corps sold out to the younger Apple Inc.

ijimk
Feb 5, 2007, 01:06 PM
I am looking foward to multiple desktops in OS X 10.5. Does anyone know how many versions of OS X apple said they would release? I thought i heard some where it was 5 but i could be wrong. :apple:

iMeowbot
Feb 5, 2007, 01:34 PM
This is potentially huge, as Apple can now be a record company, signing bands directly and cutting out the middle man, the record companies that get 69 cents out every dollar.
The trademark now belongs to Apple Inc. on the public pieces of paper, but that doesn't mean they can do whatever they please with it now. There is also the new contract with Apple Corps, and no one here knows what its terms are because the two Apples aren't telling.

Centris 650
Feb 5, 2007, 01:55 PM
Um...so other than the Beatles who did Apple Corp. represent? Also, didn't Apple Corp. close in the 70's? If they did why would it matter to them about the name?

shrimpdesign
Feb 5, 2007, 01:58 PM
So what it comes down to is the older Apple Corps sold out to the younger Apple Inc.
As if Apple Crops actually does anything since the Beatles broke up. They don't even have signed artists.

dobbin
Feb 5, 2007, 02:02 PM
I've only just realised what a funny name Apple Corps is. Not sure about in the US, but in the UK Corps is pronounced core.

I wonder who Steve will do a deal with next - orange peel or banana skin?

dizastor
Feb 5, 2007, 02:02 PM
Beatles Special Edition iPod?

Phil A.
Feb 5, 2007, 02:04 PM
Um...so other than the Beatles who did Apple Corp. represent? Also, didn't Apple Corp. close in the 70's? If they did why would it matter to them about the name?

Apple Corps was created by the Beatles to manage their own affairs (among other things) and still exists to manage the licensing of Beatles music and other related Beatles products

matticus008
Feb 5, 2007, 02:12 PM
I've only just realised what a funny name Apple Corps is. Not sure about in the US, but in the UK Corps is pronounced core.
That's no accident ;).

Peace
Feb 5, 2007, 02:16 PM
I've only just realised what a funny name Apple Corps is. Not sure about in the US, but in the UK Corps is pronounced core.

I wonder who Steve will do a deal with next - orange peel or banana skin?

If you look at any of the original Apple Corps. Beatle's LP's you will see an apple core.It is no accident.

Amdahl
Feb 5, 2007, 02:40 PM
:confused: erm...what's this holiday - sorry "Holiday 2007" - of which you speak?:confused:
We don't get Valentine's day as a holiday in the UK - do you?

I don't know.. I saw it used as the release date for the Zune phone in an earlier MacRumors story, so I assumed it must be the upcoming holiday. If not Valentine's, then maybe Easter?

Because I looked up holiday in the dictionary, and all it said is that holiday is a holiday.

Huh, now that I think about it, maybe "Holiday 2007" is some kind of communist euphemism for Christmas?

tallyho
Feb 5, 2007, 02:48 PM
Huh, now that I think about it, maybe "Holiday 2007" is some kind of communist euphemism for Christmas?
LOL There was a news story in the UK a few years ago about some local government authority re-naming Christmas as "Winterval" :rolleyes: You couldn't make it up!

Philsy
Feb 5, 2007, 02:51 PM
LOL There was a news story in the UK a few years ago about some local government authority re-naming Christmas as "Winterval" :rolleyes: You couldn't make it up!

And then there was the year that Boxing Day was moved forward a day because it couldn't be a bank holiday on a Sunday...

Actually, I think Americans are the biggest culprits here - saying 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Happy Christmas' :rolleyes:

matticus008
Feb 5, 2007, 03:01 PM
I don't know.. I saw it used as the release date for the Zune phone in an earlier MacRumors story, so I assumed it must be the upcoming holiday. If not Valentine's, then maybe Easter?
In time for the 2007 Holidays? This refers to the holiday season (beginning in November and running through New Year's Day).

