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.
Black U2 iPod?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
serpico said:I wonder if this limited edition ipod will only sell in the US ? Would mean making a trip across the border to pick one up.
U2 isn't a country-specific band so why would their iPod be any different?
serpico said:
as long as it doesn't have U2 written all across it (or the guys face on the back) then it might be somewhat cool.
Another idea is that black is only one (of many) colors. Maybe the black iPod will be special but other colors (red green blue i dunno colors!) will just be standard.
Another thing maybe the u2Pod will ship with band extras (DVD, poster, hardcopy of CD, carring case, ect) and may cost a little extra.....
just a thought.....
What would be really cool is if it included (or included gift certificates for downloading) all songs from every U2 studio album encoded in Apple Lossless format (bonus points for direct from master encoding). I'd buy that in a second. And black and silver sounds spiffy to me, especially if the black were really nice laquered black metal instead of plastic. Hopefully it won't have some big ugly U2 logo on it, keep it simple and elegant.
jet3004 said:
old, yet they still continue to put out music thats creatively relevant and far superior then most new acts today.. unlike aerosmith. its not my fault you are ignorant about U2s impact.
whats your new favorit band? good charlotte?
lol
and what this deal with people dissing on u2? anything post 90 is not as good as pre 90? oh come on now. for those of you who say that....if you all cant sit here and tell me why u2s music has changed, how it has changed and comment on their uncanny ability to tap into that creativity pool like they were a new and relevant band... then you have no business dissing on u2. because you know what... that would make you ignorant. its one thing not to like u2 (because people have their preferences) but its another thing to talk like a certain part of u2s catalogue is bad (contemporary stuff here) and not no anything about it. just not liking it because it doesnt sound like their old stuff doesnt cut it. fact is.... U2 has been one of the most creatively relevant bands that has been around for a long ass time. who else can top them? kiss, aerosmith, rollingstones???? yeah right... while these bands are awesome and respectable they dont have that creative drive that u2 has... hence why most of their music today sounds exactly like their old music.
if i were to name one band that continues to progress and push it like u2 it would be rush. there are obvious differences between the bands but as far as continuing to be relevant they share a lot of similarities.
if i were to name one band that continues to progress and push it like u2 it would be rush. there are obvious differences between the bands but as far as continuing to be relevant they share a lot of similarities.
xyian said:
you have absolutely no idea do you?
its like its fashionable not to like u2 because they have been around for a long ass time. give me a effen break here. u2 is still pushing their sound... rolling stones isn't. id like to see any of these bands today.... be it good ones like radiohead or whoever still being able to be around with the same members much less push their music 25 yrs from now.
thats hard to do.
rollingstones needs to hang it up. they sound the same. u2 is constantly changing and evolving. thats why we have people here making value judgments on their music post 90. there is a reason why u2 is being touted as the "best rock band in the world". thats not just there for cosmetic reasons i can guarantee that. they have managed to pull of things in the music industry that only the Beatles can claim they have done (all respect due to the Beatles... not saying U2 is better in any way). my point is.... who can top U2 other then the Beatles (because obviously they far surpass U2)? No one... or its hard to think of someone that can.
and with that i say....
i hope the new ipod comes with u2s logo on it or whatever the case maybe. put bonos or the "edges" mug all over that screen... because i'll buy it for sure. there are a lot of U2 fans out there and it would probably increase apple ipod sales because of it. this band is a "world band"... not like most bands out there.
if you dont want a u2/ipod... well dont get it... its not like there isnt another option. jebus. quite your whining and just let it be.
i hope the new ipod comes with u2s logo on it or whatever the case maybe. put bonos or the "edges" mug all over that screen... because i'll buy it for sure. there are a lot of U2 fans out there and it would probably increase apple ipod sales because of it. this band is a "world band"... not like most bands out there.
if you dont want a u2/ipod... well dont get it... its not like there isnt another option. jebus. quite your whining and just let it be.
Like it or not, here it comes
CNN is now echoing the Forbes and ThinkSecret rumors, claiming their own sources. For credit's sake, lets all just make sure that everyone knows that ThinkSecret broke this story first. Those guys are incredibly accurate, and deserve a heck of a lot of credit for their investigative work.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/10/19/music.u2.reut/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/10/19/music.u2.reut/index.html
CNN is now echoing the Forbes and ThinkSecret rumors, claiming their own sources. For credit's sake, lets all just make sure that everyone knows that ThinkSecret broke this story first. Those guys are incredibly accurate, and deserve a heck of a lot of credit for their investigative work.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/10/19/music.u2.reut/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/10/19/music.u2.reut/index.html
AoWolf said:
I have a Colorware Carbon black iPod (4G), and the black on silver looks awesome. Don't worry about that...
The other U2/Apple Event thread is dead, so I'm gonna post this here:
On the 26th, I reckon that Apple is gonna announce they are launching a new record label...and U2 Is their first signing...plus they've also bought another record label (maybe universal?) to get the ball rolling.
