or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Coca-Cola turns to Apple for iTunes deal
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Coca-Cola turns to Apple for iTunes deal

post #1 of 45
Thread Starter 
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em -- Looking to rebound from a failing music venture of its own, Coca-Cola is reportedly in talks with Apple Computer over an iTunes promotion to hype its new no-calorie cola.

According to a report in Europe's DigitalBulletin, the soft-drink maker hopes to garner appeal for its Coke Zero brand by offering UK customers discounts at Apple's iTunes Music Store.

Word of the deal comes less than a week after Coca-Cola said it would cease operation of its Mycokemusic.com download service, which launched in 2004 with a music catalog of over 250,000 tracks.

The service -- once Europe's largest for legally downloaded music -- buckled quickly following Apple's entrance into the region with its European Union iTunes Music Store.

According to data from U.K. market research company XTN, iTunes held a 54 percent share of the British online music market in November 2005 compared to 6 percent for Mycokemusic.

As part of its deal with Apple, Coca-Cola is also reportedly in talks to sponsor digital content that will be accessible through iTunes.

Insiders told DigitalBulletin the iTunes tie-up could help Coca-Cola maintain its edge in the competitive UK soft-drinks market.

Twice before, Apple has teamed with Coke rival Pepsi Co. in offering similar promotions in the US.
post #2 of 45
Coke Zero is AWESOME. Puts Diet Coke to shame. Now it's the only cola I drink.
post #3 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by bdkennedy1
Coke Zero is AWESOME. Puts Diet Coke to shame. Now it's the only cola I drink.

The name certainly is not attractive. I dislike any diet soft drinks... then again, I dislike most soft drinks...

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #4 of 45
Drink unsweet iced tea instead, that way you don't get cancer from your drink.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #5 of 45
Instead you can get it from the mobile phones, toxic fumes quite prevalent in all major cities, microwaves or a ton of other things.

The only confirmed issue I have ever heard for diet drinks is that some people have a genetic condition that prevents the break down of one of the two amino acids that can form if the sugar replacement breaks down, the condition is called phenylketonuria if you're wondering.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #6 of 45
Coke Zero just tastes like a mix of normal Coke and Diet. I still find it ick. Prefer Vanilla or normal, myself.
post #7 of 45
This is good, I was always uncomfortable with Apple and Pepsi together, Coke is to Pepsi what Mac is to Windows. Everything Pepsi does (with the exception of Mountain Dew) is a ripoff of Coke. And Coke doesn't need Britney Spears to campaign for them *yuck*
post #8 of 45
I get a terrible aftertaste from all these artificial sweeteners in diet drinks.
So now I'm just left with drinking wine and (belgian) beer
post #9 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Drink unsweet iced tea instead, that way you don't get cancer from your drink.

I second that. Drink nothing but tea for a month, and all sodas will taste bizarre. I have lost over fifty pounds over the last year, mainly from eliminating soda from my diet. In my case it wasn't diet, because the chemicals in diet drinks can trigger migraines. But for regular soda, it is the corn syrup that is the problem.

Corn sweetener is fructose, as opposed to real sugar that is sucrose. Sucrose can be absorbed by every cell in your body, where as fructose can only be absorbed by the liver. And the liver struggles with it, clogging up the system and actually making you more hungry. If you look at the history, the soda companies switched to corns syrup in the 70's due to the Cuban embargo (sugar), and the fact that it become apparent that corn wasn't that good for you and farmers needed another way to sell their crop.

Ironically, the current obesity trends all started back then as well. And as for diet sodas, they are just as bad. Although they are low calorie, the chemicals are terrible for you. Not to mention that all carbonated water dehydrates you, causing more weight gain.
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
post #10 of 45
Coke could garner more goodwill by offering it's past customers the opportunity to exchange their previously purchased WMA music files for iTunes AAC files.

Customers don't feel like Coke has abandoned them.
Apple looses out on some initial profit
Apples gains new customers
Apple will gain future marketshare and profits
Apple will sell more iPods
post #11 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny Mozzarella
Coke could garner more goodwill by offering it's past customers the opportunity to exchange their previously purchased WMA music files for iTunes AAC files.

Customers don't feel like Coke has abandoned them.
Apple looses out on some initial profit
Apples gains new customers
Apple will gain future marketshare and profits
Apple will sell more iPods

and somehow MS sues them for breech of some obscure passage in the contract...
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #12 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by bdkennedy1
Coke Zero is AWESOME. Puts Diet Coke to shame. Now it's the only cola I drink.

What exactly is the difference between Coke Zero and Diet Coke?

