AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple obtained exclusive rights to Beatles over Google, Amazon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple obtained exclusive rights to Beatles over Google, Amazon

post #1 of 118
11/17/10 at 5:26am
Thread Starter 
Apple reportedly beat out rivals Google and Amazon in securing the exclusive digital rights to the back catalog of The Beatles on iTunes through 2011.

The New York Post reported Wednesdsay that Google and Amazon were also involved in negotiations to secure the rights to the digital catalog of the Beatles in their own stores. But in the end, Apple offered the band and its label, EMI, the best deal for bringing the content to iTunes.

The deal was reportedly spearheaded by EMI CEO Roger Faxon, who convinced the parent company of the Beatles, Apple Corps Ltd., to relent on its longstanding opposition to digital music sales. The three parties then engaged in "rapid" negotiations by the end of summer.

The exclusive agreement, which was planned to be announced the week before the holiday shopping season begins, is an exclusive deal through 2011.

"Who else are they (The Beatles) going to do a deal with?" one anonymous executive reportedly said. "Apple dominates the digital market."

Beatles songs went on sale on iTunes on Tuesday, with the band's debut celebrated with a hyped announcement from Apple. Prior to the launch, Apple on Monday teased an "exciting announcement" related to iTunes would be revealed the following day.

The songs were immediately strong sellers, with the iTunes LP for "Abbey Road" at No. 7 on the iTunes album charts as of Wednesday morning. The self-titled white album came in at No. 8, while "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" was No. 10.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 118
11/17/10 at 5:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple reportedly beat out rivals Google and Amazon in securing the exclusive digital rights to the back catalog of The Beatles on iTunes through 2011.

The New York Post reported Wednesdsay that Google and Amazon were also involved in negotiations to secure the rights to the digital catalog of the Beatles in their own stores. But in the end, Apple offered the band and its label, EMI, the best deal for bringing the content to iTunes.

The deal was reportedly spearheaded by EMI CEO Roger Faxon, who convinced the parent company of the Beatles, Apple Corps Ltd., to relent on its longstanding opposition to digital music sales. The three parties then engaged in "rapid" negotiations by the end of summer.

The exclusive agreement, which was planned to be announced the week before the holiday shopping season begins, is an exclusive deal through 2011.

"Who else are they (The Beatles) going to do a deal with?" one anonymous executive reportedly said. "Apple dominates the digital market."

Beatles songs went on sale on iTunes on Tuesday, with the band's debut celebrated with a hyped announcement from Apple. Prior to the launch, Apple on Monday teased an "exciting announcement" related to iTunes would be revealed the following day.

The songs were immediately strong sellers, with the iTunes LP for "Abbey Road" at No. 7 on the iTunes album charts as of Wednesday morning. The self-titled white album came in at No. 8, while "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" was No. 10.




<yawn> So Apple paid more for the catalog, and got a few months of exclusive.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 118
11/17/10 at 5:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill-G View Post

<yawn> So Apple paid more for the catalog, and got a few months of exclusive.

While I appreciate how legendary this band and its set of people and their musical work has been over the decades, old music is old music, meh.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 118
11/17/10 at 5:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by zindako View Post

While I appreciate how legendary this band and its set of people and their musical work has been over the decades, old music is old music, meh.

Me, I'll be excited when they release the entire Pinetop Perkins discography.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 118
11/17/10 at 5:53am
is this like the NY Times best seller list where the publishers buy up copies of their books to get it on the list for the herd mentality?
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 118
11/17/10 at 5:54am
Actually the old music is best imho...

Alot of crap these days, my favourite tracks are mostly old.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 118
11/17/10 at 6:01am
Good thing Apple paid big bucks to get exclusive rights for digital distribution for a whole year more. Gee, we've only had access to Beatles albums/tapes/CDs for 47 years.

But, nice tribute to the band anyway Apple. I am a fan!

