Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Beatles Coming On Valentines Day?

rockthecasbah said:
I hope it's true but i don't believe that it would be JUST because Steve played it in the keynote demo. Sure playing a song like the Gorillaz or whatever gets you free advertising, but part of it also is the mood that it sets and that aspect of advertising. Playing the Beatles may be just to appeal to the audience with the music and not necessarily advertise the band.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no...the agreement is already signed.

SJ would NEVER do it just because he likes the Beatles...he showed songs of the band in more than one occasion, including one special mention of a "My Beatlemania" on iTV...it's a sure deal and it's done.

MS, you may start filing your Chapter 11 papers...NOW!
 
It would be cooler if they announced the partnership June 1
The day Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play 40 years ago today...
 
I thought BBC World Service on the radio last night said that the new EMI chief was going to open the Beatles catalog to download. I don't know all the intricacies over who owns their catalog or whatnot, but I heard it driving home last night and it caught my attention.
 
Surprize Apple Event in February?

The fact that Steve didn't show any previews of Leopard and didn't introduce iLife & iWork '07 and didn't introduce any other new products like MBs or 8 core MPs leads me to believe that there will be another Apple event real soon. Does anybody else think so? :confused:
 
I've got it all already, parents are massive Beatles fans. Still - good to hear though.
 
While not a Beatles fan (please don't flame), if this turns out to be true.... wow. Does anybody realize the finanicial implications here? Major cash cow for Apple (though they probably had to pay an arm and a leg just to get them, so worth it though). Everybody wins if this is true.
 
The Don Ditty said:
While not a Beatles fan (please don't flame), if this turns out to be true.... wow. Does anybody realize the finanicial implications here? Major cash cow for Apple (though they probably had to pay an arm and a leg just to get them, so worth it though). Everybody wins if this is true.
Click to expand...
I think Apple would be happy to make no profit at all on Beatles music, just as they don't look to the iTunes Store as a primary source of revenue overall. If they can sell more Macs, iPods, and now Apple TVs and iPhones by making the iTunes Store more and more attractive, they'll still be happy.

I hope they will offer a good deal on a "boxed set" of all Beatles music (a pretty large box). It'll be even better if they bring back the Pepsi-iTunes promotions and let me collect more music for free! :)
 
I can see that Doctor Q. But, they gotta be making some profit from it. After all Apple, Inc is a business. I'm glad to see that Apple is diversifying, if they didn't they would be screwed (and not the good one either)
 
Apple makes a good profit overall, so even a loss in the iTunes Store would be offset by other sales. Check their financial results and there's barely a mention of iTunes. iTunes Store profits appear to be just gravy in Apple's strategy.

My point here, however, is simply that almost any deal with the Beatles would help Apple.
 
Doctor Q said:
Less reasonable theories:
He was purposely giving a hint of things to come. That's not likely for secrecy-obsessed Apple.​
Click to expand...

Food for thought: The keynote demonstration included not just Beatles music, but Beatles album cover art. It's one thing to rip a CD for digital playback, but another (I think) to copy the artwork. I've got a gut feeling that Steve would not have chosen to risk annoying the copyright owners, with whom Apple has had an ongoing legal dispute, unless he had permission.
 
bketchum said:
I believe it's a foregone conclusion.
Click to expand...

That's quite true [about the iTMS not existing], and a point I didn't consider. There were, however, still implications to playing it when he did back in '01. Apple Computer could have been sued at any time during the time between the launch of the iPod and when they were (shortly after the iTMS launched). The lawsuit, if I recall correctly, did entail the iPod as well as the iTMS. Steve ignored these implications and did it anyway.

My point is weaker than I thought, and in the end, I believe you're right -- it is a foregone conclusion. It's my belief, however, that it's a foregone conclusion for reasons other than his playing the music at MWSF. I really think that it's reading way too much into it. Time will tell, though, and if a deal is imminent I won't be complaining. :)
 
fawlty said:
But Steve would have needed express permission from the publisher before he could play such music at a public event. Thus, they are already talking.
Click to expand...

Nah, they don't have to do anything other than get a license for public performance, ASCAP or BMI would sell them one just like they'd sell anyone else one. Likely a company that does large public events already has some sort of licensing arrangement. Not that they couldn't be talking, but that's not indicative of it.
 
Didn't everyone who cared about this stuff buy it on CD like 20 years ago? I know I did. And I couldn't tell you where half of those discs are now. What's the big deal?

Creating false value by holding things back only creates a surge of sales for so long once that thing becomes available. How many Star Wars DVD sets do I need to look at in the bargain bin? Disney "classic" DVDs? etc.
 
compuwar said:
Nah, they don't have to do anything other than get a license for public performance, ASCAP or BMI would sell them one just like they'd sell anyone else one. Likely a company that does large public events already has some sort of licensing arrangement. Not that they couldn't be talking, but that's not indicative of it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it IS indicative of it indeed...it would be simply illogical and improbable to praise a band whose record company was responsible for so many lawsuits against Apple, UNLESS the hatchet was totally buried.

I am not talking here about coincidences...I talk about a clear mention of a "Beatlemania" library on iTV; a bright cover art of Sgt. Pepper's on the same device; the continuous browsing of Beatles albums and songs...if it were just for the sake of public broadcasting, in order to avoid any pending risks, he could've chosen another great band for the keynote, like Rolling Stones, Dylan, U2, Pink Floyd or whatever...but not the Beatles.

Once more, the agreement is a done deal...period.
 
It's a done deal. Apple's name change is the proof. There is no way Apple would unnecessarily put itself at risk, when the Apple name and logo have already been disputed. By making itself even harder to distinguish from Apple Records, Apple Inc. would be putting itself at risk of being ordered by an over-zealous judge to remove the Apple name and logo from all music-related products and services.

Besides, AppleInsider is citing "compelling evidence" that the deal is done.
 
NorCalLights said:
I wonder if Michael Jackson's legal fees have forced him to look for avenues of income...
Click to expand...

Jackson no longer owns anything (I wonder why...)

Without saying too much from the inside,
if you know anything about 'Love' then you will know what
was involed in its production.
The reintroduction of Beatles in to our world with the 'Love'
show in vegas (of which EVERYONE has to see!) along with the album was not the end of George and Giles hard work. Can you see where im going with this? Look into it and understand.
 
davey-nb said:
The Toronto Sun says the Beatles alliance will be announced in a new ad:

http://www.torontosun.com/Entertainment/Music/2007/01/17/3393906-sun.html


"...Apple Computers plans a "special" announcement scheduled for a Super Bowl commercial on Feb. 4, which may give more indication as to where the new remastered CDs will debut first."
Click to expand...

Nice catch! A kiss-and-make-up deal between the Beatles and Apple is a relatively small matter (and I wonder how much it cost Apple and if we'll ever know), but three months of exclusivity would turn it into a feather in Apple's cap.
 
Another possibility, which I didn't think of before:
  • Apple & Apple had already completed their deal, and Steve Jobs agreed to feature the Beatles in his keynote as part of that deal.
 
Doctor Q said:
Another possibility, which I didn't think of before:
  • Apple & Apple had already completed their deal, and Steve Jobs agreed to feature the Beatles in his keynote as part of that deal.
Click to expand...

I don't suppose Steve needed to have his arm twisted. My sense is he's wanted this for a long time. I just hope he hasn't given away the store to get it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back