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?
I hope not! I cannot stand the Beatles and all the hype that surrounded them. Its not as if any of them can sing.
Yep, or to put it in real terms about £720![]()
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.
Blasphemy! *slap*I hope not! I cannot stand the Beatles and all the hype that surrounded them. Its not as if any of them can sing.
So it seems McCartney was the holdout.
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.
256kb. Were they not an EMI signing?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.
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.
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?
Slap![]()
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.
Portions of the multimillion-dollar payout also will go to pop singer Michael Jackson,
Presumably waiting til the divorce alimony hearings were done before he signed.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?
Presumably waiting til the divorce alimony hearings were done before he signed.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?
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 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.
It seems to me if the some of the money is going to Sony,Jacko and EMI Apple,Inc. just purchased the catalog and rights.
We don't know if the content is the only part of the deal, maybe there will be a Beatles iPod...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...