-Bleep
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 118
11/17/10 at 6:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by zindako View Post

While I appreciate how legendary this band and its set of people and their musical work has been over the decades, old music is old music, meh.

Speak for yourself. The Beatles are timeless. At least their later work, anyway.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 118
11/17/10 at 6:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by zindako View Post

While I appreciate how legendary this band and its set of people and their musical work has been over the decades, old music is old music, meh.

No offense, but it's this attitude towards music that is very meh. Obviously you are not a true music lover if it has to be current to be considered valuable to you. I don't agree that the only good music is old music, but there is great music created at all times, not just today. Also, people had a very different attitude towards music in the 60s and 70s. Different standards. This doesn't make it better, but does make it very interesting to a real music lover.

Anyway, I don't think this is such a big deal, and it's kind of sad to me that Apple made such a big deal like this would change people's lives. You could easily download illegal mp3s of ripped cds before. I think the remastering sounds pretty good though, and I'm glad they have reformatted the tracks subtly to work better in digital formats.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 118
11/17/10 at 6:10am
The news that Apple has brought The Beatles to iTunes is great news but people on this forum have seen fit to trash Steve and Apple for it. Apple is the coolest computer company in the world and it's only fitting that now Apple is the *exclusive seller* of the coolest band's (of all time!) digital music on iTunes.

I have to think that you are all Apple fans or else you wouldn't care enough to be on this forum and this latest news is a great thing for Apple and very very cool. At the very least try to appreciate the coolness of this move by Steve to be cutting edge and be the first to get rights to The Beatles music over all the others like Google and Amazon.

Have a beautiful day

Rick in Austin
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 118
11/17/10 at 6:10am
This is not intended for the people who already have all the CDs, it's intended for a new generation who don't have the CDs, anyone with half a brain could see that but I suspect all the bitchy comments will keep coming regardless. I bet their songs/albums will dominate the iTunes charts over the next few weeks & months as MILLIONS of people update their back catalogue.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 118
11/17/10 at 6:14am
So this is what Steve meant when he said Apple was only going to spend their BILLIONS in CASH on "big things"?
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 118
11/17/10 at 6:15am
So THAT'S what Steve has been saving all those billions for! What is their balance now?
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 118
11/17/10 at 6:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by barton springs View Post

The news that Apple has brought The Beatles to iTunes is great news but people on this forum have seen fit to trash Steve and Apple for it. Apple is the coolest computer company in the world and it's only fitting that now Apple is the *exclusive seller* of the coolest band's (of all time!) digital music on iTunes.

I have to think that you are all Apple fans or else you wouldn't care enough to be on this forum and this latest news is a great thing for Apple and very very cool. At the very least try to appreciate the coolness of this move by Steve to be cutting edge and be the first to get rights to The Beatles music over all the others like Google and Amazon.

Have a beautiful day

Rick in Austin

I agree Rick...A lot of negative people on these boards. I get tired of their bilious remarks, too!

Best.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 118
11/17/10 at 6:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by estolinski View Post

So this is what Steve meant when he said Apple was only going to spend their BILLIONS in CASH on "big things"?

Haha good one!

I too am underwhelmed by these news.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 118
11/17/10 at 6:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

But in the end, Apple offered the band and its label, EMI, the best deal for bringing the content to iTunes.

The deal was reportedly spearheaded by EMI CEO Roger Faxon, who convinced the parent company of the Beatles, Apple Corps Ltd., to relent on its longstanding opposition to digital music sales. The three parties then engaged in "rapid" negotiations by the end of summer.

The exclusive agreement, which was planned to be announced the week before the holiday shopping season begins, is an exclusive deal through 2011.


So much for Apple's cash reserve of 50 billion!
/
/
/

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #17 of 118
11/17/10 at 6:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by vincentagniello View Post

No offense, but it's this attitude towards music that is very meh. Obviously you are not a true music lover if it has to be current to be considered valuable to you. I don't agree that the only good music is old music, but there is great music created at all times, not just today. Also, people had a very different attitude towards music in the 60s and 70s. Different standards. This doesn't make it better, but does make it very interesting to a real music lover.