I know Coke C2 is like a in-between-diet-and-regular-coke.
post #13 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by icfireball
What exactly is the difference between Coke Zero and Diet Coke?

I know Coke C2 is like a in-between-diet-and-regular-coke.

I've wondered about that myself. Diet Coke, after all, also has essentially zero calories. What's funny about C2 is that it was created to go after the low-carb diet crowd, but it has MORE carbs, sugary high-glycemic index carbs, than good ol' Diet Coke which has no appreciable carbs of any kind whatsoever.

Coke Zero does taste different, however. More Pepsi-ish tasting I seem to recall from the one time I tried it.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #14 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
The name certainly is not attractive. I dislike any diet soft drinks... then again, I dislike most soft drinks...

I used to drink Coke at least twice a day. But I gave up soft drinks, for the most part, and now drink Newman's Virgin Lemonade.
post #15 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by blue2kdave
I second that. Drink nothing but tea for a month, and all sodas will taste bizarre. I have lost over fifty pounds over the last year, mainly from eliminating soda from my diet. In my case it wasn't diet, because the chemicals in diet drinks can trigger migraines. But for regular soda, it is the corn syrup that is the problem.

Corn sweetener is fructose, as opposed to real sugar that is sucrose. Sucrose can be absorbed by every cell in your body, where as fructose can only be absorbed by the liver. And the liver struggles with it, clogging up the system and actually making you more hungry. If you look at the history, the soda companies switched to corns syrup in the 70's due to the Cuban embargo (sugar), and the fact that it become apparent that corn wasn't that good for you and farmers needed another way to sell their crop.

Ironically, the current obesity trends all started back then as well. And as for diet sodas, they are just as bad. Although they are low calorie, the chemicals are terrible for you. Not to mention that all carbonated water dehydrates you, causing more weight gain.

Fructose is real sugar. There are hundreds of real sugars. Fructose has less calories than sucrose, but it is also less sweet, ounce for ounce.
post #16 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Fructose is real sugar. There are hundreds of real sugars. Fructose has less calories than sucrose, but it is also less sweet, ounce for ounce.

Yes fructose is real sugar.
No, fructose is actually more sweet ounce for ounce, hence, the food industry replaces sucrose with HFCS(high fructose corn syrup) and saves money, getting the same sweetness.
Fructose has the same caloric content of sucrose ounce for ounce, but since it takes less to achieve the same sweetness level less is used and the product it is used in may be lower in calories.

a little fiction and fact from rickag's almanac
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #17 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by rickag
Yes fructose is real sugar.
No, fructose is actually more sweet ounce for ounce, hence, the food industry replaces sucrose with HFCS(high fructose corn syrup) and saves money, getting the same sweetness.
Fructose has the same caloric content of sucrose ounce for ounce, but since it takes less to achieve the same sweetness level less is used and the product it is used in may be lower in calories.

a little fiction and fact from rickag's almanac

HFCS is sweeter, it is true:

Relative Sweetness Scale - Sucrose = 100
Fructose 140
High Fructose Corn Syrup 120-160
Glucose 70-80
Galactose 35
Maltose 30-50
Lactose 20

But saying that the extra sweetness is the reason why companys save money using it is wrong. The reason why they save money is that the US charges a 150% tarrif on sugar (pushing it up to 2.5x world prices).

Not only do they tarrif sugar, but they subsidise corn. Without these two things, hfcs would not be used (as can be clearly seen in other countries withot the sugar tarrif, sugar is used in Coke). Worldwide, the price of the two sweeteners are roughly the same - but the worldwide price is still affected a bit by the US subsidies of corn.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #18 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Drink unsweet iced tea instead, that way you don't get cancer from your drink.

Do you have any references for that? My understanding is that epidemiological research has fairly well debunked the urban myth that artifical sweetners were linked to cancer. Of course, I don't have any references on me either!

I don't like coke et al. anyways though. I don't understand how people can drink so much of it. To each their own!
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #19 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by Flounder
Do you have any references for that? My understanding is that epidemiological research has fairly well debunked the urban myth that artifical sweetners were linked to cancer. Of course, I don't have any references on me either!

I don't like coke et al. anyways though. I don't understand how people can drink so much of it. To each their own!

It looks like you are right:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/f...ial-sweeteners

Of course, the FDA has also approved lots of things that ended up killing people.

I like regular coke - have a couple of cans per year. But I really hate the taste of artificial sweetners - has anyone here tried the left-handed sugar Tagatose?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagatose
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #20 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I used to drink Coke at least twice a day. But I gave up soft drinks, for the most part, and now drink Newman's Virgin Lemonade.