Huh, now that I think about it, maybe "Holiday 2007" is some kind of communist euphemism for Christmas?
Not exactly. It encompasses Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus, the Winter Solstice, and everything else piled into the last couple months. "The Holidays" constitutes the major retail sales period and is the traditional period to introduce new products (for example, new model year cars, although the release dates have been creeping forward in the past decade). If you're familiar with the phrase, "Happy Holidays," this is what they're talking about. Some people call it the Christmas season, some people call it late Autumn, some people call it Winter (though technically it's not Winter in either hemisphere for the bulk of the season).

Queso
Feb 5, 2007, 03:12 PM
LOL There was a news story in the UK a few years ago about some local government authority re-naming Christmas as "Winterval" :rolleyes: You couldn't make it up!
Unlike the linking of the Roman's Saturnalia Festival with Jesus Christ you mean? :rolleyes:

nemaslov
Feb 5, 2007, 03:30 PM
I've only just realised what a funny name Apple Corps is. Not sure about in the US, but in the UK Corps is pronounced core.

I wonder who Steve will do a deal with next - orange peel or banana skin?

that was actually done on purpose. They were quite funny...just bad businessmen.

nemaslov
Feb 5, 2007, 03:51 PM
Despite your opinions, it makes sense for Apple Inc to pay Apple Corp. since the Beatles Apple did have the record label exclusive rights:

From Forbes:

Industry analysts said a resolution on putting The Beatles' music online is likely already in the works.

"It goes from impossible to a lock that it's going to happen - it's a function of time at this point," said Gene Munster, senior research analyst with investment bank Piper Jaffray & Co. "I bet they move pretty fast. For Apple, it was critical that they got this taken care of."

Jaffray estimates that Apple Inc. paid The Beatles $50 million to $100 million for the rights to the Apple name. That would come on top of more than $26.5 million Apple paid to settle past disputes with Apple Corps.

QuarterSwede
Feb 5, 2007, 04:24 PM
Recent rumors fueled by Steve Jobs playing Beatles music on his iPhone at MacWorld SF have pegged the Beatles coming to the iTunes store perhaps this month (Valentines Day?).
I could see an ad singing, "All you need is love."

joeshell383
Feb 5, 2007, 04:26 PM
They won't lose any more than they already have. Apple was going to win this legal battle) The Beatles will get to appear on The iTunes Store (the largest download site) instead of Napster or any of the other failures (Zune Store etc etc).

This was settled out of necessity by The Beatles.

I think it should be renamed to the "iStore". iTunes should become "i".

Amdahl
Feb 5, 2007, 04:57 PM
In time for the 2007 Holidays? This refers to the holiday season (beginning in November and running through New Year's Day).


Not exactly. It encompasses Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus, the Winter Solstice, and everything else piled into the last couple months. "The Holidays" constitutes the major retail sales period and is the traditional period to introduce new products (for example, new model year cars, although the release dates have been creeping forward in the past decade). If you're familiar with the phrase, "Happy Holidays," this is what they're talking about. Some people call it the Christmas season, some people call it late Autumn, some people call it Winter (though technically it's not Winter in either hemisphere for the bulk of the season).

I didn't see MacRumors wishing me Happy Holidays. They said the Zune phone was going to be released for 'Holiday 2007.' I looked up holiday, and found no reference to this imaginary thing.

I have heard of Christmas, Thanksgiving, and New Years. Last I heard, those three are all SEPARATE and DISTINCT holidays. I've even heard of The Fourth Quarter! Maybe MacRumors hasn't? (And FYI, Thanksgiving is a USA holiday.) Some diversity-mongers treat MLK as a major holiday, with church services, songs, and singing; is it part of 'Holiday?' Why or why not?

There are holidays all throughout the year, so it is a little dumb to try and name something 'Holiday' or 'the holidays,' unless you're a Jew referencing the High Holy Days.

update: I did find an entry for 'the holidays:' The holidays, any fixed or usual period for relaxation or festivity; especially, Christmas and New Year's day with the intervening time. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the%20holidays

So, still no such thing as 'Holiday 2007,' and if you say 'the holidays' you mean the dates from Dec 25 to Jan 1.

japanime
Feb 5, 2007, 05:58 PM
This reminds me of an article I once read on F1 racing drivers' taste in music - Phil Collins crept up a worrying number of times... :eek:

You ever been to a Major League Baseball game? The snippets of music that are played as each batter walks up to take his turn at bat are truly disturbing.