Anyway, I don't think this is such a big deal, and it's kind of sad to me that Apple made such a big deal like this would change people's lives. You could easily download illegal mp3s of ripped cds before. I think the remastering sounds pretty good though, and I'm glad they have reformatted the tracks subtly to work better in digital formats.

I would guess as high as 90% of people don't know how to download such material.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 118
11/17/10 at 6:43am
As I was poking around the web yesterday after the announcement, I came upon this factoid:
  • For the decade from 2000-2009, the Beatles sold over 30 million albums. There was only one other artist who sold more during that period (Eminem).
  • They had the number one selling album during that time period.
I wouldn't underestimate the value of having the Beatles in iTunes.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 118
11/17/10 at 6:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill-G View Post

<yawn> So Apple paid more for the catalog, and got a few months of exclusive.

Nobody knows what Apple is paying. It could have been the same thing, or even less than what was being offered by Amazon or Google. Apple did have the advantage of customer base, and surely that meant a lot to Apple Corps. Apple could have given them a sales minimum as well, or even advance bulk payment (which would have been especially tempting for EMI which is reportedly in need of some quick cash), and with Apple's credit, they could afford to do so without worrying about cash flow.

To assume that Apple paid more shows a certain amount of ignorance.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 118
11/17/10 at 6:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

This is not intended for the people who already have all the CDs, it's intended for a new generation who don't have the CDs, anyone with half a brain could see that but I suspect all the bitchy comments will keep coming regardless. I bet their songs/albums will dominate the iTunes charts over the next few weeks & months as MILLIONS of people update their back catalogue.

You wouldn't have "bitchy" comments had this been announced years ago... Especially from the 'Coolest Band' in the world that would sing "the word is love" and bed sleep-in's for 'give peace a chance', when in actuality, it was 'money, that's what I want' all along! Beatles Corp greed helped in part with the demise of the band, and Beatles Corp greed delayed digital launch! I think we have a right to be "bitchy" regarding this and dare I say from these hypocrites.

Instant Karma my a$$!

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #21 of 118
11/17/10 at 6:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by vincentagniello View Post

Also, people had a very different attitude towards music in the 60s and 70s.

Yeah, we believed in melody.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 118
11/17/10 at 6:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by barton springs View Post

The news that Apple has brought The Beatles to iTunes is great news but people on this forum have seen fit to trash Steve and Apple for it. Apple is the coolest computer company in the world and it's only fitting that now Apple is the *exclusive seller* of the coolest band's (of all time!) digital music on iTunes.

I have to think that you are all Apple fans or else you wouldn't care enough to be on this forum and this latest news is a great thing for Apple and very very cool. At the very least try to appreciate the coolness of this move by Steve to be cutting edge and be the first to get rights to The Beatles music over all the others like Google and Amazon.

Have a beautiful day

Rick in Austin

Rah! Rah! Rah!
Sis Boom Bah!
Goooooooo Steve!

Sorry, had a high school flashback prompted by that post.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 118
11/17/10 at 6:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by debusoh View Post

As I was poking around the web yesterday after the announcement, I came upon this factoid:
  • For the decade from 2000-2009, the Beatles sold over 30 million albums. There was only one other artist who sold more during that period (Eminem).
  • They had the number one selling album during that time period.
I wouldn't underestimate the value of having the Beatles in iTunes.

Thanks for supplying the numbers. Most current musical artists would kill to sell so many albums.

This "special event" is somewhat of a big deal, being that they have exclusivity over Amazon and Google. And all the press coverage equates to a ridiculous amount of free advertising for Apple.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 118
11/17/10 at 7:00am
I'll be obtaining a few songs from their catalog. I don't own any of their cds or albums. But I have about 4 or 5 songs I like I will be picking up.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 118
11/17/10 at 7:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

I agree Rick...A lot of negative people on these boards. I get tired of their bilious remarks, too!