I gave up drinking carbonated beverages about 20 years ago.
I was surprised to learn recently that one of my favorite bottled waters, DASANI, is bottled by Coke.
post #21 of 45
it's my understanding (based on a friend's information, so i don't have an ultimate source) that diet coke was never meant to be coca cola without sugar. it was its own recipe designed to have its own taste. coke zero, on the other hand, IS intended to be coca cola without sugar, and therefore intended to taste more like regular coke. and i do like the taste of coke zero much more than diet coke. i gave up real coke; tried diet coke for a while, and then stopped drinking it. then, coke zero came out, and i'm back on the coke wagon.

when the pepsi promotion was originally announced, i was a bit disappointed, because i refuse to buy pepsi products. if a similar promotion were made with coke, i would be loading up on free itunes songs. lately, though, i have to admit that the pepsi promotions have been much better than coke's. i mean, what the hell is "my coke rewards"? you have to enter an 8 digit code on a website to stock up on points just to receive even the crappiest reward. i much prefer the "every 3 bottles is a winner" method (or whatever it was).

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
I've wondered about that myself. Diet Coke, after all, also has essentially zero calories. What's funny about C2 is that it was created to go after the low-carb diet crowd, but it has MORE carbs, sugary high-glycemic index carbs, than good ol' Diet Coke which has no appreciable carbs of any kind whatsoever.

Coke Zero does taste different, however. More Pepsi-ish tasting I seem to recall from the one time I tried it.
post #22 of 45
As far as I'm concerned, Splenda (aka Sucralose) is the only "artificial" sweetener that is worth anything. It is sweeter than saccharin and aspartame, both of which are linked to cancer.

It is made from sugar and his considerably more healthy (rather to say -- less carcinogenic)
post #23 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by icfireball
As far as I'm concerned, Splenda (aka Sucralose) is the only "artificial" sweetener that is worth anything. It is sweeter than saccharin and aspartame, both of which are linked to cancer.

It is made from sugar and his considerably more healthy (rather to say -- less carcinogenic)

Much clinical testing suggests that the only way splenda is less carcinogenic than saccharin and aspartame is that is hasn't been around long enough for people to find out about it. Google <splenda dangerous> or something like that. It seems splenda was shown conclusively to be carcinogenic in lab rats (as Aspartame and Saccharin were before they were approved by the FDA many years ago). They still get approved on the basis that there are significant differences between rat and human responses. The catch: Human testing for carcinogenity is not even required!

As far as taste goes, they all taste pretty disgusting to me; Maybe if you get used to them...

(By the way "made from sugar" is pretty much double-speak--just for advertising. doesn't really have much bearing on the chemical characteristics. In fact, chemically, splenda is closer to certain pesticides than sucrose-not that this necessarily means much either)
post #24 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by rickag
Yes fructose is real sugar.
No, fructose is actually more sweet ounce for ounce, hence, the food industry replaces sucrose with HFCS(high fructose corn syrup) and saves money, getting the same sweetness.
Fructose has the same caloric content of sucrose ounce for ounce, but since it takes less to achieve the same sweetness level less is used and the product it is used in may be lower in calories.

a little fiction and fact from rickag's almanac

Oops! I got the fructose, sucrose sweetness ratio backwards. But, otherwise they are the smae. Fructose requires one less step to digest though.

It is much cheaper, as e1618978, and for those reasons.
post #25 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny Mozzarella
I gave up drinking carbonated beverages about 20 years ago.
I was surprised to learn recently that one of my favorite bottled waters, DASANI, is bottled by Coke.

Dasani...hmmm. I don't know exactly how they market the stuff in the US but THIS article may be of interest to you.

In the UK the consumer expects a "pure bottled water" to be sourced from a spring. Dasani certainly was not.

OT. Anyhow...
post #26 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
This is good, I was always uncomfortable with Apple and Pepsi together, Coke is to Pepsi what Mac is to Windows. Everything Pepsi does (with the exception of Mountain Dew) is a ripoff of Coke. And Coke doesn't need Britney Spears to campaign for them *yuck*

I always thought it was the opposite that Pepsi is to Mac that Coca Cola is to WIndows.

But that's my opinion that Pepsi is 2nd best but better than Coca Cola in my opinion.
post #27 of 45
Oh my GOD you guys think too much. You could drop your Big Mac while you're driving and get in an accident and die tomorrow. You're going to die of something. So I'm going to stick with my one Coke Zero a day and enjoy it.
post #28 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by Mitch1984
I always thought it was the opposite that Pepsi is to Mac that Coca Cola is to WIndows.