I love baseball, but I hate the majority of players' choice in music.

(And yes, the players do get to choose what music is played as they step up to bat.)

matticus008
Feb 5, 2007, 09:56 PM
I didn't see MacRumors wishing me Happy Holidays. They said the Zune phone was going to be released for 'Holiday 2007.' I looked up holiday, and found no reference to this imaginary thing.
All that means is in time for the 2007 holiday season. They were not referring to Martin Luther King Day, nor to Valentine's Day, nor to any other holiday between now and November. It's common knowledge; I'm not making this up.
I have heard of Christmas, Thanksgiving, and New Years. Last I heard, those three are all SEPARATE and DISTINCT holidays. I've even heard of The Fourth Quarter! Maybe MacRumors hasn't? (And FYI, Thanksgiving is a USA holiday.)
Yeah, and your point? Most news sources, as well as Microsoft and Apple, are American companies.
is it part of 'Holiday?' Why or why not?
Does it fall between Thanksgiving and New Year's? No. When you make "holiday" a proper noun, it refers to the American Winter Holiday season (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiday_season#The_American_winter_holiday_season).
There are holidays all throughout the year, so it is a little dumb to try and name something 'Holiday' or 'the holidays,'
Well, you can take that up with the board of directors for the English language. You might have some trouble finding them, because they don't exist.
So, still no such thing as 'Holiday 2007,' and if you say 'the holidays' you mean the dates from Dec 25 to Jan 1.
No! Any time between November and the end of the year falls into the holiday season.

Teh Don Ditty
Feb 5, 2007, 11:33 PM
just a thought.... when did this thread become about the proper use of "Holiday", "Holidays", "Holiday 2007" etc.? Who cares!!! The Beatles will be on iTunes when Apple (both of them) want them to.

Supa_Fly
Feb 6, 2007, 01:21 AM
I would LOVE to spend $80CAN on a few Beatles (I almost spelt it wrong hehe - I'm not a Beatles fan ... I wasn't even a twinkle in Dad's eye then he was barely a teenager/tweenie) > but I can appreciate great music no matter the genre (Country is an exception with only The Gambler - Kenny R).

Special Edition Beatles iPod now THAT would be special .... how about a Yellow Submarine? Nah. :apple:

50548
Feb 6, 2007, 04:01 AM
I would LOVE to spend $80CAN on a few Beatles (I almost spelt it wrong hehe - I'm not a Beatles fan ... I wasn't even a twinkle in Dad's eye then he was barely a teenager/tweenie) > but I can appreciate great music no matter the genre (Country is an exception with only The Gambler - Kenny R).

Special Edition Beatles iPod now THAT would be special .... how about a Yellow Submarine? Nah. :apple:

The moment it were available in Switzerland, I would definitely buy the complete collection of the Beatles...it would be my first iTMS purchase, and it's worth it.

Philsy
Feb 6, 2007, 04:03 AM
The moment it were available in Switzerland, I would definitely buy the complete collection of the Beatles...it would be my first iTMS purchase, and it's worth it.

Far better to buy them on CD - the sound quality is superior and you'll have 'hard copies' to keep.

50548
Feb 6, 2007, 04:06 AM
Far better to buy them on CD - the sound quality is superior and you'll have 'hard copies' to keep.

Yep, but convenience screams here...I would need to buy lotsa CDs to get a full collection...unless there is a box set available somewhere...

Philsy
Feb 6, 2007, 04:09 AM
Yep, but convenience screams here...I would need to buy lotsa CDs to get a full collection...unless there is a box set available somewhere...

True, not sure if a full box set is available, and I doubt Apple will release the complete catalogue as a package. But do you really want everything the Beatles did? A 'best of' is a good starting point.

