Yeah, it's kind of a stretch to suspect anything more than an innocent nod to the Apple record label. The idea that those kids knew then they'd build this huge computer corporation is unlikely.
It's a shame that some of these older artists are so slow to adapt. I agree that the Beatles (and AC/DC) remain relevant but they can't stay relevant if they shun developing delivery mediums.
Yeah, it's kind of a stretch to suspect anything more than an innocent nod to the Apple record label. The idea that those kids knew then they'd build this huge computer corporation is unlikely.
Right- tell that to all the "innocent nods" that have tried to use anything Apple has trademarked. Like the iPodLounge which Apple forced to change their name to the iLounge.
"is said to" simply means speculation. It does not mean fact...
Pardon me for not spending more time tracking down direct quotes amongst the tens of thousands of articles on the topic. Regardless, it is far from "doubtful."
Right- tell that to all the "innocent nods" that have tried to use anything Apple has trademarked. Like the iPodLounge which Apple forced to change their name to the iLounge.
I agree with this. Apple loves to promote its image as the cool anti-corporation, but really their current business practices are straight out of the corporate playbook.
I haven't tried recently but does the iTunes Genius even recognize The Beatles?
Yes and no. If you choose a Beatles song from your collection, the Genius will build a playlist around it, including other Beatles songs -- but (so far as I can tell), the Genius will never put a Beatles song in your playlist when you start with any other artist. Go figure.
Wrong- Because Jobs stole the name then insisted he would never go into the music business!
Stole the name? "Apple"? No, 'apple' is a generic word that existed long before the Beatles, Apple Computer, or any of the other hundreds of businesses that have used it in their title. Stealing a name would be using something unique like 'Exxon' that never existed before.
The entire conflict arose when computers (specifically Apple's) started to trade in music products, which Apple Corps had already trademarked worldwide for their own offerings. Back in 1976, when Apple Computer Inc. was formed, they had no plans to sell music, any more than they planned to sell mobile phones. Things obviously change.
Stole the name? "Apple"? No, 'apple' is a generic word that existed long before the Beatles, Apple Computer, or any of the other hundreds of businesses that have used it in their title. Stealing a name would be using something unique like 'Exxon' that never existed before.
The entire conflict arose when computers (specifically Apple's) started to trade in music products, which Apple Corps had already trademarked worldwide for their own offerings. Back in 1976, when Apple Computer Inc. was formed, they had no plans to sell music, any more than they planned to sell mobile phones. Things obviously change.
Fine - and whats your excuse for the word "Pod". Did Apple invent that?
Stole the name? "Apple"? No, 'apple' is a generic word that existed long before the Beatles, Apple Computer, or any of the other hundreds of businesses that have used it in their title. Stealing a name would be using something unique like 'Exxon' that never existed before.
The entire conflict arose when computers (specifically Apple's) started to trade in music products, which Apple Corps had already trademarked worldwide for their own offerings. Back in 1976, when Apple Computer Inc. was formed, they had no plans to sell music, any more than they planned to sell mobile phones. Things obviously change.
Correct.
And when they came out with Mac, Apple paid McIntosh Labs to license "Macintosh" so they wouldn't get into trouble.
[
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Wrong- Because Jobs stole the name then insisted he would never go into the music business!
No, it's not wrong. Apple paid because they got sued and lost.
Quote:
Like the iPodLounge which Apple forced to change their name to the iLounge
I don't believe it was ever publicly disclosed why the name was changed but at most likely it was at most a strongly worded letter from Apple attorneys. Doubt there was any actual legal action. Apple did not "force" them to do anything and Apple did not "force" them use iLounge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Yet highly likely.
SJ (self proclaimed devoted fan) certainly knew at the time ,1976, that the name Apple was already own by The Beatles.
And?
Quote:
Hence the future payments over the years to Apple Corps.
Incorrect.
