Beatles on iTunes in 2008

[jaw04005]

We don't know if the content is the only part of the deal, maybe there will be a Beatles iPod...

Either way, this is long-term investment. Apple would have to sell more than roughly 1.2 billion Beatles songs to just break even on this deal.

Apple roughly takes 30 percent of each .99 cent song. At an initial investment of 400 million, Apple would have to sell 1.2 billion (400 million x 3) songs to break even ignoring distribution and marketing costs.

Apple has only managed to sell 4 billion total songs to date, that's a big investment.

 

[72930]

Either way, this is long-term investment. Apple would have to sell more than roughly 1.2 billion Beatles songs to just break even on this deal.

Apple roughly takes 30 percent of each .99 cent song. At an initial investment of 400 million, Apple would have to sell 1.2 billion (400 million x 3) songs to break even ignoring distribution and marketing costs.

Apple has only managed to sell 4 billion total songs to date, that's a big investment.

Don't underestimate the money Apple makes from hardware bought from people who feel locked by the amount of DRM'd files they own.

 

[rdowns]

If this pans out and Apple did pay $400 million, you can bet that the right to sell the Beatles catalog isn't the only thing Apple paid for. As mentioned before, a Beatles iPod or other tie-ins are a certainty.

Exclusivity, at least for a decent period of time, has got to be part of the deal. No Beatles downloads for Amazon or whomever is left in the downoad business.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Either way, this is long-term investment. Apple would have to sell more than roughly 1.2 billion Beatles songs to just break even on this deal.

Apple roughly takes 30 percent of each .99 cent song. At an initial investment of 400 million, Apple would have to sell 1.2 billion (400 million x 3) songs to break even ignoring distribution and marketing costs.

Apple has only managed to sell 4 billion total songs to date, that's a big investment.

Which means you are jumping to conclusions based on zero information.

For one thing, Apple gets far less than 30% net on iTMS sales so you can multiply your break-even sales guesstimate by roughly ten. Which should tell any logical person that Apple did not spend $400 million for the rights to sell the Beatles catalog. Then again, none of the articles on this have said they did, which should be evidence enough... but not for everyone, I guess.

 

[jaw04005]

Then again, none of the articles on this have said they did, which should be evidence enough... but not for everyone, I guess.

Did you read the UPI article? I mean it really can't be any clearer. Unless of course, you're one of those who like to wait for the company to issue a press release. UPI is a fairly well respected press organization.

I suppose we could debate the definition of "agreement".

McCartney cashes in on Beatles' catalog

British singer Paul McCartney has reached a $400 million agreement with iTunes for the distribution of the Beatles' back catalog.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2008/03/08/mccartney_cashes_in_on_beatles_catalog

 

[IJ Reilly]

Did you read the UPI article? I mean it really can't be any clearer. Unless of course, you're one of those who like to wait for the company to issue a press release. UPI is a fairly well respected press organization.

I suppose we could debate the definition of "agreement".

McCartney cashes in on Beatles' catalog

British singer Paul McCartney has reached a $400 million agreement with iTunes for the distribution of the Beatles' back catalog.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2008/03/08/mccartney_cashes_in_on_beatles_catalog

Of course I did, and several others. If you read carefully you will see that neither this or any article says that Apple will be paying $400 million, or anything in fact. What they do say is that a deal has been struck with Apple which may be "worth" $400 million to the Beatles. This could just as easily be a statement of the value of anticipated sales. How much, if anything, Apple is paying we simply do not know, because it has not been said.

 

[FF_productions]

Cool and all if they go to iTunes, but I already have their collection on CD, Cassette, and Vinyl.

I love the Beatles.

 

[tgildred]

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 think the responses were meant lightheartedly.

You should probably take these things with a grain of salt.

 

[chas0001]

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.

Thank you. Its not just me in fact as both of my English parents were in their early 20's during the Beatles hay-day and they did not like them either. Its all a matter of taste.

 

[Eric S.]

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?

Didn't even know her? She wasn't even born!

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.

Jobs doesn't make business decisions on that basis. If he did he wouldn't be the CEO for long. And if he idolized the Beatles so much, why was Apple in court with them for all those years? Wouldn't he have caved at their slightest request?

 

[twoodcc]

this would be nice. i think i'd buy some old beatles songs if offered on iTunes

 

[surferfromuk]

I defy any genuine lover of music to listen to 'Abbey Road' and not be utterly blown away.

If you've never heard it you've got a real treat ahead of you...

Good call for Apple - this will ensure iTunes as the premier music service bar none - since I would surely hope $400 million gives exclusive rights.

 

[redfirebird08]

I'd go so far as to say that you can't listen to a pop song today without hearing a Beatles influence. Ever buy a cd from an artist who said it was a concept album? The Beatles did it first. Ever see a music video? Beatles did it first. Ever listen to music that had multi-layered vocals? Beatles. They're influence is very much woven into the fabric of popular music today. So, they're very relevant. I'm not necessarily a Beatles fan, but even I can see their influence in today's music.