50548
Feb 6, 2007, 04:32 AM
True, not sure if a full box set is available, and I doubt Apple will release the complete catalogue as a package. But do you really want everything the Beatles did? A 'best of' is a good starting point.

Actually I grew up listening to them (via my uncles), so I pretty much like all their musical phases (since the very beginning with Pete Best, up to the LSD and studio years)..."best of" sets are kinda boring, in fact, as they comprise none of the hidden gems from wonderful albums such as Abbey Road, MMT and White Album...a full set would be great to relive those good times :)

Philsy
Feb 6, 2007, 04:35 AM
Actually I grew up listening to them (via my uncles), so I pretty much like all their musical phases (since the very beginning with Pete Best, up to the LSD and studio years)..."best of" sets are kinda boring, in fact, as they comprise none of the hidden gems from wonderful albums such as Abbey Road, MMT and White Album...a full set would be great to relive those good times :)

Ah, ok, in that case a best of album is not the way to go. I agree that you can't beat the original albums if you're really into a band. Best ofs are a good introduction or handy if you just want a few tracks.

tallyho
Feb 6, 2007, 04:43 AM
just a thought.... when did this thread become about the proper use of "Holiday", "Holidays", "Holiday 2007" etc.? Who cares!!! The Beatles will be on iTunes when Apple (both of them) want them to.
True. Even though I'd prefer to get the remixed and remastered CDs, just possibly if iTunes started selling lossless format files then I'd get the new mixes from iTunes. They did a small set of remixed songs when they released the 'Yellow Submarine' film on DVD, and much as I love the 1960s-singer-in-one-speaker-band-in-the-other-speaker approach of the original mixes, the new ones are easier to listen to on headphones!

But on the other hand, someone seems to have an axe to grind...
Yeah, and your point? Most news sources, as well as Microsoft and Apple, are American companies.

Does it fall between Thanksgiving and New Year's? No. When you make "holiday" a proper noun, it refers to the American Winter Holiday season (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiday_season#The_American_winter_holiday_season).

Hardly any need to comment really - so many stereotypes of all that's wrong with Americans demonstrated in one post:rolleyes:
(I suppose "most news sources" won't be reporting this then http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6333853.stm )

Philsy
Feb 6, 2007, 04:47 AM
True. Even though I'd prefer to get the remixed and remastered CDs, just possibly if iTunes started selling lossless format files then I'd get the new mixes from iTunes. They did a small set of remixed songs when they released the 'Yellow Submarine' film on DVD, and much as I love the 1960s-singer-in-one-speaker-band-in-the-other-speaker approach of the original mixes, the new ones are easier to listen to on headphones!

But on the other hand, someone seems to have an axe to grind...

Hardly any need to comment really - so many stereotypes of all that's wrong with Americans demonstrated in one post:rolleyes:
(I suppose "most news sources" won't be reporting this then http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6333853.stm )

No, that's only from the world's largest and most respected news source (the BBC, not the Sun!)

m4rc
Feb 6, 2007, 05:32 AM
Beatles Special Edition iPod?

It's bigger than that. Apple could now have any artist as a special edition iPod. The U2 one came with a download voucer for the trackes, they were not allowed to preload the music due to this ongoing legal batle with Apple Corps, it can be different now. As long as they had the deal with the music company who 'owned' the artist, they can do what they like.

MS sell Zun's with some free tracks on, as they don't have any restrictions, now Apple can do the same. You could have specially coloured shuffles loaded with an artists hits, or a themed compilation, the Beatles entire back catalogue could be pout onto an iPod uncompressed, maybe with some videos too.