Best.

It's not the negativity that bothers me as much as the self-centered nature of it: "If I'm not interested in the Beatles, then it's not news...or a bad decision by Apple." Reminds me of a recent magazine cover in which they take "We the people..." and change it to "Me, the people..." Everything has become about "me", not others, not the market, not the industry. Personally, I'm not interested in a MacBook Air, because I still do want a machine with an optical drive and large HDD, but that doesn't mean I think Apple shouldn't have produced such a model. I might not be in the market for a 2-seater sports car, but that doesn't mean I think any given car company shouldn't make one.

Not every Apple announcement is about "you" and not every Apple product will be for "you".

I might not personally agree with everything Apple does, and their arrogance is a bit grating, but I recognize that they're incredibly successful, possibly the best-managed large corporation in the world; that they've executed near-perfectly during the worst recession since 1930 and have continued to confound their critics. When Apple makes a decision I disagree with, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt because in the end - they've been proven right time after time. If Apple has made any mistakes in the last five years, it has to do with not being able to manufacture enough products to meet demand. Every company should have such a problem.

The fact is that regardless of Steve's personal admiration of the Beatles, the Beatles are the largest selling musical group of all time, their albums continue to sell well as catalog titles year after year and without their tracks, there is a tremendous gap in any digital musical offering. While it's true that most fans would have simply copied tracks from the CDs, there is a whole generation of people who will probably never again purchase a CD. The music is there for them (and for people who buy the new generation of Apple computers that don't have CD readers.) And news reports so far indicate that many Beatles tracks are high on the iTunes charts, so obviously, there are plenty of people who were waiting to be able to download them.

If you're not into the Beatles, fine, don't buy the tracks. But don't take the indefensible (and immature) position that it's meaningless because the music is old. That's like saying that a movie site shouldn't have titles like Metropolis, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, Lawrence of Arabia, The Godfather, etc.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 118
11/17/10 at 7:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by debusoh View Post

As I was poking around the web yesterday after the announcement, I came upon this factoid:
  • For the decade from 2000-2009, the Beatles sold over 30 million albums. There was only one other artist who sold more during that period (Eminem).
  • They had the number one selling album during that time period.
I wouldn't underestimate the value of having the Beatles in iTunes.

Here's more.

As reported, to the question "How many albums have the Beatles have sold?"


Quote:
Over 500 Million Albums...
  • Search for "Best Selling Artists" or "The Beatles" at Wikipedia.com, theres the proof there.
  • During the period 1964 - 1985 the answer is 75 million (74,786,835 million to be exact).
  • During the period 1991 - 2008 the answer is 57 million (source: SoundScan results quoted in Randy Lewis, "Beatles' catalog will be reissued Sept. 9 in remastered versions," Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2009).
  • My informed estimate is that during the period 1986 - 1990 they sold approximately 1.5 million albums per year, for a total of approximately 7.5 million.
  • Thus the answer to the question is approximately 139.5 million albums since 1964.
  • Total = 1.1 billion+
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_albums_did_the_Beatles_sell


Let's see. At an average of 12 songs per album that would be over
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 118
11/17/10 at 7:12am
Exactly! Well said zoetmb.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 118
11/17/10 at 7:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by zindako View Post

While I appreciate how legendary this band and its set of people and their musical work has been over the decades, old music is old music, meh.

As opposed to Justin Beiber, I suppose.

Meh to your meh.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 118
11/17/10 at 7:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The songs were immediately strong sellers, with the iTunes LP for "Abbey Road" at No. 7 on the iTunes album charts as of Wednesday morning. The self-titled white album came in at No. 8, while "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" was No. 10.

So, for all of the people (including me) who thought that everyone who wanted Beatles music already had it...

#7, #8, and #10 on iTunes most popular albums clearly says otherwise.

I had expected to see lots of people buying the few songs from the White Album, but not to buy the entire album itself.