Today's music sucks though. BTW, I love the Beatles.

 

[IJ Reilly]

A press release from Apple on this event is still conspicuously absent.

 

[sterlingindigo]

Sir McCartney only owns the recorded masters, not the copyrights. Those are owned by Sony/ATV (remember that is owned by Michael Jackson and Sony - actually the ATV part, under which the Beatles Catalog falls, is wholly owned by Jackson and leased every 10 years to Sony).

Jackson is an Apple fan and uses Mac personally, however.

Now MJ is in need of some cash I hear...

 

[Gasu E.]

2. Steve J. & Steve W. would have possibly called their little startup company something other than APPLE all those years ago if it weren't for the Beatles... so again, yeah I think they matter. IMHO

OMG who's "Steve W."?



OK, JK.

 

[Gasu E.]

I saw them twice at Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto when I was 14 and 15 (I'm now 58).

I think he meant not so much "do the Beatles still matter?, as "do YOU still matter, given that you are 58 and thus irrelevant."

 

[Gasu E.]

I hope not! I cannot stand the Beatles and all the hype that surrounded them. Its not as if any of them can sing.

Well, I think one would have to agree that neither John nor George can sing.

 

[tirerim]

Well, I think one would have to agree that neither John nor George can sing.

I think one would not have to agree.

(Ringo, on the other hand...)

Incidentally, I have 11 Beatles albums in iTunes currently (more than I have of any other artist). I don't buy much on the iTunes Store, but I would likely pick up a few odd tracks if the Beatles were available (especially if they were available as iTunes+).

 

[ozone ukulele]

I think he meant not so much "do the Beatles still matter?, as "do YOU still matter, given that you are 58 and thus irrelevant."

If I wasn't relevant, you would have ignored me. I'd acknowledge your post but I fail to see it's relevance.

 

[ChrisA]

i can tell you we won't be having this discussion about "good charlotte" or most of the current crop of pop music in thirty or forty years.

But it is always that way. If you said in 1965 "No one will care about most of today's music in 40 years" you'd have been right. Today we only care about maybe 0.5% of the music from that year. Like today most of it was junk.

 

[Freis968]

Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono had a chance to jointly purchase the publishing rights to the Beatles catalog back in 1985 but as you can see below Jackson bought it instead due to McCartney's and Ono's apparent inability to negotiate with each other. So read below the FACTS and realize that McCartney has no say ALONE in the matter. An iTunes "go ahead" would have to be the decision of all remaining Beatles and their estates be that Lennon's and Harrison's and several other persons. To think that Paul needs to sell to iTunes, that he even can alone is absurd, and that he would need the money after being worth over $1 Billion estimated US and that Mills could only get perhaps $80 Million if lucky...how does the press or anyone feel that Paul needs money to pay for his divorce? All nonsense if you read the facts.

Sony/ATV Music Publishing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC is one of the world's largest music publishing companies. The company was formed by the 1995 merger of the Sony Corporation of America's music publishing business with ATV Music, which Michael Jackson had purchased in 1985 for $47.5 million from Australian businessman Robert Holmes a' Court. Sony and Jackson each hold 50%, although 25% of Jackson's share is currently pledged as collateral on a secured loan of over $200 million.[1]
Among Sony/ATV's most valuable holdings is the Northern Songs catalogue, consisting of 180 songs written by The Beatles (mostly by Lennon-McCartney).
In May 2007, Sony/ATV acquired the Famous Music publishing company from Viacom's Paramount Pictures for $400 million.

And read below what the Beatles initial contract was that they signed also from Wikipedia under Beatles

Their recording contract paid them one penny for each single sold, which was split amongst the four Beatles — one farthing per group member.[49] This royalty rate was further reduced for singles sold outside the UK, on which they received half of one penny (again split between the whole band) per single. Martin said later that it was a "pretty awful" contract.

 

[sunfast]

Beatles on iTunes has rumbled on for such a long time now. Do people not realise you can buy the records in the shop for probably less than they'll cost on iTunes and rip them yourselves? Plus, you get to choose your encoding and level of DRM. i.e. none

 

[IJ Reilly]

So read below the FACTS and realize that McCartney has no say ALONE in the matter. An iTunes "go ahead" would have to be the decision of all remaining Beatles and their estates be that Lennon's and Harrison's and several other persons.

Right, but I believe McCartney might be the final hold-out. Maybe because he's already worth a mint, he's got less incentive to say yes to digital downloads.

 

[Freis968]

Right, but I believe McCartney might be the final hold-out. Maybe because he's already worth a mint, he's got less incentive to say yes to digital downloads.

True, they have to all agree to do it, so yes McCartney could be holding out.