Then you can move onto any other artist, theming the iPod and the content. As the tech gets cheaper you could go into a music store/supermarket and pick up a shuffle preloaded with your favourite music and not have too much of a hole in your wallet. I think it opens up a new market for Apple, or certainly massively expands an existing one.

tallyho
Feb 6, 2007, 05:47 AM
You could have specially coloured shuffles loaded with an artists hits, or a themed compilation, the Beatles entire back catalogue could be pout onto an iPod uncompressed, maybe with some videos too.
Interesting idea - but would that mean there would have to be some official way of copying music from ipods to your iTunes library?

matticus008
Feb 6, 2007, 06:01 AM
Hardly any need to comment really - so many stereotypes of all that's wrong with Americans demonstrated in one post:rolleyes:
It has nothing to do with stereotypes. They are American companies, reported on by American news sources, and readers should all know what "Holidays 2007" means (they certainly do in Canada, the UK [London, Sussex, and Manchester, where I've spent time], Australia, Brazil, and Germany), because it's an American phrase--which, gasp!, American companies would use in their releases and statements, since it's the language spoken here.

Complaining about it is about as useful as Americans whining about "colour" and "bullocks" and "bloody" in British texts.

Philsy
Feb 6, 2007, 06:05 AM
It has nothing to do with stereotypes. They are American companies, reported on by American news sources, and readers should all know what "Holidays 2007" means (they certainly do in Canada, the UK [London, Sussex, and Manchester, where I've spent time], Australia, and Germany), because it's an American phrase--which, gasp!, American companies would use in their reports, since it's the language they speak.

I think if you asked most English people what 'Holidays 2007' meant they'd immediately think of summer holidays (vacation to Americans).

sishaw
Feb 6, 2007, 06:13 AM
It's bigger than that. Apple could now have any artist as a special edition iPod. The U2 one came with a download voucer for the trackes, they were not allowed to preload the music due to this ongoing legal batle with Apple Corps, it can be different now. As long as they had the deal with the music company who 'owned' the artist, they can do what they like.

MS sell Zun's with some free tracks on, as they don't have any restrictions, now Apple can do the same. You could have specially coloured shuffles loaded with an artists hits...

I'm envisioning my music shelves filled with multicolored Shuffles instead of CDs. Of course, the Shuffles would take up a quarter of the space or less. If the Shuffles could be sold for a low enough price, and I imagine someday they (or something like them) will, it would be pretty cool.

tallyho
Feb 6, 2007, 06:57 AM
It has nothing to do with stereotypes. They are American companies, reported on by American news sources, and readers should all know what "Holidays 2007" means (they certainly do in Canada, the UK [London, Sussex, and Manchester, where I've spent time], Australia, Brazil, and Germany), because it's an American phrase--which, gasp!, American companies would use in their releases and statements, since it's the language spoken here.
Stating that "Most news sources are American companies" is clearly wrong - think about it would you choose the BBC or some American cable-TV news company? It merely confirms the stereotype that Americans can't see beyond their own country. You're just going to have to face it that the phrase "Holidays 2007" has no meaning across the pond: if it has any meaning at all for British people it's summer holidays, not some sales period based on things such as "Thanksgiving" which again mean nothing over here. Now let's just stop arguing!


Complaining about it is about as useful as Americans whining about "colour" and "bullocks" and "bloody" in British texts.
"bullocks" :rolleyes: But then I'm not expecting you to know when you're talking bollocks. Unlike you, I'm not saying what "readers should all know".

matticus008
Feb 6, 2007, 07:24 AM
Stating that "Most news sources are American companies" is clearly wrong - think about it would you choose the BBC or some American cable-TV news company? It merely confirms the stereotype that Americans can't see beyond their own country.
Most news sources reporting on Apple are American: MacRumors, PC Magazine, Slashdot, Engadget, Ars Technica, Macosxrumors, ThinkSecret, CNet...all of these are US-based. Reports coming from the United States would be written in American English, just as one might logically expect.

There are plenty of reputable international news sources, but when you're reading an American technology news source reporting on an American company, expect to hear American terminology. It's as simple as that. There's no anti-UK (or anti-anywhere else) sentiment behind it.

I have lived in five different countries and represented dozens of non-American clients, and I find it both offensive and baseless to argue about American stereotypes, which you've decided to run with for no apparent reason. Moral of the story: don't read American news sources, misunderstand the language, then refuse to accept the explanation when it's offered, and finally claim that your own misunderstanding makes the people who offered nothing but an explanation somehow bigoted.

tallyho
Feb 6, 2007, 08:03 AM
Most news sources reporting on Apple are American: MacRumors, PC Magazine, Slashdot, Engadget, Ars Technica, Macosxrumors, ThinkSecret, CNet...all of these are US-based. Reports coming from the United States would be written in American English, just as one might logically expect.