The "future payments over the years to Apple Corps" were because of the lawsuits won by Apple Corp against, Apple Computer, Inc., not because Apple was a bunch of nice guys.
Quote:
Fine - and whats your excuse for the word "Pod". Did Apple invent that?
No, but what does the word “Pod” have to do with anything? Apple has trademarked the word “iPod” which is why iPodLounge.com is no longer used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whimvestor
Pardon me for not spending more time tracking down direct quotes amongst the tens of thousands of articles on the topic. Regardless, it is far from "doubtful."
Search all you want. Anything that says it is fact, is not, since even Jobs and Woz have not even said specifically/cannot agree/ are ambiguous to the specifics of why they chose the name.
NO- just simply release the new modelswithout all this unneccesary hoopla. Do you think Sony has to have an event when a new model of Blu-ray machine, HDTV, or PS3 comes out? ...
Actually, most companies do have events for these kinds of things. The only difference is that people attend the Apple events. The Apple events are actually small affairs in tiny rooms, the only thing that makes them seem like "big events" is the coverage. Sony has many times had similar events, just that no one covered them much and only ten people show up because the product is under-whelming and the hype non-existent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Steve Jobs stole Apple's name, then years later settled ...
False, just completely false. No one stole anything and when the settlement was announced it was Apple, not "Apple Corp." that came out on top if anything. Apple actually has the right to use the green apple logo if they want, and it was "Apple Corps." that had to stop referring to itself as simply "Apple."
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
... SJ (self proclaimed devoted fan) certainly knew at the time ,1976, that the name Apple was already own by The Beatles. Hence the future payments over the years to Apple Corps.
Wrong again. The name was not "owned by the Beatles" and the reason both were okay is that they were entirely separate business operating in two different countries. Apple Corps. was a record company only, Apple Computer was a computer company (obviously). It was only the fact that Apple Computer eventually got into the business of selling digital music that caused the lawsuits which were started by Apple Corps. and eventually settled amicably, but in reality mostly in Apple's (Computer) favour.
Even during the worst of it, no one in "the Beatles" thought that Steve Jobs stole anything or said anything of the kind. It was just that the management company that was at that point in charge of Apple Corps. (and some say it was only one old curmudgeon who has since left), thought that they should defend their name and logo.
Actually, most companies do have events for these kinds of things. The only difference is that people attend the Apple events. The Apple events are actually small affairs in tiny rooms, the only thing that makes them seem like "big events" is the coverage. Sony has many times had similar events, just that no one covered them much and only ten people show up because the product is under-whelming and the hype non-existent.
False, just completely false. No one stole anything and when the settlement was announced it was Apple, not "Apple Corp." that came out on top if anything. Apple actually has the right to use the green apple logo if they want, and it was "Apple Corps." that had to stop referring to itself as simply "Apple."
Wrong again. The name was not "owned by the Beatles" and the reason both were okay is that they were entirely separate business operating in two different countries. Apple Corps. was a record company only, Apple Computer was a computer company (obviously). It was only the fact that Apple Computer eventually got into the business of selling digital music that caused the lawsuits which were started by Apple Corps. and eventually settled amicably, but in reality mostly in Apple's (Computer) favour.
Even during the worst of it, no one in "the Beatles" thought that Steve Jobs stole anything or said anything of the kind. It was just that the management company that was at that point in charge of Apple Corps. (and some say it was only one old curmudgeon who has since left), thought that they should defend their name and logo.
Dude you state BS without backing it up. WHo owned Apple Corps if not the Beatles?
What Sony event was there to unveil the new wireless Blu-ray live machine?
How many time did Apple Inc pay Apple Corps over the years in settlements? Please stop the BS and list the facts.
That if Apple doesn't announce anything at all, they shouldn't have a conference? I guess he does have a point, but why is he assuming that there will only be one announcement: iPods with cameras? There will be more than iPods with cameras. At the very least it will be iPods with cameras and increased storage, and a new iTunes, with potentially much more.
