View Full Version : U2 fans furious at group's iPod deal

Oct 25, 2004, 01:14 AM
Category: News and Press Releases
Link: U2 fans furious at group\'s iPod deal (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20041025021418)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

Oct 25, 2004, 01:33 AM
i don't get it. if Apple is connected to something bad, like child labor or something uncool, then i would complain. "selling out"? yeah right. bono uses designer sunglasses too. how dare he wear them while there are hungry children in africa... :rolleyes:

it is a business thing.

off-topic: i hope the songs in the u2 iPod would be in lossless.

Oct 25, 2004, 01:48 AM
These U2 zealots are the same as mac zealots - of course U2 are selling out... (if that's what they want to call it). The very fact U2 have an album on release is selling out - by definition! It's released by a record label... unless U2 have harnessed the energy of goodwill and the album has written/produced/marketed itself?

*skeptical/bit p'ed-off*


Oct 25, 2004, 02:19 AM
Man, and they say Apple zealots are bad... Get over it kids. U2 sold out years ago. That's what bands do when they hit it big. They will never have another Joshua Tree. You can enjoy their new stuff, or deal with it. Not to mention the fact that we don't actually know what will happen yet, nothing has officially been announced. Maybe they can take their own advice, and realize there are more important things in the world.

Reading http://forum.interference.com/a99707.html makes me think she's just trying to drum up some "controversy". :rolleyes: I don't see too many furious people. Most seem to be saying they will be buying new iPods (even if they already have one).

Oct 25, 2004, 04:25 AM
i don't get it. if Apple is connected to something bad, like child labor or something uncool, then i would complain.
Well yes, we never hear of Vivendi employees like U2 and corruption in the same sentence (http://www.google.com/search?q=vivendi+corruption) :rolleyes:

Oct 25, 2004, 04:51 AM
Umm... what's exactly is the issue here?

"Some pockets of U2 fans will rankle at the band aligning themselves with a major corporation such as Apple, but yet also aligning themselves with AIDS charity work," Alison said.

Right... so, instead of having a corporation distribute their recordings (which seems pretty hard to avoid), they should what, have their CDs manufactured and disributed by an AIDS charity?! :confused:

Oct 25, 2004, 06:19 AM
Or are they just narked because Apple is cooler than U2?

Oct 25, 2004, 06:25 AM
...because U2 has NEVER been about commercialization or making money.

Whatev! Fans: get over yourselves. Go back to your selfless, noble, low-paying humanitarian jobs fighting against sweatshops, intolerance, and other social injustices.

Since U2 fans surely are making a stand against capitalism themselves, I wonder how they are even able to listen to U2 CDs without a CD or portable player, made lovingly by some low-paid Taiwanese worker.

Give me a break. U2 was offered a swank promotional deal from a company and a product they like and they took it. They have each been multi-millionaires for years already due to music sales, promotional deals, and corporate sponsorship. Who cares? They're U2, not Mother Theresa.

BTW, music fans that cry "I liked them before they sold out" always look like hypocritical schmucks.

Oct 25, 2004, 07:12 AM
U2 sold out years ago. Are U2 fans living in 1979???

Oct 25, 2004, 07:55 AM
U2 sold out when their music was the theme for Tomb Raider. Sorry guys.

Oct 25, 2004, 08:04 AM
haha, this is so stupid. U2 selling out....in 2004? hahaha. apparently some people have a very high threshold for what qualifies as 'selling out'. i wonder if they're also waiting for The Rolling Stones to sell out...

Oct 25, 2004, 08:22 AM
yes, i was mad at that folk singer Britney Spears when she started advertising Pepsi. HOW COULD SHE???????

Oct 25, 2004, 09:30 AM
first of all, how old are they? what did they call zooropa? experimentation? i have to call that selling out far worse than this alignment with apple. ast least they have brought back people who made the first albums good like daniel lanois. they talk about U2 being sell-outs and the good things that they have stood for being negated, but it's all BS. the way i see it U2 getting more and more popular and more and more powerful is the best thing that can happen if you want them passing out goodness and moral lessons all over the world. since MORE PEOPLE WILL LISTEN AND HEAR IT. rejects.

"i am a U2 fan... and i think this is a good idea" and if you don't like it, don't buy the U2 iPod so i can be sure to get mine.

suck it up people.