There are plenty of reputable international news sources, but when you're reading an American technology news source reporting on an American company, expect to hear American terminology. It's as simple as that. There's no anti-UK (or anti-anywhere else) sentiment behind it.

I have lived in five different countries and represented dozens of non-American clients, and I find it both offensive and baseless to argue about American stereotypes, which you've decided to run with for no apparent reason. Moral of the story: don't read American news sources, misunderstand the language, then refuse to accept the explanation when it's offered, and finally claim that your own misunderstanding makes the people who offered nothing but an explanation somehow bigoted.


Let's call a truce, really. This silly argument started with your post, number 108 in this thread, which was quite aggressive in tone in reply to Amdahl's earlier post about the phrase "Holiday 2007". If you re-read it you'll find such aggressive phrases as "Yeah, and your point?" "No!" and so on: some people may find that offensive, and - dare I say it - confirming the stereotype (i.e. by definition not true in all cases) that Americans try to win arguments by shouting louder than the other person. It's not really "offering nothing but an explanation", more ramming it down the other person's throat.

Of course the websites you list are American - but you didn't originally say "news sources reporting on Apple" - perhaps you should be careful of your own written expression before accusing other people of misunderstanding things.

Finally, your statement that "When you make "holiday" a proper noun, it refers to the American Winter Holiday season" clearly needs a little qualification, don't you think? Are you telling Amdahl that if he (or anyone around the world) uses "holiday" as a proper noun it has that very restricted meaning? Here's a website with the term Holiday 2007, that doesn't seem to be using it in your prescribed manner: http://www.bbc.co.uk/holiday/ So, just be careful to be clear. If you were really trying to offer explanations to Amdahl, rather than belittle him, you would have written "In American English, "holiday" is often taken to refer to the American Winter Holiday season".

Now, what implications do you think the new Trademark Agreement will have for Apple Inc? Will we see Apple bypassing the traditional record companies and allowing musicians to take a larger percentage of the profits from their music?

glowingstar
Feb 6, 2007, 08:30 AM
man...i just can't wait for the remastered white album to appear on the itunes store (hopefully in lossless!).

look ouuut!! it's helta skellllltaaaa!! :D

Stella
Feb 6, 2007, 10:19 AM
LOL There was a news story in the UK a few years ago about some local government authority re-naming Christmas as "Winterval" :rolleyes: You couldn't make it up!

Birmingham.

The usual councilers thinking the word 'Christmas' would upset the ethentic minorities. As usual, no body bothered to ask them. In fact, the ethentic minority leaders said they don't care if the word 'Christmas' is used ( as is almost always the case in these scenarios ).

This kind of PC crap happens all the time.

Councilers and other government officials thinking they know better, when, in fact they know Jack ****.

compuwar
Feb 6, 2007, 10:44 AM
This was a joint settlement...

Can someone provide a better explanation of how Apple Corps, Inc. got anything out of this deal?

Since the terms are confidential, it's difficult to say what they got, but since Apple Inc. walked away with the Apple name, I'd say they got paid a good sum for the name and perhaps some preferential terms for putting their content on ITMS.

nemaslov
Feb 6, 2007, 11:08 AM
For the casual listener, the downloads will be fine, but probably not the sonic quality that the Beatles albums deserve. There will probably be several issues of the remastered CDs. First something like the LOVE upgrade CD package which will include ONE disc of each album mixed in stereo AND Mono as they were VERY different mixes, even up to the very rare White album MONO mix.

A second disc will probably include a DVD of the 5.1 surround mix. This will be STUNNING if you have the set-up at home. The LOVE Soundtrack is not perfect but the 5.1 (and the stereo) kicks ass over any Beatles issue to date. The sonics are so beautiful, crisp, clear.