Having been a kid at the time the Beatles arrived in the US, and later taking a deep interest in history and world affairs, I can honestly say that I know of no event in any time in history that created such an instant, immediate, wide-spread, global impact. Those of us who weren't around at the time simply cannot conceive of the profundity of the Beatles effect. Seeing a video of the crowd reaction of the Ed Sullivan show appearances doesn't begin to show what it was like. We are talking about literally millions of people of both genders just going nuts.
Indeed. I've heard tales that the summer Sgt. Pepper's was released, you could walk down neighborhood streets and hear the album's music wafting out of every house window. The Beatles were THAT ubiquitous. Nothing in today's music world even hints at this type of societal saturation. Or Sgt. Pepper's beginning-to-end quality. People listened to that entire album over and over. And over. When's the last time you heard a (non-"best of") album with no bad tracks?
What Sony event was there to unveil the new wireless Blu-ray live machine?
Why do you use anecdotal evidence like this? Sony doesn't announce every product at an event, Apple (believe it or not) doesn't announce every product an event. I have no idea why you choose Sony as an example since they have announced products in at least two independent events within the last month. When was the last time Apple announced a product at an event?
When's the last time you heard a (non-"best of") album with no bad tracks?
There are lots. But Sgt. Pepper's is amazing. Brian Wilson actually quit music for a while proclaiming that "the perfect rock album had already been created."
Ray LaMontagne has a great voice, but comparing a 3 album artist to The Beatles...? I don't think so. At the end of his career, then you can compare them.
Even though those issues were patched up years ago, the legendary band has been reluctant to allow its recordings to be made available in a digital format.
Comments
It's a shame that some of these older artists are so slow to adapt. I agree that the Beatles (and AC/DC) remain relevant but they can't stay relevant if they shun developing delivery mediums.
And?
Incorrect.
The "future payments over the years to Apple Corps" were beqause of the lawsuits won by Apple Corp against, Apple Computer, Inc.
.
Wrong- Because Jobs stole the name then insisted he would never go into the music business!
HELLO?????
If not- then where did he get the name? Why not abacus? Why the "$ettlement$"?
It's the Karma chameleon I tell you. No iTunes Beatles.
Yeah, it's kind of a stretch to suspect anything more than an innocent nod to the Apple record label. The idea that those kids knew then they'd build this huge computer corporation is unlikely.
Right- tell that to all the "innocent nods" that have tried to use anything Apple has trademarked. Like the iPodLounge which Apple forced to change their name to the iLounge.
And?
"is said to" simply means speculation. It does not mean fact...
Pardon me for not spending more time tracking down direct quotes amongst the tens of thousands of articles on the topic. Regardless, it is far from "doubtful."
Right- tell that to all the "innocent nods" that have tried to use anything Apple has trademarked. Like the iPodLounge which Apple forced to change their name to the iLounge.
I agree with this. Apple loves to promote its image as the cool anti-corporation, but really their current business practices are straight out of the corporate playbook.
I haven't tried recently but does the iTunes Genius even recognize The Beatles?
Yes and no. If you choose a Beatles song from your collection, the Genius will build a playlist around it, including other Beatles songs -- but (so far as I can tell), the Genius will never put a Beatles song in your playlist when you start with any other artist. Go figure.
Wrong- Because Jobs stole the name then insisted he would never go into the music business!
Stole the name? "Apple"? No, 'apple' is a generic word that existed long before the Beatles, Apple Computer, or any of the other hundreds of businesses that have used it in their title. Stealing a name would be using something unique like 'Exxon' that never existed before.
The entire conflict arose when computers (specifically Apple's) started to trade in music products, which Apple Corps had already trademarked worldwide for their own offerings. Back in 1976, when Apple Computer Inc. was formed, they had no plans to sell music, any more than they planned to sell mobile phones. Things obviously change.
