Apple vs. Apple

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by dontwalkhand, Apr 9, 2009.

  1. dontwalkhand macrumors 601


    Jul 5, 2007
    Phoenix, AZ
    Whose side would you be on? Apple Inc. or Apple Corps?

    Apple Inc. revolutionized the computer industry, and brought us things such as the Mac, the iPod, and the iPhone.

    Apple Corps revolutionized music, were created by the Beatles, etc.

    Who do you think is right in the cases past?

    Why is it that the beatles are so reluctant to having their music on iTunes?

    Apple & Apple are both arrogant, so it doesn't seem like they will ever come to an agreement that will allow the beatles to go on iTunes.
  2. Schtumple macrumors 601


    Jun 13, 2007
    I'm confused, are Apple Corps in court again with Apple Inc over something?

    Links to specific court cases might be helpful, the 2 companies have been fighting countless times.

    My opinion is they should both grow the hell up and get over it, it must be a bit disheartening for Steve Jobs to have the company that he idolised (for the Beetles/Lennon) to sue him, and it seems pretty petty that Apple Corps keeps going after Apple Inc...

    So what, you both have the same name, Apple is a fairly common word, if they were both called "Mitsubishi Electronics Division Sony Google Banana Hammock Inc" I could see the point, but it seems like every time they're in court it's because Apple Corps has thrown it's toys out it's cot over something fairly pathetic... Wasn't the last one because Apple was selling music through iTunes and there was an apple logo in sight?
  3. Peace macrumors Core


    Apr 1, 2005
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    Lawsuits between the two companies stopped a year ago.
  4. Schtumple macrumors 601


    Jun 13, 2007
    Well there we go then! Thread pointless, wasteland ho?
  5. Dagless macrumors Core


    Jan 18, 2005
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    Lol what.

    Thanks to Apple Inc I get a salary.
    Thakns to Apple Corp I listened to a few great albums.
    I think I know who I prefer.
  6. Melrose Suspended


    Dec 12, 2007
    I don't understand the nature of that lawsuit anyway - one company does technology and software, the other does music production. HOw are they in conflict with each other?
  7. steve2112 macrumors 68040


    Feb 20, 2009
    East of Lyra, Northwest of Pegasus
    The arguement was that once Apple Computer (Err, Apple Inc) entered the music business with the iTunes store, they became part of the same industry. Part of the original agreement long ago was that Apple Computer would sell computers, not music. Apple Corp claimed that the iTunes store violated this. Check out the Wikipedia entry:
  8. TuffLuffJimmy macrumors G3


    Apr 6, 2007
    Portland, OR
    As I understand it most of the arguing has been settled. If I had to pick a side though, I would be on Apple inc.'s side as I really haven't liked the Beatles since middle school.
  9. joshbing macrumors member


    Jul 24, 2008
    San Antonio, Tx
    Im not a fan of the Beatles so long live apple inc!
  10. Ivan P macrumors 68030

    Ivan P

    Jan 17, 2008
    I side with Apple Corps.

    To elaborate on what I understand with all these lawsuits, Apple Corps took Apple Inc to court over the name "Apple" (which is what both companies were known as to the general public). Apple Corps was founded at least a decade before Apple Computer (as it was known when the lawsuits began).
    The agreement from that first lawsuit was that the differentiation between the two companies was to be that Apple Corps strictly dealt with music and Apple Inc dealt with computer products - infringing on the other's dealings would violate said agreement (so, technically, if Apple Corps had ever gone into the computer business then Apple Inc also had every right to sue them). When the iTunes Store first opened, Apple Corps said that this was in violation of the terms of the previous lawsuit, as it was bundled with Apple Inc's software AND had their name attached to it.
    The entire legal dealings between the two companies was finally settled a couple years ago. Apple Inc owns the rights to the name, and Apple Corps has a special agreement to use "Apple" in their own name.

    Now, I think that, being an Apple Inc forum, there is definitely going to be A LOT of bias - naturally most people are going to side with Jobs. I think it'd only be a fair insight to peoples' opinions if they were both Mac AND Beatles fans; anything else and, as I said, it will end up biased as hell. It seems that most people here that have given an answer have no interest in the Beatles whatsoever...bias.

    Sorry, but I'm going with Apple Corps.
  11. barkmonster macrumors 68020


    Dec 3, 2001
    I agree with you on this. With one caveat. Steve Jobs has openly admitted in the past that he was such a big fan of the beatles that he named his computer company after their record label. There's even a system sound called Sosumi after apple computer originally won the right to use the name Apple.

    What's stopping Apple Inc. buying Apple Corp anyway?
  12. ozontheroad macrumors 6502


    Aug 4, 2006
    the reef
    Apple Inc

    but then again i truly dislike the beatles
  13. Little HZ macrumors regular

    Little HZ

    Nov 15, 2008
    New Mexico
    Apple Inc.

    I love the Beatles, but I think consumers are smart enough to be able to tell the difference between Beatles products and Mac products. I think we go too far with trademark protection, so that Fox News ends up trying to prevent someone from using their trademark "Fair and Balanced." (!) (See Similarly, Atlanta businesses with "Olympic" in their names were scrutinized when the Olympic games came to town. ( Topics/Subjects/O/Olympic Games)

    Sheesh! :cool:
  14. Ivan P macrumors 68030

    Ivan P

    Jan 17, 2008
    I'd say one thing is iTunes; if Apple Inc outright bought Apple Corps then they'd have virtually no problems putting their entire catalogue, and even their still-unreleased material, on iTunes. They'd have total control over their physical catalogue and could use that to their advantage (for example, they could stop the manufacturing of the CDs and force people to use iTunes to buy their tracks). And as I understand the remaining Beatles and their families currently don't agree with the iTunes pricing structure - they think their music is worth MORE than the current price points...crazy musicians :p

Share This Page