I am a first gen Beat fan who collects big time, and if done right, this collection...series of reissues will be amazing. There are a total of 12 original albums plus separate singles that were never on those albums (now out in the form of two PAST MASTER CD volumes). which could probably fit on one more disc.

There is a box set of all of the British CDs. You can probably find it on AMAZON. I for one would love for Apple/EMI to issue a limited edition box set of the entire remastered catalogue first. Maybe exclusive, the only way to buy for a couple of months and then sell the individual discs. There would probably be two options for each: Single CD only versions OR Two disc CD/DVD versions....

I'm glad they will be on iTunes, but again for me CDs are they way to go. The Beatles almost invented the album as something that wasn't just a couple of hit songs with the rest being filler.

They were also the very first Band that could get away with releasing albums WITHOUT their name on the cover. The first was Rubber Soul and in didn't have the Beatles written on the front....

nemaslov
Feb 6, 2007, 11:11 AM
Since the terms are confidential, it's difficult to say what they got, but since Apple Inc. walked away with the Apple name, I'd say they got paid a good sum for the name and perhaps some preferential terms for putting their content on ITMS.

They now have the rights to use the Apple name WITHOUT ANY limitations. Prior to this the Beatles Apple Corp had music record label release rights. Apple Inc could not actually record and release product. Now They don't have to worry in the future...what might be invented later. Both Apples did very well. The Beatles Apple probably got 50 to 100 millions which is very fair for both companies.

sishaw
Feb 6, 2007, 11:55 AM
Apple Corps was created by the Beatles to manage their own affairs (among other things) and still exists to manage the licensing of Beatles music and other related Beatles products

From Wikipedia:

"Unlike a mere 'vanity label', Apple Records developed an extremely eclectic roster of their own, releasing records by artists as diverse as Indian sitar guru Ravi Shankar, Welsh easy listening songstress Mary Hopkin, the power-pop band Badfinger, classical music composer John Tavener, soul singer Billy Preston, the Modern Jazz Quartet, and even London's Radha Krsna Temple. A shortlived subsidiary, Zapple Records, was intended to release spoken word and avant garde records, but folded after just two releases: Lennon's and Yoko Ono's Life with the Lions, and Harrison's Electronic Sound."

Lynxpro
Feb 6, 2007, 05:15 PM
I love how Apple is so unstoppable when it comes to legal battles.


Uhm.....Creative Labs?

Lynxpro
Feb 6, 2007, 05:25 PM
Unlike the linking of the Roman's Saturnalia Festival with Jesus Christ you mean? :rolleyes:


And just like with Dre, they always forget about Mithrates.

Dec. 25th is his birthday, just so you know.

matticus008
Feb 6, 2007, 06:08 PM
Let's call a truce, really. This silly argument started with your post, number 108 in this thread, which was quite aggressive in tone in reply to Amdahl's earlier post about the phrase "Holiday 2007".
Actually, if you look back, it is the second such reply. The first was an explanation of the term, to which the response was "you're wrong and I don't believe you, even though I clearly don't know what I'm talking about." The response belied a failure to read and to accept what literally hundreds of millions of people on at least three continents know to be the case, and for no particular reason. A truce is fine by me, but the whole argument you initiated is based on nothing but perceived slight.
some people may find that offensive, and - dare I say it - confirming the stereotype (i.e. by definition not true in all cases) that Americans try to win arguments by shouting louder than the other person.
The tone is exasperated, not aggressive, as again, an explanation of the term was offered previously and flatly rejected because the "dictionary didn't say so." Jumping to conclusions about intent shows a far more egregious stereotype: an ignorant Internet forum user. How someone can "shout louder" in online writing without using all caps or giant font size is beyond me.
Of course the websites you list are American - but you didn't originally say "news sources reporting on Apple" - perhaps you should be careful of your own written expression before accusing other people of misunderstanding things.
Once again, you jump to conclusion. My only reference was to the original news sites reporting the Zune Phone's release--all of which were US-based. Had you bothered to ask for clarification before declaring vindication of your own preexisting prejudice, maybe you would have avoided the offense.
If you were really trying to offer explanations to Amdahl, rather than belittle him, you would have written "In American English, "holiday" is often taken to refer to the American Winter Holiday season".
If you had read the entire thread, you would see that this already occurred.
Now, what implications do you think the new Trademark Agreement will have for Apple Inc? Will we see Apple bypassing the traditional record companies and allowing musicians to take a larger percentage of the profits from their music?
I don't believe there are any implications for music. Apple still neither owns nor controls any record labels, and it has no distribution agreement in agency. Apple Corps is still owned by EMI and is still a wholly independent organization. If Apple Corps begins to sign new artists and approaches Apple, Inc. with a favorable deal, it might lead to artists retaining a greater percentage of iTunes sales proceeds.

