Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Well, again, Apple isn't only paying McCartney. Some of it goes to Ringo, as well as the estates of the other two. Plus, Michael Jackson, Sony, and EMI all have to get money too.

I realize that. Note I said "them," and note also that I questioned whether Apple would pay $400 million just for the rights to sell the Beatles catalog. Try to imagine the number of tracks they'd need to sell to recoup that sort of investment. Some major detail appears to be missing from this announcement.
 
I hope not! I cannot stand the Beatles and all the hype that surrounded them. Its not as if any of them can sing.
Blasphemy! *slap*

Can someone familiar with divorce explain to me why his ex-wife could possibly extend her settlement request to get some of that .4 billion? How can that be justified?
 
I realize that. Note I said "them," and note also that I questioned whether Apple would pay $400 million just for the rights to sell the Beatles catalog. Try to imagine the number of tracks they'd need to sell to recoup that sort of investment. Some major detail appears to be missing from this announcement.

The thing is, people have been waiting for The Beatles on iTunes for a long time. A lot of people will buy the Beatles entire catalog, which will make up a lot of money for Apple. The rest will come from regular sales.
 
The thing is, people have been waiting for The Beatles on iTunes for a long time. A lot of people will buy the Beatles entire catalog, which will make up a lot of money for Apple.

I suspect that many of those who would buy The Beatles catalogue will already have it ripped from CDs and on their iPods already. I doubt they've been waiting to buy a 128b AAC to listen to via iTunes.

I could see them doing a U2 iPod type deal though to get the collectors involved.
 
I suspect that many of those who would buy The Beatles catalogue will already have it ripped from CDs and on their iPods already. I doubt they've been waiting to buy a 128b AAC to listen to via iTunes.
256kb. Were they not an EMI signing?
 
The thing is, people have been waiting for The Beatles on iTunes for a long time. A lot of people will buy the Beatles entire catalog, which will make up a lot of money for Apple. The rest will come from regular sales.

Apple makes a few pennies per track downloaded. Do the math!

This article provides additional details, but still does not answer the most important question: who is paying, and what to they get for their money?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/07/nmacca107.xml

Now if as seems to be implied Apple is buying the Beatles catalog, then I can see the figures being thrown around as potentially real. Otherwise, they make no sense.
 
I hope not! I cannot stand the Beatles and all the hype that surrounded them. Its not as if any of them can sing.

You are joking right?

Blasphemy! *slap*

Can someone familiar with divorce explain to me why his ex-wife could possibly extend her settlement request to get some of that .4 billion? How can that be justified?


Just because someone expresses their opinion on here is no reason to get defensive. Some people don't like the Beatles. Grow up and get over it.
 
I realize that. Note I said "them," and note also that I questioned whether Apple would pay $400 million just for the rights to sell the Beatles catalog. Try to imagine the number of tracks they'd need to sell to recoup that sort of investment. Some major detail appears to be missing from this announcement.

I thought I read something last night that said somehow McCartney would make that much money from iTunes and that his (soon to be ex-)wife might be able to claim a large portion of it.
 
Portions of the multimillion-dollar payout also will go to pop singer Michael Jackson,

Save Neverland! :rolleyes:

Presumably waiting til the divorce alimony hearings were done before he signed. :rolleyes: Not that I blame him since cash earned during the marriage is one thing but why should HM get the proceeds of work he did when he didn't even know her?

I don't think she has a leg to stand on. ;)
 
Presumably waiting til the divorce alimony hearings were done before he signed. :rolleyes: Not that I blame him since cash earned during the marriage is one thing but why should HM get the proceeds of work he did when he didn't even know her?

I don't think that she can touch that money. Even if she could, the press would be so horrible, she wouldn't be able to show her face for years to come.
 
Apple makes a few pennies per track downloaded. Do the math!

This article provides additional details, but still does not answer the most important question: who is paying, and what to they get for their money?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/07/nmacca107.xml

Now if as seems to be implied Apple is buying the Beatles catalog, then I can see the figures being thrown around as potentially real. Otherwise, they make no sense.

Can you say Apple Records ? Adding The Beatles to Apple's new label would be a great start.
 
I thought I read something last night that said somehow McCartney would make that much money from iTunes and that his (soon to be ex-)wife might be able to claim a large portion of it.

I think this is the most logical explanation, although I believe that McCartney would only share in that figure along with the other Beatles and their estates. It's not clear to me why he's been mentioned so prominently in these articles. Perhaps because he was the last holdout.

If Apple is in fact buying the entire Beatles catalog then this is a big story, because it would mark a major change in the way they do business.
 
As an Apple shareholder, I'm disappointed that Apple agreed to shell out 400 million just to be able to sell Beatles content on the iTunes store. It seems like such a waste.

Clearly, this only happened because Steve Jobs idolizes the Beatles. I would like to see estimates as to when they expect to break even on this deal.
 
As an Apple shareholder, I'm disappointed that Apple agreed to shell out 400 million just to be able to sell Beatles content on the iTunes store. It seems like such a waste.
We don't know if the content is the only part of the deal, maybe there will be a Beatles iPod...
 
We don't know if the content is the only part of the deal, maybe there will be a Beatles iPod...

I agree, with Apple having that big a outlay their going to have included other Beatles related avenues of income back into the company, with a Beatles iPod being the number one option, which as said before, would sell millions
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.