Beatles ? I like them, but not half as much as
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrZkaj37kA0
Skip
Stole the name? "Apple"? No, 'apple' is a generic word that existed long before the Beatles, Apple Computer, or any of the other hundreds of businesses that have used it in their title. Stealing a name would be using something unique like 'Exxon' that never existed before.
The entire conflict arose when computers (specifically Apple's) started to trade in music products, which Apple Corps had already trademarked worldwide for their own offerings. Back in 1976, when Apple Computer Inc. was formed, they had no plans to sell music, any more than they planned to sell mobile phones. Things obviously change.
Fine - and whats your excuse for the word "Pod". Did Apple invent that?
Stole the name? "Apple"? No, 'apple' is a generic word that existed long before the Beatles, Apple Computer, or any of the other hundreds of businesses that have used it in their title. Stealing a name would be using something unique like 'Exxon' that never existed before.
The entire conflict arose when computers (specifically Apple's) started to trade in music products, which Apple Corps had already trademarked worldwide for their own offerings. Back in 1976, when Apple Computer Inc. was formed, they had no plans to sell music, any more than they planned to sell mobile phones. Things obviously change.
Correct.
And when they came out with Mac, Apple paid McIntosh Labs to license "Macintosh" so they wouldn't get into trouble.
[
Wrong- Because Jobs stole the name then insisted he would never go into the music business!
No, it's not wrong. Apple paid because they got sued and lost.
Like the iPodLounge which Apple forced to change their name to the iLounge
I don't believe it was ever publicly disclosed why the name was changed but at most likely it was at most a strongly worded letter from Apple attorneys. Doubt there was any actual legal action. Apple did not "force" them to do anything and Apple did not "force" them use iLounge.
Yet highly likely.
SJ (self proclaimed devoted fan) certainly knew at the time ,1976, that the name Apple was already own by The Beatles.
And?
Hence the future payments over the years to Apple Corps.
Incorrect.
The "future payments over the years to Apple Corps" were because of the lawsuits won by Apple Corp against, Apple Computer, Inc., not because Apple was a bunch of nice guys.
Fine - and whats your excuse for the word "Pod". Did Apple invent that?
No, but what does the word “Pod” have to do with anything? Apple has trademarked the word “iPod” which is why iPodLounge.com is no longer used.
Pardon me for not spending more time tracking down direct quotes amongst the tens of thousands of articles on the topic. Regardless, it is far from "doubtful."
Search all you want. Anything that says it is fact, is not, since even Jobs and Woz have not even said specifically/cannot agree/ are ambiguous to the specifics of why they chose the name.
NO- just simply release the new modelswithout all this unneccesary hoopla. Do you think Sony has to have an event when a new model of Blu-ray machine, HDTV, or PS3 comes out? ...
Actually, most companies do have events for these kinds of things. The only difference is that people attend the Apple events. The Apple events are actually small affairs in tiny rooms, the only thing that makes them seem like "big events" is the coverage. Sony has many times had similar events, just that no one covered them much and only ten people show up because the product is under-whelming and the hype non-existent.
Steve Jobs stole Apple's name, then years later settled ...
False, just completely false. No one stole anything and when the settlement was announced it was Apple, not "Apple Corp." that came out on top if anything. Apple actually has the right to use the green apple logo if they want, and it was "Apple Corps." that had to stop referring to itself as simply "Apple."
... SJ (self proclaimed devoted fan) certainly knew at the time ,1976, that the name Apple was already own by The Beatles. Hence the future payments over the years to Apple Corps.
Wrong again. The name was not "owned by the Beatles" and the reason both were okay is that they were entirely separate business operating in two different countries. Apple Corps. was a record company only, Apple Computer was a computer company (obviously). It was only the fact that Apple Computer eventually got into the business of selling digital music that caused the lawsuits which were started by Apple Corps. and eventually settled amicably, but in reality mostly in Apple's (Computer) favour.