brepublican
Feb 7, 2007, 12:28 AM
man...i just can't wait for the remastered white album to appear on the itunes store (hopefully in lossless!).

look ouuut!! it's helta skellllltaaaa!! :D
Oh man, I just realised that this may mean that we will see remastered Beatles if they do come to the iTMS. WHICH WOULD BE AWESOME! I have enough Beatles, but if they brought in remasters, I'd be 'forced' to get 'em :cool:

tallyho
Feb 7, 2007, 07:02 AM
A truce is fine by me, but the whole argument you initiated is based on nothing but perceived slight.

Well, if you look back in the thread, it's your bizarre response to the term stereotype that "initiated" your argument with me as opposed to your earlier one with Amdahl.


The tone is exasperated, not aggressive, as again, an explanation of the term was offered previously and flatly rejected because the "dictionary didn't say so." Jumping to conclusions about intent shows a far more egregious stereotype: an ignorant Internet forum user. How someone can "shout louder" in online writing without using all caps or giant font size is beyond me.

Well there you go. The subtleties of discourse must be lost on you then.


Once again, you jump to conclusion. My only reference was to the original news sites reporting the Zune Phone's release
No it wasn't. Selective amnesia here. You clearly remember what you wanted to type rather than what you actually typed. That's fine, we all make mistakes, but don't try to deny it repeatedly.


Had you bothered to ask for clarification before declaring vindication of your own preexisting prejudice, maybe you would have avoided the offense.

Actually all I did was mention the term 'stereotype' - which you still don't seem to understand (i.e. by definition it is not true for all cases) and which for some reason you are very offended by. :confused:

Honestly, you write an unclear post and then spend the rest of your time having a go at someone who pulled you up on it. Waste of time.

Amdahl
Feb 7, 2007, 12:15 PM
All that means is in time for the 2007 holiday season. They were not referring to Martin Luther King Day, nor to Valentine's Day, nor to any other holiday between now and November. It's common knowledge; I'm not making this up.

Yeah, and your point? Most news sources, as well as Microsoft and Apple, are American companies.

Does it fall between Thanksgiving and New Year's? No. When you make "holiday" a proper noun, it refers to the American Winter Holiday season (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiday_season#The_American_winter_holiday_season).

Your wiki citation says: In the United States and periodically Canada, the winter holiday season is known as a period of time surrounding Christmas that was formed in order to embrace all cultural and religious celebration rather than only Christian celebrations.
So, the 'holiday season' was created specifically so the holidays contained therein could be subjugated and degraded. That is why MLK isn't included; communists want to celebrate him, even though many people don't. Who was it that decided to do degrade the Christian holidays in favor of holidays no one celebrates? I remember no election on the issue; I can recall no Act of Congress.

'The holiday season' is purely the creation of cultural marxists.

If the goal is not to celebrate Christian holidays, then why is Apple splashing Saint Valentine's Day all over the Apple Store? Guess if folks don't realize it is a Christian holiday and they can make money off it, they'll put it front and center. I suppose you could create another 'holiday season' consisting of MLK, Saint Valentines, and Mardi Gras.

Gasu E.
Feb 7, 2007, 01:04 PM
I've only just realised what a funny name Apple Corps is. Not sure about in the US, but in the UK Corps is pronounced core.


I've been pronouncing it "Apple Corpse" since the Beatles broke up.