I wonder what this is going to look like over Christmas. Between new iPods/iPhones/iPads and iTunes gift cards, how high can these go (esp. with Amazon left out of the digital distribution).

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MC700LL/A MD481LL/A MD644LL/A MD388LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MC700LL/A MD481LL/A MD644LL/A MD388LL/A

Reply
post #30 of 118
11/17/10 at 7:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

It's not the negativity that bothers me as much as the self-centered nature of it: "If I'm not interested in the Beatles, then it's not news...or a bad decision by Apple." Reminds me of a recent magazine cover in which they take "We the people..." and change it to "Me, the people..." Everything has become about "me", not others, not the market, not the industry. Personally, I'm not interested in a MacBook Air, because I still do want a machine with an optical drive and large HDD, but that doesn't mean I think Apple shouldn't have produced such a model. I might not be in the market for a 2-seater sports car, but that doesn't mean I think any given car company shouldn't make one.

Not every Apple announcement is about "you" and not every Apple product will be for "you".

I might not personally agree with everything Apple does, and their arrogance is a bit grating, but I recognize that they're incredibly successful, possibly the best-managed large corporation in the world; that they've executed near-perfectly during the worst recession since 1930 and have continued to confound their critics. When Apple makes a decision I disagree with, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt because in the end - they've been proven right time after time. If Apple has made any mistakes in the last five years, it has to do with not being able to manufacture enough products to meet demand. Every company should have such a problem.

The fact is that regardless of Steve's personal admiration of the Beatles, the Beatles are the largest selling musical group of all time, their albums continue to sell well as catalog titles year after year and without their tracks, there is a tremendous gap in any digital musical offering. While it's true that most fans would have simply copied tracks from the CDs, there is a whole generation of people who will probably never again purchase a CD. The music is there for them (and for people who buy the new generation of Apple computers that don't have CD readers.) And news reports so far indicate that many Beatles tracks are high on the iTunes charts, so obviously, there are plenty of people who were waiting to be able to download them.

If you're not into the Beatles, fine, don't buy the tracks. But don't take the indefensible (and immature) position that it's meaningless because the music is old. That's like saying that a movie site shouldn't have titles like Metropolis, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, Lawrence of Arabia, The Godfather, etc.

I agree as well.

And like I just posted on yesterday's forum
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

When apple announced that it was a "day you'll never forget"... 1800+ people were viewing the iPod/iTunes/AppleTV forum!

Day after the announcement... 80 people are viewing the forum.

Even the network news was commenting on missed expectations last night. Granted, it is not a big deal at all. We can't really blame a company for hyping an announcement. But we also can't blame people for commenting when it doesn't live up to the hype.

Yep. Like yesterday there were 67 members here. Today there are 6.

More important, The Beatles have taken more spots on the US iTunes Top Charts (Music Downloads), mastering 58 of the top 200 spots. Thus surpassing Glee. And that is only after one day.

I would suggest that The Beatles are in fact No. 1 on the world iTunes Top Chart list. Canada has 45 in the Top 200, but like every other country, the music selection is different.

It amazes me just how centric we are. This site rarely has more that 400 visitors at any one time, of which only 10-20 are members. And if we look at the 370 comments posted here, there are less than 50 members making them.

I still don't understand how Apple 'hyped'. There was no press release, no press conference. Most of the world, and that includes the US, wasn't even aware that anything was coming. The non-technical media didn't know. Heck, none of my colleagues, clients, friends and family didn't until I informed them.

As I has stated before, The Beatles are a big thing on iTunes. Most of the world doesn't have a single playable, i.e., pleasantly listenable, song by the group. Heck, even the most mad Beatles fans don't have a playable copy or one they would, could get out or even find their old 45's, to spin the disc.