Even during the worst of it, no one in "the Beatles" thought that Steve Jobs stole anything or said anything of the kind. It was just that the management company that was at that point in charge of Apple Corps. (and some say it was only one old curmudgeon who has since left), thought that they should defend their name and logo.
Actually, most companies do have events for these kinds of things. The only difference is that people attend the Apple events. The Apple events are actually small affairs in tiny rooms, the only thing that makes them seem like "big events" is the coverage. Sony has many times had similar events, just that no one covered them much and only ten people show up because the product is under-whelming and the hype non-existent.
False, just completely false. No one stole anything and when the settlement was announced it was Apple, not "Apple Corp." that came out on top if anything. Apple actually has the right to use the green apple logo if they want, and it was "Apple Corps." that had to stop referring to itself as simply "Apple."
Wrong again. The name was not "owned by the Beatles" and the reason both were okay is that they were entirely separate business operating in two different countries. Apple Corps. was a record company only, Apple Computer was a computer company (obviously). It was only the fact that Apple Computer eventually got into the business of selling digital music that caused the lawsuits which were started by Apple Corps. and eventually settled amicably, but in reality mostly in Apple's (Computer) favour.
Even during the worst of it, no one in "the Beatles" thought that Steve Jobs stole anything or said anything of the kind. It was just that the management company that was at that point in charge of Apple Corps. (and some say it was only one old curmudgeon who has since left), thought that they should defend their name and logo.
Dude you state BS without backing it up. WHo owned Apple Corps if not the Beatles?
What Sony event was there to unveil the new wireless Blu-ray live machine?
How many time did Apple Inc pay Apple Corps over the years in settlements? Please stop the BS and list the facts.
Please stop the BS and list the facts.
Agreed!
He has a point.
That if Apple doesn't announce anything at all, they shouldn't have a conference? I guess he does have a point, but why is he assuming that there will only be one announcement: iPods with cameras? There will be more than iPods with cameras. At the very least it will be iPods with cameras and increased storage, and a new iTunes, with potentially much more.
Having been a kid at the time the Beatles arrived in the US, and later taking a deep interest in history and world affairs, I can honestly say that I know of no event in any time in history that created such an instant, immediate, wide-spread, global impact. Those of us who weren't around at the time simply cannot conceive of the profundity of the Beatles effect. Seeing a video of the crowd reaction of the Ed Sullivan show appearances doesn't begin to show what it was like. We are talking about literally millions of people of both genders just going nuts.
Indeed. I've heard tales that the summer Sgt. Pepper's was released, you could walk down neighborhood streets and hear the album's music wafting out of every house window. The Beatles were THAT ubiquitous. Nothing in today's music world even hints at this type of societal saturation. Or Sgt. Pepper's beginning-to-end quality. People listened to that entire album over and over. And over. When's the last time you heard a (non-"best of") album with no bad tracks?
What Sony event was there to unveil the new wireless Blu-ray live machine?
Why do you use anecdotal evidence like this? Sony doesn't announce every product at an event, Apple (believe it or not) doesn't announce every product an event. I have no idea why you choose Sony as an example since they have announced products in at least two independent events within the last month. When was the last time Apple announced a product at an event?
When's the last time you heard a (non-"best of") album with no bad tracks?
There are lots. But Sgt. Pepper's is amazing. Brian Wilson actually quit music for a while proclaiming that "the perfect rock album had already been created."
Beatles ? I like them, but not half as much as
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrZkaj37kA0
Skip
Ray LaMontagne has a great voice, but comparing a 3 album artist to The Beatles...? I don't think so. At the end of his career, then you can compare them.
Beatles ? I like them, but not half as much as
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrZkaj37kA0
"Rayrolling?"
If you're going to rickroll, do it in style...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN75im_us4k
Even though those issues were patched up years ago, the legendary band has been reluctant to allow its recordings to be made available in a digital format.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
And all these many years I've been living with the mistaken belief that CDs are digital.