Oct 25, 2004, 09:47 AM
how is this selling out anyways ?

they simply change the media of distribution. from cd to ipod. U2 (or thier managers) realized the iPod as a viable distribution channel, Apple jumped on it and to make the event / cd coming out, made a black ipod, which im sure didnt require more than a phone call to the injection mold company to say instead of white for this batch, wed like black...

i dont listen to U2 much, so dont hold it against me how thier band is organized.

if nothing else this helps both partys. I ust to be into Nine Inch Nails heavily, and if apple were to release a special iPod with their new cd (which is coming out soon) i may consider getting it, specially if its a different color.

i know people who arent even into U2 that much and are considering getting the black iPod. Color effects people very strongly now adays.

anyways, just my opinion. i may be wrong.

Oct 25, 2004, 11:24 AM
My guess is that Apple is giving a portion fo the proceeds to U2's AIDS charity. Let's hope.

Oct 25, 2004, 11:36 AM
Dear Whiny U2 Fans,

U2 sold out long ago. They also aligned themselves with a major corporation long ago. Nothing new here, stop whining, move along.


The rest of the world

Mr. Anderson
Oct 25, 2004, 11:42 AM
My guess is that Apple is giving a portion fo the proceeds to U2's AIDS charity. Let's hope.

That would be a nice touch - but it remains to be seen what the price of these new iPods will be - and will you have to pay for all the songs on them? If its a significant U2 catalog of songs - that's going to add a bit to the bottom line.


Oct 25, 2004, 11:45 AM
selling out?! get the [bleep] outta here! selling out is when you do something for money against your principles. this is so far from that and i for one being a u2 fan for many years, will certainly be getting my u2 ipod. keep up the good work u2 and apple :D

Oct 25, 2004, 01:42 PM
dang double post *mutters bout his net connection

Oct 25, 2004, 01:42 PM

saw this thread and since I'm a huge u2 fan I felt I had to register just to reply : D

Just to explain why some fans might be disenfranchised by the band and why they are only now branding them as sell outs -

u2 unlike other major bands haven't accepted corporate sponsorship for tours or tie-ins promoting any product before (though some might forget the exclusive best buy EP)

That's how some feel. Personally I don't see this apple-u2 partnership as going against such notions as U2 are essentially promoting their music and not receiving money to promote an unrelated commodity...

What really surprises me is that the whinging minoroty (or moronity as I like to refer to them) in this case have made the news. If that journalist bothered to check his or her resources better then they'd find that the site that person quoted is associated with is perhaps one of the largest u2 fan site but it is also the one with the worst reputation amongst online fans and other u2 webmasters. Having said that, the article linked to on macbytes.com seems to have taken words out of context or something (or is the site run by jealous ms owned peeps? Or the person who was interviewed is backpedalling very quickly should she incur further wrath of u2 fans...

U2 Lovers Mad? Most Excited With iPod Deal, Fan Website Editor Says

by Brad Gibson, 9:00 AM CDT, October 25th, 2004

The majority of fans of the rock group U2 are happy and excited with
its expected announcement of a deal with Apple Computer to launch a
special-edition U2 iPod, contrary to published reports saying many are
"furious" over the partnership, according to the editor of the groups
largest fan Web site.

Carrie Alison, the editor of the U2 fan site Interference.com, told The
Mac Observer Monday that a published report giving the impression the
majority of U2 fans are mad about the reported Apple partnership is
contrary to the truth.

"Pretty much everyone is darn near ecstatic about the upcoming
announcement," Ms. Alison told TMO. "The iPod is so popular and it is
the must-have item for U2 fans. Many of our readers can't wait to buy
their first iPod. The reaction has been more skewed to people being
very, very excited about it. I really haven't seen many being very
critical of the news, except non-U2 fans who are more skeptical."

Ms. Alison said she specifically told The Independent reporter that
while there might be some fan confusion over U2s involvement in charity
work and at the same time partnering with a large corporation like
Apple, "most (fans) are very positive and excited.
* "The reporter, I feel, chose to skew the article to say fans were
furious when that's not what I said and that's not the case," she said.
"At no point did I ever say U2 fans were furious and screaming 'sell
out', because honestly that's just not the case. They are excited and

Apple announced October 18 that a music event would be held this week,
and that U2 would attend, sparking rumors that the event would see the
launch of a U2 branded iPod. This iPod is expected to come preloaded
with U2's new album, How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, as well as a
selection from the group's previous works. As is Apple's standard
policy, it has refused to comment further on Tuesday's announcement.

Ms. Alison said she believes that even before the official
announcement, the news has already energized the U2 fan base. "You can
tell U2 fans are paying attention because the number of visitors to our
Web site has increased dramatically since the showing of the iPod/U2
commercial on television in the U.S."

