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

The Beatles Appear in iTunes Store

So the beetles held out. But what about smaller lesser known bands with good recordings. ? What's the easiest way for them to get those songs onto iTunes?
 
Let my voice be added to all those who say Meh.

Over priced, I might as well get the CDs. Yeah the beatles were something in the 60s, you know, 40+ years ago.
 
How is this a bad thing?

So what if you don't like the Beatles? Wouldn't any supporter of Apple want iTunes' catalogue to be as complete as possible? Blame yourselves for getting worked up by a piece of PR puffery, for that is what Apple has been doing for the last 20 years.

As for AC/DC, blame the band. They're the ones against download releases and have been for a long time.
 
I don't see what the fuss is all about. The Beatles have always been on Apple anyway...

...oh wait...

...heh heh!

Being serious though. I may be completely underwhelmed by this announcement, but I can see how it certainly is a big day for Steve.

After all the years of legal wrangling over the Apple name. Apple promising not to move into the record business etc. and then doing just that, cue round two of fisticuffs. Today Steve gets total pwnage over The Beatles for now and all time.

There they are with Steve's Apple logo on the same page and not the Apple Apple logo if you get my drift. That has got to be a big deal in Cupertino, if not for the rest of us.

Just sayin.
 
blehpunk said:
big whoop. but at least i won't have to hear that the beatles are coming to itunes everytime there is a hint of itunes news for the last 5 years. now where are those mockups for the yellow submarine ipod photo i remember seeing?
Click to expand...


You still get to hear the iPhone is going to Verizon rumor. :eek:
 
Piercussion said:
Is this really an iTunes milestone? Geez, Apple!
Click to expand...

No! Possibly the ability to play your iTunes library on any device, where ever you are instead of syncing would be but that is possibly too evolutionary....what next Elvis promotion....:rolleyes:
 
farmboy said:
That was then, this is now, and this event is a 10-15 years too late, and I doubt that anyone will remember past next week.
Click to expand...

:confused:

Only a year late. Missed the synergy of the wonderfully remastered albums released last year. Everyone loses except the brick and mortar retailers last year. Good for iTunes to have available in the long run I guess.

And in case it was missed this was a good opportunity to offer up the limited edition mono releases for a wider audience to sample. Guess that's not happening.

If iTunes releases the Beatles Anthology stuff with the two "new" songs, I'd probably buy them since I never have.
 
gloss said:
AC/DC has also released albums as recently as 2008 while The Beatles did all their work in a period of 7 years. Impressive, no?

Also, The Beatles managed 545 million sales by 1972, nine years after their first album released.
Click to expand...

And also the rolling stones have been around for as long as the beatles and have only managed a fifth of the sales.

As I said only elvis and mj could claim to be as big as the beatles.
 
I do not care for the Beatles and will probably not but any of their music. But this is a big deal for Apple. This is the record label that the company is name after and Steve has been working on this deal since iTunes was launched.

I also disagree with people that think this was over hyped. We over hyped the announcement, not Apple. They just put up a web page yesterday with the announcement today. No press event or the front page being up for two weeks. Just a simple web page and the news was leaked to the news sometime last night. Explain how that is over hype. Explain how they could have done better. The answer is they could not in your eyes because you didn't get what you wanted and like a spoiled child, you just want to complain to mother about life being unfair.
 
CZK said:
Wow.... Who gives a shiet about the beatles on itunes..................
Click to expand...

I believe the word is '*****'.
Most die hard Beatles fans will have their work on cd or vinyl anyway,,,who cares that its on itunes! What a crap day!
 
Move on

Common Apple, fans we either protest or forget about this all happned. The main page will move to 4.2 next week
:):apple:
 
mrblack927 said:
That's awfully presumptuous. On what basis to you make that claim?
Click to expand...

Physics, for one.

If you want to argue that 128kps is sonically inferior to a lossless file, you might have a point, especially with really good equipment. But above 256kps? You would have to have the absolute best in equipment and pristine ears. My guess is that less than 1% of the population would be able to discern any difference between a file encoded at 256kps and a lossless file.

So yeah, on most people's equipment, with most people's ears it would be impossible to detect any difference between 256+ and lossless/cd.
 
megas88 said:
The major problem with itunes is that not every album has a special insert pdf. Cds have special inserts on the covers that give you messages from the artists, art, and lyrics. Not every album and song on itunes has these. None of the stuff I've bought from itunes has these. Get those and I'm on board. This announcement is no different than any other band being on itunes. Yes, the beatles are better than any of the others but that doesn't mean apple needed to hype it.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, the Beatles' albums are being offered in iTunes LP format. Of course, it may not have the exact original inner sleeves/inserts, but it's better than just the songs.

(Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong; I'm at work and the iTunes Store is blocked.)
 
Last edited:
I was holding out hope that they would be having some sort of an event at the new North Carolina data center (hence the 10 AM Eastern time event) to announce something like a new streaming subscription service. Bummer!
 
I seriously think some people need to re-evaluate their lives if stuff like this ruins their day.

I think it is a big day for Apple inc and iTunes. There have been legal battles between Apple inc and Apple Corps for years and It's no secret Jobs wanted to get them on iTunes so I think its more of a big day for them and not for us.

Personally I do only like a few Beatles songs so I'm not really a fan and I already have them on my iPhone haha.
 
chewbaccacabra said:
they could have at least offered up the limited edition Mono versions too just to make them more accessible.
Click to expand...

why would they not offer the 2009 remaster mono versions???? for me, this was the main benefit of The Beatles being available on iTunes (or any other digital venue). the early to mid 60's albums were originally mixed and mastered in mono and often recorded that way. the stereo versions have the vocals in only the right track which is distracting when listening with headphones or in your car for example. plus the mono mix of Sgt. Peppers is the one The Beatles intended and is significantly different than the stereo version.
 
I guess never forget the day even the mac lovers on macrumors say Apple jumped the shark.


That was the stupidest announcement I'd ever heard. Things I would have never forgotten include (whether they are real/dream, good/bad, I want them or not, or whatever)

-A demo of lightpeak working on a MBP with multiple peripherals, and an announcement of a launch date and full industry/partner support and rollout, including windows.

-New macbook designs: clear? white andonized metal?

-All MBPs losing their discdrives and gaining SSDs with a minimal price bump

-Lion being launched REALLY early

-Displays that can go 3d at will, with manipulable technology like a kinect camera

-iTunes cloud (maybe)

-The deletion of Ping (oh man, that would be memorable!)

Adding a band to itunes, thats been around for 40 years and that everyone has the songs already? Maybe a big day for Steve. No one else missed a beat at work today. I actually had my hope up for a second though.
 
Puddinman said:
Physics, for one.

If you want to argue that 128kps is sonically inferior to a lossless file, you might have a point, especially with really good equipment. But above 256kps? You would have to have the absolute best in equipment and pristine ears. My guess is that less than 1% of the population would be able to discern any difference between a file encoded at 256kps and a lossless file.

So yeah, on most people's equipment, with most people's ears it would be impossible to detect any difference between 256+ and lossless/cd.
Click to expand...

Totally agree 256 there is no way 99.9% of people could hear a difference.
 
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