Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Beatles and Apple? Feb 4th Superbowl Announcement?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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
Apple has a long history of Super Bowl commercials, going back to the historic Macintosh introduction.
B
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now, let's write a swimming pool
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)"!
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)"!
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...
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
Here's what I envision...
"Hello, I'm a Mac,"
"And I'm a PC,"
"And I'm a Beatle"
Or something like that......
"Hello, I'm a Mac,"
"And I'm a PC,"
"And I'm a Beatle"
Or something like that......
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.
Ahh yes, I keep getting confused because of the whole Night of the Living Dead copyright thing. But it sounds like that had to do with a lack of copyright on the original release.
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.
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.
If Apple is spending Superbowl commercial bucks they should announce something better.
It's about time to have the beatles available on iTunes. Great move.
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
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