It is like that to be an analogy in which this is distinguished I, that, it thinks. Somehow the Pepsi and the Mac the unit could do it at Coca Cola and at the window, which are within only still something, the product are compared, but are it nevertheless a Shedding of the blood, the line of the products of the identical water are identical. This analogy is many and it, I the fact is understood that it positively means.
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #29 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by CharlesS
It is like that to be an analogy in which this is distinguished I, that, it thinks. Somehow the Pepsi and the Mac the unit could do it at Coca Cola and at the window, which are within only still something, the product are compared, but are it nevertheless a Shedding of the blood, the line of the products of the identical water are identical. This analogy is many and it, I the fact is understood that it positively means.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but could you run that by me again?
post #30 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but could you run that by me again?

And you the run by I in rudeness waking, such thoughts identical to water.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #31 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by Mitch1984
I always thought it was the opposite that Pepsi is to Mac that Coca Cola is to WIndows.

But that's my opinion that Pepsi is 2nd best but better than Coca Cola in my opinion.

Pepsi = Republican
Coke = Democrat
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #32 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
And you the run by I in rudeness waking, such thoughts identical to water.

huh? Nothing is making sense
post #33 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by MiMac
Dasani...hmmm. I don't know exactly how they market the stuff in the US but THIS article may be of interest to you.

In the UK the consumer expects a "pure bottled water" to be sourced from a spring. Dasani certainly was not.

OT. Anyhow...

In the US, the consumer expects "Spring Water" to be sourced from a spring

That, and, IMO, Dasani is better than about 90% of spring water.
post #34 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by icfireball
What exactly is the difference between Coke Zero and Diet Coke?

I know Coke C2 is like a in-between-diet-and-regular-coke.

Coke Zero is supposedly being marketed towards men, who have a stigma towards "diet" drinks.
post #35 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
huh? Nothing is making sense

Really, he is full and it is understood. 1 thing, that is, only does not hit the two and is its understanding, that understands that the necessity, that does not understand is understood.
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #36 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by meelash
(By the way "made from sugar" is pretty much double-speak--just for advertising. doesn't really have much bearing on the chemical characteristics. In fact, chemically, splenda is closer to certain pesticides than sucrose-not that this necessarily means much either)

I was talking to a good friend who is a chemist, and he said that Splenda, actually is made from sugar, but just reduced to a zero calorie alcohol form.
post #37 of 45
water all the way, only one formula so like apple the choice is simple, however it does not yet come in powdered form!

seriously folks drinking water is cheaper and way better for you, its the part of the original OS that we all share!

Rod
post #38 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Fructose is real sugar. There are hundreds of real sugars. Fructose has less calories than sucrose, but it is also less sweet, ounce for ounce.

I guess I need to be more careful about my terms, what I was referring to was fructose vs pure cane sugar. I see every one is commenting on the sweetness of various sweetners, but for you experts is my understanding about the absorption of fructose vs sucrose accurate? Seems to have worked for me...
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
post #39 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by blue2kdave
I guess I need to be more careful about my terms, what I was referring to was fructose vs pure cane sugar. I see every one is commenting on the sweetness of various sweetners, but for you experts is my understanding about the absorption of fructose vs sucrose accurate? Seems to have worked for me...

Quote:
Originally posted by blue2kdave
Corn sweetener is fructose, as opposed to real sugar that is sucrose. Sucrose can be absorbed by every cell in your body, where as fructose can only be absorbed by the liver. And the liver struggles with it, clogging up the system and actually making you more hungry. If you look at the history, the soda companies switched to corns syrup in the 70's due to the Cuban embargo (sugar), and the fact that it become apparent that corn wasn't that good for you and farmers needed another way to sell their crop.

Not true - All sugars are eventually converted to glucose before they are absorbed, so there is no way that sucrose can make it to "every cell in your body" (only the lining of your stomach and intestine will ever see sucrose). I think that the main difference between fructose and sucrose is that fructose is absorbed in the stomach, while sucrose has to wait to be broken down (into glucose and fructose) in the intestine before it can be absorbed. Both fructose and sucrose cause tooth decay.

There is a diet based on the early absorbtion of fructose, called the "specific carbohydrate diet" - which is used to treat intestinal problems caused by sugar fed bacteria.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #40 of 45
Quote:
Originally posted by icfireball
I was talking to a good friend who is a chemist, and he said that Splenda, actually is made from sugar, but just reduced to a zero calorie alcohol form.

Yes, it is made from real sugar that is chlorinated (read all about it on wikipedia.org). The point is that this fact means nothing safety-wise or nutritionally wise--You could chemically manufacture all kinds of dangerous things out of all kinds of safe household things. hence, the fact that it's "made from sugar" really has no bearing in any sphere of discussion.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Coca-Cola turns to Apple for iTunes deal