They will also announce that the new record label has bought Apple Corps Ltd. for a crazy amount (£100million?) and they are know the exclusive holders of the beatles catalogue. It will available on iTMS. Today.
Of course, my theory is fairly crazy, but in some ways parts of it are believable. We know that Steve loves mixing with the hollywood crowd, so a music company wouldnt be to unbelievable.Apple was, a while ago, in talks with universal records. We know that there has been a rumor of Apple paying off the apple corps with a crazy amount.
Also, something which may be of relevance - a few artists have recently just disappeared of iTMS. Usher, Britney spears, Black eyed peas (!) have all gone of iTMS (USA) in the past week or so. Could this be because they have been signed up to the new label and need to be re-added to iTMS?
I know it's crazy, but it could happen. One day.
On the 26th, I reckon that Apple is gonna announce they are launching a new record label...and U2 Is their first signing...plus they've also bought another record label (maybe universal?) to get the ball rolling.
They will also announce that the new record label has bought Apple Corps Ltd. for a crazy amount (£100million?) and they are know the exclusive holders of the beatles catalogue. It will available on iTMS. Today.
Of course, my theory is fairly crazy, but in some ways parts of it are believable. We know that Steve loves mixing with the hollywood crowd, so a music company wouldnt be to unbelievable.Apple was, a while ago, in talks with universal records. We know that there has been a rumor of Apple paying off the apple corps with a crazy amount.
Also, something which may be of relevance - a few artists have recently just disappeared of iTMS. Usher, Britney spears, Black eyed peas (!) have all gone of iTMS (USA) in the past week or so. Could this be because they have been signed up to the new label and need to be re-added to iTMS?
I know it's crazy, but it could happen. One day.
jet3004 said:
I'm old, and love Apple and like U2... Plus, because I'm old, I have a lot more disposable income than your average 18-22 yr old, so I'm more likely to spend at the ITMS or buy Macs...
Age is relative my friend...
asif786 said:The other U2/Apple Event thread is dead, so I'm gonna post this here:
On the 26th, I reckon that Apple is gonna announce they are launching a new record label...and U2 Is their first signing...plus they've also bought another record label (maybe universal?) to get the ball rolling.
They will also announce that the new record label has bought Apple Corps Ltd. for a crazy amount (£100million?) and they are know the exclusive holders of the beatles catalogue. It will available on iTMS. Today.
Of course, my theory is fairly crazy, but in some ways parts of it are believable. We know that Steve loves mixing with the hollywood crowd, so a music company wouldnt be to unbelievable.Apple was, a while ago, in talks with universal records. We know that there has been a rumor of Apple paying off the apple corps with a crazy amount.
Also, something which may be of relevance - a few artists have recently just disappeared of iTMS. Usher, Britney spears, Black eyed peas (!) have all gone of iTMS (USA) in the past week or so. Could this be because they have been signed up to the new label and need to be re-added to iTMS?
I know it's crazy, but it could happen. One day.
Its an interesting theory. It would perhaps deal with one big problem and harden up Apple's future in online music...
Not long to go now...
reorx said:
this guy that you are qouting acts like u2 is as old as mozart. if he know the demographics of who actually listens to U2 he wouldnt make such a statement. U2 is by in large listened to by people in thier 20s and 30s. im in my 20s and more times then none the people who respect U2 are seasoned music listeners.... people who have been around but still are young to an extent... in contrast with those who are very young and think "all american rejects" is top notch advanced music.
also the people who listen to U2 (which are a hell of a lot) have more income then those "younguns" that listen to that cheap ass crap of sum 41 or good charlotte (generally speaking). apple is doing great with this U2 thing. its an awsome and smart move. after all there is a good reason apple picked U2 and not anyone else. i bet most of (if not all) of these people who are dissen on U2 have no understanding of thier impact and continue to jump on the "u2 is old therefore not good" bandwagon because its fasionable.
asif786 said:The other U2/Apple Event thread is dead, so I'm gonna post this here:
On the 26th, I reckon that Apple is gonna announce they are launching a new record label...and U2 Is their first signing...plus they've also bought another record label (maybe universal?) to get the ball rolling.
They will also announce that the new record label has bought Apple Corps Ltd. for a crazy amount (£100million?) and they are know the exclusive holders of the beatles catalogue. It will available on iTMS. Today.
Of course, my theory is fairly crazy, but in some ways parts of it are believable. We know that Steve loves mixing with the hollywood crowd, so a music company wouldnt be to unbelievable.Apple was, a while ago, in talks with universal records. We know that there has been a rumor of Apple paying off the apple corps with a crazy amount.
Also, something which may be of relevance - a few artists have recently just disappeared of iTMS. Usher, Britney spears, Black eyed peas (!) have all gone of iTMS (USA) in the past week or so. Could this be because they have been signed up to the new label and need to be re-added to iTMS?