Today, we can still buy vinyl, though rare, 8-track, cassettes, 45,'s and LP's are getting rarer. CD's, well maybe today, but lets face it, tomorrow our kids only source of music will the the iTunes Store and the wannabes' here now and to come.
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 118
11/17/10 at 7:20am
I am endlessly amused at people that are let down by all of the hype, by hype you mean an image on the homepage, there was no press conference / special event, there was no huge pre-announcement, it was an image, people got caught up in the press because that was the only hype, free marketing and brilliant at that.

The 2 stories here are that yes apple did land the biggest group in history to be exclusive to iTunes for a decent amount of time (can Pink Floyd oh and sorry a band relevant to the 'haters' Metallica be far behind?) and secondly and more of a feather in Apple's cap that they beat out Google (I guess they were going to sell songs in um android market? haha) and Amazon. Amazon is their real competition here and I am sure it was a blow to them to lose out to Apple, hence they are bombing the prices of all of their Beatles albums, they are taking a HUGE hit to their profit margin on this.
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 118
11/17/10 at 7:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

So much for Apple's cash reserve of 50 billion!

You know there was no way Steve would let Apple get outbid for exclusive Beatles rights. I wouldn't be surprised if Google and Amazon ran up the bidding on purpose knowing Apple would top their bids no matter how high they were.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 118
11/17/10 at 7:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NomadMac View Post

Yeah, we believed in melody.

amen

As for iTunes and Apple corp,

Funny comments as far as this deal might have even made a dent in the 50 billion. Get serious.

For all of you who are saying, who cares, or even assuming that no one cares. You know nothing of the music industry.

You all sound like the people that were claiming Apple was stupid when they made the ipod. (too expensive, who needs 1000 songs in their pocket)
Apple was stupid when they switched to Intell. (intell is crap, PowerPC is better)
Apple was stupid when they made the iPhone. (most expensive phone in the world, will never sell)
Apple was stupid when they made the iPad. (doesnt do flash, is not a real computer)

I dont know how many billions you smarter people with your opinions are sitting on... but I would guess 0.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 118
11/17/10 at 7:36am
You know, we get it. That some of you are bored by the Beatles.
Could you be bored a little quieter? Does it really require a posting or 37 every time their name comes up?
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 118
11/17/10 at 7:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

This is not intended for the people who already have all the CDs, it's intended for a new generation who don't have the CDs, anyone with half a brain could see that but I suspect all the bitchy comments will keep coming regardless. I bet their songs/albums will dominate the iTunes charts over the next few weeks & months as MILLIONS of people update their back catalogue.



but the CD complete set is still cheaper than the digital complete set....


http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-Stereo.../dp/B002BSHWUU
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 118
11/17/10 at 7:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandor View Post

but the CD complete set is still cheaper than the digital complete set....


http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-Stereo.../dp/B002BSHWUU

It is NOW, yesterday it was 129 dollars MORE. Another win for apple actually, amazon takes a huge hit to the bottom line on Beatles music, plus you have to import the CDs yourself not to mention you don't get the "apple exclusive" Washington concert and people that actually like the Beatles (not the 13yr olds here) will want to have a digital copy of that so it's worth the extra 20 bucks overall.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 118
11/17/10 at 7:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

It's not the negativity that bothers me as much as the self-centered nature of it: "If I'm not interested in the Beatles, then it's not news...or a bad decision by Apple." Reminds me of a recent magazine cover in which they take "We the people..." and change it to "Me, the people..." Everything has become about "me", not others, not the market, not the industry. Personally, I'm not interested in a MacBook Air, because I still do want a machine with an optical drive and large HDD, but that doesn't mean I think Apple shouldn't have produced such a model. I might not be in the market for a 2-seater sports car, but that doesn't mean I think any given car company shouldn't make one.

Not every Apple announcement is about "you" and not every Apple product will be for "you".

I might not personally agree with everything Apple does, and their arrogance is a bit grating, but I recognize that they're incredibly successful, possibly the best-managed large corporation in the world; that they've executed near-perfectly during the worst recession since 1930 and have continued to confound their critics. When Apple makes a decision I disagree with, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt because in the end - they've been proven right time after time. If Apple has made any mistakes in the last five years, it has to do with not being able to manufacture enough products to meet demand. Every company should have such a problem.

