The Beatles Appear in iTunes Store

[KeithJenner]

iTunes pricing is very expensive generally, not just with the Beatles.

Personally, I only ever buy from iTunes if it is something that is hard to get elsewhere, but obviously many people don't worry about the cost.

Apple seem to sell plenty at their current prices, so there seems very little reason for them to change it.

 

[skidudeoz]

Yawn....... What ever

Seriously, who cares (Well except Steve of course). If you are a Beetles freak, then you probably already have it on Vinyl/CD and have it ripped.

 

[KeithJenner]

Seriously, who cares (Well except Steve of course). If you are a Beetles freak, then you probably already have it on Vinyl/CD and have it ripped.

 

[blybug]

Seriously, who cares (Well except Steve of course). If you are a Beetles freak, then you probably already have it on Vinyl/CD and have it ripped.

Yeah, that probably explains why 3 of the Beatles albums are in the iTunes Top 10 this morning, and the $149 box set is at #11. Nobody cares and everybody has this music already.

 

[tigres]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

Seriously, who cares (Well except Steve of course). If you are a Beetles freak, then you probably already have it on Vinyl/CD and have it ripped.

Yeah, that probably explains why 3 of the Beatles albums are in the iTunes Top 10 this morning, and the $149 box set is at #11. Nobody cares and everybody has this music already.

17 albums in the top 40.

Wow, pretty amazing.

 

[TheRealTVGuy]

Is it just me or is Apple starting to suck? First that sleeping pill Back to the Mac and now this, this is some weak ****.

So over 1700 posts and 70 pages?? What's with everybody? If any other company posted on their website that they were going to announce a new product or service tomorrow, and then did, it would be considered normal marketing. EVEN IF THEY SAID IT WOULD BE A DAY YOU WOULDN'T FORGET.

But so many of you are so spoiled now the general consensus is "unless Steve Jobs is going to come down from on high with an earth shattering new 'whatever' then Apple should just remain totally silent" Heaven forbid they do any kind of marketing.

Watch your local Sunday ads in this weekend's paper. I'll bet Sears or JC Penney or whoever will be boasting "The Greatest Sale of All Time". And it won't be. It will have even more hyperbole then the homepage teaser we saw for the Beatles, but we won't see 1700 posts about it.

The stock's still up over 300, and Apple's still the company pushing innovation (just remember that every time you swipe your finger across your Android or BB device) and people still bit*h.

One More Thing...
Is this really about you not getting some new feature you haven't had before but think you need right now (and don't give me any "They Promised Us!" bullcrap), or am I sensing a lot of Anti-Beatles stuff going on?

 

[KnightWRX]

17 albums in the top 40.

Wow, pretty amazing.

The question no one seems to be able to answer however is what is the period the stats cover to determine these top lists ? With the hype around this announcement, it's sure to be a few weeks where sales will be quite strong, but it remains to be seen if it is sustainable.

Obviously, an album selling for 1 day is not going to displace an album that has been sold since day 1 of the iTMS, so it's obvious these top lists use some kind of narrower timeframe.

 

[obirah]

This is so cool...

Hey guys!

... just to let you know - I really love the girl on 2:38 from the Coliseum stream! This I will never forget!

 

[KeithJenner]

The question no one seems to be able to answer however is what is the period the stats cover to determine these top lists ? With the hype around this announcement, it's sure to be a few weeks where sales will be quite strong, but it remains to be seen if it is sustainable.

Obviously, an album selling for 1 day is not going to displace an album that has been sold since day 1 of the iTMS, so it's obvious these top lists use some kind of narrower timeframe.

I don't think that anyone would think that the iTunes chart are alltime (although plenty of people seem to have thought that Apple were actually going to do something that meant they would never forget yesterday, so you never know).

You are correct though, we don't know the timeframe that they use, and they seem to keep it fairly secret.

If the timeframe is a week, which is probably the most common for charts then this is very impressive, and it looks extremely likely that they will start to fill up the top 10's in the next few days.

If they are on a smaller timeframe then it may be less impressive, but still an very good performance given the number of albums involved.

What we need to really assess how successful they are are some sales figures from Apple. I suspect we will only get them if they are good.

 

[kallisti]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)



17 albums in the top 40.

Wow, pretty amazing.