Ms. Alison said many U2 fans who already own an iPod or iPod mini- what
she projects at being around 60%, at least in her fan Web site - are
hoping and suggesting Apple do something to involve them in the U2

"Many fans are hoping Apple will announce some type of promotion
whereby existing iPod owners could come into an Apple retail store,
bring their iPod, and upload the new album onto their iPods for a fee."

damn it i need a life.

Oct 25, 2004, 02:17 PM
I am big U2 fan, I have almost every song they released back from the days of 11'o clock tick tock. And I was really happy to hear the news. Infact if they do release the special edition iPods, I would get one even though I can't afford on right now.


Oct 25, 2004, 03:36 PM
Frogbat, please tell me you didn't really mean to use the word, "disenfranchised", there. Surely you meant something else.

Oct 25, 2004, 04:44 PM
sorry to disappoint but i chose that word with care - what's the smiley for ironic jibe? : D

Oct 25, 2004, 06:14 PM
Guess I'm missing the humor.

Per dictionary.com ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=disenfranchised ):

adj : deprived of the rights of citizenship especially the right to vote [syn: disfranchised, voteless] [ant: enfranchised]

Oct 25, 2004, 07:37 PM
Those U2 fans must be idiots.
U2 have been involved with Target and Walmart, if I'm not mistaken. Now that's something to be upset about.

Oct 25, 2004, 09:00 PM
The article frogbat is referencing is here (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/10/25.8.shtml).

Apparently the author of the original article is to blame, not the woman running the website. Or the whiny fans. As stated, most are pretty happy with the deal.

Oct 25, 2004, 09:17 PM
All right, now I'm furious! They just ran the U2 iPod ad on the Radio Music Awards, and Bono'a shadow was definitely lip syncing!

Oct 26, 2004, 12:57 AM
actually you'll find that the word also means quite simply - removal of a franchise (which is also a type of commercial set-up besides your interpretation of it being a right and a right to vote in particular).

thnx solvs for the link - I received it via email b4 it appeared on macobserver so I couldn't link it

Oct 26, 2004, 01:18 PM
actually you'll find that the word also means quite simply - removal of a franchise (which is also a type of commercial set-up besides your interpretation of it being a right and a right to vote in particular).Not that I really care that much about this, but I still don't see the point of the sentence. It' like you're saying, "Just to explain why some fans might be deprived of some privilege or franchise by the band and why they are only now branding them as sell outs."
(Using the dictionary.com definition for the synonym, disfranchise: "To deprive (a corporation, for example) of a privilege or franchise.")

BTW: I'm not trying to be a jerk about this - I actually find it kind of interesting to see the word used like that. (Especially since it seems to only be used by political parties, throwing it at each other every time a voter on either side has a hangnail or something! :rolleyes: )

Oct 26, 2004, 02:30 PM
don't worry - don't think yer bein a jerk bout it - don't mind a little linguistic discussion

I chose to use the word because it's loaded with meaning. You are interpreting according to its most common usage and as such it's a little overused in electoral parlance.

If you take that meaning as being the sole implication of the word then take what I said as being a reference to how strongly the fans feel. The band basically went against what they proclaimed for 25 years. So what the fans believed to be essential to their fandom - their right as a u2 fan to brag that their band doesn't accept corporate sponsorships has been removed.

Yes, it's convoluted but that's one way I meant it.

However as I said and you reiterated - the word disenfranchise or disfranchise means (according to dictionary.com)

"To deprive of a privilege, an immunity, or a right of citizenship, especially the right to vote; disenfranchise.

To deprive (a corporation, for example) of a privilege or franchise."

now if you dictionary.com the word "franchise" you'll get the following:

A privilege or right officially granted a person or a group by a government, especially:
The constitutional or statutory right to vote.
The establishment of a corporation's existence.
The granting of certain rights and powers to a corporation.
Legal immunity from servitude, certain burdens, or other restrictions.
Authorization granted to someone to sell or distribute a company's goods or services in a certain area.
A business or group of businesses established or operated under such authorization.
The territory or limits within which immunity, a privilege, or a right may be exercised.
A professional sports team.

These are the following definitions you might wish to keep in mind besides the one you are familiar with :

The establishment of a corporation's existence.
The granting of certain rights and powers to a corporation.
A business or group of businesses established or operated under such authorization.

--- so by using the word disenfranchised I also wanted to criticise the u2fan's assumption that u2 is holier than thou in regards to corporate deals when u2 itself is a corporation of sorts who has done many deals with the horned devils of capitalism.

Oct 26, 2004, 06:37 PM
Hehe, you know - I think our discussion has become far more interesting than U2, their iPod or anything their fans had to say!