The fact is that regardless of Steve's personal admiration of the Beatles, the Beatles are the largest selling musical group of all time, their albums continue to sell well as catalog titles year after year and without their tracks, there is a tremendous gap in any digital musical offering. While it's true that most fans would have simply copied tracks from the CDs, there is a whole generation of people who will probably never again purchase a CD. The music is there for them (and for people who buy the new generation of Apple computers that don't have CD readers.) And news reports so far indicate that many Beatles tracks are high on the iTunes charts, so obviously, there are plenty of people who were waiting to be able to download them.

If you're not into the Beatles, fine, don't buy the tracks. But don't take the indefensible (and immature) position that it's meaningless because the music is old. That's like saying that a movie site shouldn't have titles like Metropolis, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, Lawrence of Arabia, The Godfather, etc.

Absolutely brilliant post!
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 118
11/17/10 at 7:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by barton springs View Post

The news that Apple has brought The Beatles to iTunes is great news but people on this forum have seen fit to trash Steve and Apple for it. Apple is the coolest computer company in the world and it's only fitting that now Apple is the *exclusive seller* of the coolest band's (of all time!) digital music on iTunes.

I have to think that you are all Apple fans or else you wouldn't care enough to be on this forum and this latest news is a great thing for Apple and very very cool. At the very least try to appreciate the coolness of this move by Steve to be cutting edge and be the first to get rights to The Beatles music over all the others like Google and Amazon.

Have a beautiful day

Rick in Austin

"The coolest computer company int he world"...huh. That really isn't saying much. So is Samsung the coolest printer company in the world? Not really great bragging rights.

But really, the Beatles?

I had hoped that the big announcement from yesterday was just a drea. Really Apple? Just the Beatles added to iTunes. While nice (I guess) it didn't warrant such hyperbole. But I guess when you are as rich as God you can waste time and money on anything you want...even if it is a life-long obsession with the Beatles. Thanks Steve, but it isn't like you brought the Beatles' music back after 40 years of total censorship...we can buy the CDs, tapes, minidiscs, LPs, SPs, etc....and have been able to for decades.

Now how about something relevant!!! iOS 4.2?
Apps for the Apple TV or just the ability to actually rent ALL of the iTunes library?
A subscription service for iTunes like the Zune service? 10 songs/month to keep + unlimited music!!!???

I am sure the more serious Apple fanboys can come up with something better than my list.

People here just don't seem to understand. This negativity towards this announcement isn't so much that many folks are ambivalent towards the Beatles' music, but that they are angered that Apple made such a big deal about the announcement. Many of us feel Jobs should be using the time and money towards more important issues related to Apple. To advertise that this news is a day people will never forget is nothing but Jobs' pure self-centered obsession with the Beatles and nothing more.

As I said before, I would much rather have the ability to actually rent the entire iTunes TV and movie library. I returned my Apple TV because (while nice) was so limited as a rental device that it was not worth the money. I (and others) are not going to "rent and delete" a TV show for $1.99. $.99 was acceptable, but $1.99 isn't.

Now THAT would have been worth an announcement (but still not to the point of saying it would be unforgettable).

Also, it was mentioned that buying the CDs requires importing them. Is that so hard? I taught my 94 year-old Mamaw how to import music into iTunes. That argument really has no merit.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 118
11/17/10 at 7:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

So THAT'S what Steve has been saving all those billions for! What is their balance now?

I was thinking the same thing!
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 118
11/17/10 at 7:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandor View Post

but the CD complete set is still cheaper than the digital complete set....

http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-Stereo.../dp/B002BSHWUU

Then buy it. However, be warned, that you will rarely listen to it. Like most CD's, DVD's, etc., the least watched or listened to are those we buy or are given.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple obtained exclusive rights to Beatles over Google, Amazon