59 of the top 200 singles are the Beatles as of this morning. That's about 30%. Pretty impressive, though have to see how long that lasts.

 

[kalsta]

I haven't read all 1700+ comments (now that would be boring!) but I guess all the negativity is to be expected 40 years after the Beatles stopped recording as a band. Most of you seem seriously ignorant about the impact these guys had on music and how many other musicians have been influenced by them. No idea why it took so long to get them on iTunes, but having done it I think Steve and co have every right to get excited. Steve lived through the 60s. He remembers!

(BTW, I'm a child of the 70s, but I am still amazed that one band produced so much brilliant music, especially from Sgt Peppers onwards.)

 

[blybug]

I don't think that anyone would think that the iTunes chart are alltime (although plenty of people seem to have thought that Apple were actually going to do something that meant they would never forget yesterday, so you never know).

You are correct though, we don't know the timeframe that they use, and they seem to keep it fairly secret.

If the timeframe is a week, which is probably the most common for charts then this is very impressive, and it looks extremely likely that they will start to fill up the top 10's in the next few days.

If they are on a smaller timeframe then it may be less impressive, but still an very good performance given the number of albums involved.

What we need to really assess how successful they are are some sales figures from Apple. I suspect we will only get them if they are good.

Regardless of the details and attempts to discount the stats, the performance of the Beatles material in its first 24 hours completely discredits the "Everyone who wants this stuff has already bought the CDs and ripped them nobody is going to buy this" comments. I expected a few popular singles to climb the charts as casual fans filled in their Beatles collections having never bought full CDs. That the $149 Box Set is knocking on the Top Ten was completely unexpected, even for Beatles "fanboi" like me.

 

[Artmuzz]

And to make it even worse, people are actually buying the marked up price. As Obi-Wan said in Star Wars "Who's more foolish: the fool or the fool that follows him?"

Yeah, one of my favourite sayings from Star Wars. unfortunately, I wasn't thinking of that saying when I splashed out £199.95 on earphones at Apple's retail store when I could of bought them for half the price on Amazon and e Panasonic store

 

[KeithJenner]

Regardless of the details and attempts to discount the stats, the performance of the Beatles material in its first 24 hours completely discredits the "Everyone who wants this stuff has already bought the CDs and ripped them nobody is going to buy this" comments. I expected a few popular singles to climb the charts as casual fans filled in their Beatles collections having never bought full CDs. That the $149 Box Set is knocking on the Top Ten was completely unexpected, even for Beatles "fanboi" like me.

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to discount the stats, just acknowledge KnightWRX's point that as we don't know the timeframes we don't know exactly how well they are doing.

I totally agree with you. Even on the most negative assumptions they are doing far better than the countless "nobody is interested" comments would have suggested, as I've now said a number of times.

 

[bartelby]

More proof that Apple are nothing but greedy pigs.

Nuff said

I'd have thought the Beatles side of the deal would have dictated the price.

 

[KeithJenner]

I'd have thought the Beatles side of the deal would have dictated the price.

I'm sure it does influence it, Beatles CD's have always been expensive too.

However, that doesn't explain why just about everything in the iTunes store is more expensive than you can buy the CD for. That is down to Apples pricing.

 

[iAmLegend]

So Apple fanboys can't even admit that calling that announcement unforgettable wasn't corny as $#!t? There really is no hope for you guys.

 

[KeithJenner]

On the subject of pricing, when I was younger I used to buy almost all my music from an independent store about 400 yds from a HMV shop. The prices there were not much more than half of the HMV price, and we could never understand why everyone bought their albums from HMV.

In retrospect, it's obvious. We were buying lots of albums every week and the price difference made a big impact for us. However, most people in HMV were buying 5-6 albums a year and it just isn't worth their effort to seek out the cheaper prices. They would rather stick with what they know. It was only when Supermarkets, which they are also comfortable shopping in, started selling CD's that the shops had to take notice.

The majority of music is bought by people who only buy the occasional thing. They don't buy much individually, but there are millions of them. Many of them just buy from iTunes and have no idea what things cost at Amazon. The only comparison they would get is if they happened to look at the CD's in Tesco and they only ever do that when they want something specific.

In this case they know that they can get it from iTunes because of all the "hype" and don't give it a second thought.