I know it's crazy, but it could happen. One day.
Interesting theory - parts of it may come true in some form. I didn't realize that BEP has since been removed from iTMS - I find this surprising, as "Hey Mama" was used in an iPod video and they were featured heavily in the new iMac video along with "Let's Get Retarded". Interesting, maybe something's afoot...
People comparing U2 to The Rolling Stones (in a negative "when are they going to quit" context) have no clue. Bono was born May 1960 (he's just turned 44, people!) The Rolling Stones have been around since about 1963 -- twenty years longer.
But, while some on this board are wishing the Stones a quick farewell, be aware that their sales even in the past 15 years have been seriously AMAZING. Obviously those few here aren't really in charge of what's HOT and what's NOT.
"Since 1989 alone--the beginning of the modern age of the Rolling Stones --the band has generated more than $1.5 billion in gross revenues." - Sept 2002
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/09/18/114923.php
Bottomline, if the band is having a great time and there is a demand to hear them, why would anyone want someone to quit doing what they love doing simply so you don't have to hear about them anymore? Sounds like a very selfish attitude to me. Live and let live.
I say "ROCK ON".
But, while some on this board are wishing the Stones a quick farewell, be aware that their sales even in the past 15 years have been seriously AMAZING. Obviously those few here aren't really in charge of what's HOT and what's NOT.
"Since 1989 alone--the beginning of the modern age of the Rolling Stones --the band has generated more than $1.5 billion in gross revenues." - Sept 2002
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/09/18/114923.php
Bottomline, if the band is having a great time and there is a demand to hear them, why would anyone want someone to quit doing what they love doing simply so you don't have to hear about them anymore? Sounds like a very selfish attitude to me. Live and let live.
I say "ROCK ON".
JGowan said:
good point. i respect your preference. i believe though that they should hang it up. "is it better to burn out or fade away?"
imagine if apple went with the rollingstones here. then these peoples geriatric case could be legitimate.... but U2? hell no. U2 is still ALIVE.
Heh, I like your crazy theory, especially how you took care of that pesky legal problem, but the problems I see are: a) would Apple Corps and the estateholders of The Beatles sell to Apple? and b) would Apple be willing to part with much or all of their warchest to complete sucha a transaction (buying Universal)? Based on Steve's previous comments I'd have to say no. He's said he specifically wants that money to be there when times get tough, which doesn't sound like it's all available for a purchase. But hey, crazier things have happened. It would be an incredibly bold move that sure would shake up both the computer and music industries (and the film & video industry if it included Universal Pictures...hmm, new Pixar distributer as well?)asif786 said:
asif786 said:The other U2/Apple Event thread is dead, so I'm gonna post this here:
On the 26th, I reckon that Apple is gonna announce they are launching a new record label...and U2 Is their first signing...plus they've also bought another record label (maybe universal?) to get the ball rolling.
They will also announce that the new record label has bought Apple Corps Ltd. for a crazy amount (£100million?) and they are know the exclusive holders of the beatles catalogue. It will available on iTMS. Today.
Of course, my theory is fairly crazy, but in some ways parts of it are believable. We know that Steve loves mixing with the hollywood crowd, so a music company wouldnt be to unbelievable.Apple was, a while ago, in talks with universal records. We know that there has been a rumor of Apple paying off the apple corps with a crazy amount.
Also, something which may be of relevance - a few artists have recently just disappeared of iTMS. Usher, Britney spears, Black eyed peas (!) have all gone of iTMS (USA) in the past week or so. Could this be because they have been signed up to the new label and need to be re-added to iTMS?
I know it's crazy, but it could happen. One day.
It would be great if they bought Apple Corps and had the Beatles music exclusively - it would drive the other online stores insane and give iTMS a very definite edge on the market.
As for the disappearing artists (Black Eyed Peas, Usher, Britney Spears), where did you get the idea that they were missing? I just checked iTMS and all three of them are there with multiple albums each.
dprlynch said:
Hi,
Yep, they all seem to be back now (after a week). They came back today. Maybe Steve Jobs saw my post and indicated the iTMS staff to get it back pronto..
(well, i can dream cant I? ) lol
condor said:
Here's an absurdly simple solution. Put a copy of the CD in with the packaging. Then you can rip it yourself over and over again, if one was so inclined.
Steamboatwillie said:
Apple arent allowed to physically distribute music because of their lawsuit with Apple Corps (the beatles).
Thanks. But, I still don't think you get it... OVER 1.5 BILLION in 15 years... that's 150 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR! Many, many millions of people still LOVE the Stones. Why on Earth should they "hang it up"? Just 'cause you think so... please.krossfyter said:
150 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR (YEAR!!) is not fading away by any stretch of the imagination. If you had any logic, I might listen, but you give no reason for your "belief".
PS... that's 12.5 MILLION PER MONTH! Fade away, my @S$