 

[kallisti]

So Apple fanboys can't even admit that calling that announcement unforgettable wasn't corny as $#!t? There really is no hope for you guys.

Of course it was corny. I'm personally surprised by the apparent demand. I'm one of those who assumed that everyone who cared about the Beatles already owned whatever they wanted. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

On a side note, I find your comment extremely ironic given your screen name. Pot, meet kettle....

 

[KeithJenner]

So Apple fanboys can't even admit that calling that announcement unforgettable wasn't corny as $#!t? There really is no hope for you guys.

Where has anyone been asked to admit that, or indicated that they wouldn't?

 

[guzhogi]

Of course it was corny. I'm personally surprised by the apparent demand. I'm one of those who assumed that everyone who cared about the Beatles already owned whatever they wanted. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

On a side note, I find your comment extremely ironic given your screen name. Pot, meet kettle....

I was looking at the reviews on iTunes & there were a few people who said that they already had the physical copies, but would buy the iTunes copy as well. So obviously, people will pay for multiple copies if they exist.

Reminds me of my dad. He has a whole lot of books. But he doesn't read them. Instead, he goes to the public library and checks out the large print versions. I'm like "Why do you even keep your books if you're just going to read the library version?" Some people are like that I guess.

 

[BlackMangoTree]

I just found out about this now, simply amazing. This is one of the greatest events in history. Im buy the box set @ $260 it's a steal.

One very happy Apple fan. Way to go Steve.

 

[glossywhite]

Yeah, one of my favourite sayings from Star Wars. unfortunately, I wasn't thinking of that saying when I splashed out £199.95 on earphones at Apple's retail store when I could of bought them for half the price on Amazon and e Panasonic store

Did I read that right? You spent TWO HUNDRED POUNDS on earphones? So, in what way did you convince yourself that you weren't being robbed in broad daylight? What possible benefit could £200 earphones give you, apart from being a placebo?

I'm sorry, maybe I'm not an "audiophile", but that is plain stupid IMHO.

I cannot believe the notion that people would spend hundreds of pounds/dollars on virtual "products" which they don't even own, and which are simply bit-for-bit copies, without any physical, tangible product to touch or look at. The production cost in materials for these so-called "products" per-unit, is likely to be precisely zero. It is, in fact, quite farcicle when people say "I'm buying the boxed set"... yeah? so when do you get the box, then? It costs no more in production and materials, whether one copy is sold, or one million.

Beatles or not, you're being milked.

 

[69650]

So over 1700 posts and 70 pages?? What's with everybody? If any other company posted on their website that they were going to announce a new product or service tomorrow, and then did, it would be considered normal marketing. EVEN IF THEY SAID IT WOULD BE A DAY YOU WOULDN'T FORGET.

But so many of you are so spoiled now the general consensus is "unless Steve Jobs is going to come down from on high with an earth shattering new 'whatever' then Apple should just remain totally silent" Heaven forbid they do any kind of marketing.

Watch your local Sunday ads in this weekend's paper. I'll bet Sears or JC Penney or whoever will be boasting "The Greatest Sale of All Time". And it won't be. It will have even more hyperbole then the homepage teaser we saw for the Beatles, but we won't see 1700 posts about it.

The stock's still up over 300, and Apple's still the company pushing innovation (just remember that every time you swipe your finger across your Android or BB device) and people still bit*h.

One More Thing...
Is this really about you not getting some new feature you haven't had before but think you need right now (and don't give me any "They Promised Us!" bullcrap), or am I sensing a lot of Anti-Beatles stuff going on?

Totally agree with your comments.

 

[Hal Itosis]

For that matter, Lady Gaga has sold more albums at this point in her career than the Beatles did at the same point in their career.

Uh-huh... so, with several "MTV-copycat" cable channels running 24 hrs/day that push risque viddys of Lady Gaga for all to see... and with everyone able to instantly download her stuff from a variety of resources (e.g., to their cell phones as well as computers at home, again 24 hrs/day)... you think that makes for a fair comparison to the Beatles' success, under the standards of music promotion/sales/distribution which existed back in the 1960s?



Or didn't you think?

[shoot... folks used to have to wait for months just to catch them on The Ed Sullivan Show on a Sunday night.]