The Beatles go digital with apples, but still not Apple's iTunes

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
The Beatles announced Wednesday they will release their music catalog digitally in December, but the iconic group's songs are still not due for release on iTunes.



Apple Corps Ltd., the company owned by The Beatles, and EMI Music will release the digitally remastered catalog on Dec. 7 overseas and Dec. 8 in North America in digital form via Beatles Stereo USB apples. The limited edition product will have a run of only 30,000.



The product will have a "specifically designed Flash interface" that uses 16GB of capacity to provide the audio in both lossless FLAC 44.1 Khz 24-bit and MP3 320KBps formats. The product, which costs $279.99 or £200.00, is compatible with both PC and Mac.



"This unique, apple-shaped USB drive is loaded with the re-mastered audio for The Beatles' 14 stereo titles, as well as all of the re-mastered CDs' visual elements, including 13 mini-documentary films about the studio albums, replicated original UK art, rare photos and expanded liner notes," the product description states.



On Sept. 9, the same day as the Apple keynote where new iPods were unveiled, The Beatles re-released their entire discography, remastered in stereo. The box set with CDs carries a suggested price of $219, meaning the limited edition USB stick runs with a $50 premium.







The new product is yet another sign that The Beatles could be softening up to the idea of potential future digital distribution. In September, the band's catalog was also included in the rhythm game The Beatles: Rock Band, which includes downloadable content for the Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and Wii.



Rumors of The Beatles' songs coming to iTunes have persisted for years. The move seems far more likely to happen soon than it did years ago, when Apple and Apple Corps were engaged in a trademark dispute. In 2007, those issues were resolved, leaving many to believe an appearance for digital downloads would soon follow, though it never did.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post




    The product will have a "specifically designed Flash interface" that uses 16GB of capacity to provide the audio in both lossless FLAC 44.1 Khz 24-bit and MP3 320KBps formats. The product, which costs $279.99 or £200.00, is compatible with both PC and Mac.



    So they're selling them on USB keys in unprotected format, but not on a (reasonably) secure store? What have they been smoking... (don't answer that...)
  • Reply 2 of 88
    Who???
  • Reply 3 of 88
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Don't mess with Yoko. You steal Apple name, you get no Beatles music.



    Meanwhile, my Mono Box Set arrived last weekend. 2nd pressing. I have only played the first disc. Sweet!
  • Reply 4 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by philb View Post


    So they're selling them on USB keys in unprotected format, but not on a (reasonably) secure store? What have they been smoking... (don't answer that...)



    Well I think the major thing is they are still stuck with this idea that they want people to buy the whole damn thing rather than just a few songs or even a CD or two. Eventually they'll milk it out to the point where they realize that iTunes isn't going to cannibalize their idiotic addiction to selling $200+ sets and then they are going to realize that, holy crap, they could have made way, way, way more if they had just put the CDs out on iTunes at 1 month increments and allow people to download a track at a time at $1.29.



    They are arguably worse than George Lucas IMO...
  • Reply 5 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by philb View Post


    So they're selling them on USB keys in unprotected format, but not on a (reasonably) secure store? What have they been smoking... (don't answer that...)



    Most music on iTunes is no longer DRM'ed, so you could share it just as easily. And considering how long Beatles albums have been on Napster/Kaazaa/torrents, etc. this obv. won't affect anything.



    Those are some pretty sweet flash drives/apples by the way...
  • Reply 6 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Don't mess with Yoko. You steal Apple name, you get no Beatles music.



    Meanwhile, my Mono Box Set arrived last weekend. 2nd pressing. I have only played the first disc. Sweet!



    Wow, color me surprised but I never imagined you, of all people, would shell out hundreds of $'s for decades old music that you can get from isohunt.com for free.
  • Reply 7 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by floccus View Post


    Most music on iTunes is no longer DRM'ed, so you could share it just as easily. And considering how long Beatles albums have been on Napster/Kaazaa/torrents, etc. this obv. won't affect anything.



    Those are some pretty sweet flash drives/apples by the way...



    How ya like them apples?



    /sorry, I had to
  • Reply 8 of 88
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post


    Wow, color me surprised but I never imagined you, of all people, would shell out hundreds of $'s for decades old music that you can get from isohunt.com for free.



    Is it lossless? Does it come with reproductions of original vinyl sleaves and inserts? Do I steal?

    NO and NO and HUH?
  • Reply 9 of 88
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,716member
    Meh. I picked up the remastered CD of all the albums I care about (RS, R, SP, MMT, WA, AR, LIB, + Past Masters) in September and made my own 320kbs AAC rips. So this means nothing to me.



    If they ever do get around to releasing their stuff on iTunes, Amazon MP3, etc. it'll still probably be "album only" and not per song. A missed opportunity IMO but it's their decision to make. The only way to get just a handful* of Beatles songs is to steal music... Brilliant business decision (NOT!).



    * Does ANYONE sit down and listen to the whole White Album?
  • Reply 10 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Is it lossless? Does it come with reproductions of original vinyl sleaves and inserts? Do I steal?

    NO and NO and HUH?



    Actually, I thnk it's a YES to the first item. And really, you're ok with paying a premium for REPRODUCTIONS of the original sleeve?



    Like I said, arguably worse than George Lucas (I like both the Beatles and Star Wars but the endless money grab of both is just embarassing)
  • Reply 11 of 88
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,125member
    Most who care about the Beatles already have the albums.
  • Reply 12 of 88
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post


    Actually, I thnk it's a YES to the first item. And really, you're ok with paying a premium for REPRODUCTIONS of the original sleeve?



    Like I said, arguably worse than George Lucas (I like both the Beatles and Star Wars but the endless money grab of both is just embarassing)



    Lucas is much worse- you can't even get the original Star Wars anymore. He's altered it so much then released it but letterboxed it and not anamoorphic.
  • Reply 13 of 88
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    Most who care about the Beatles already have the albums.



    or just bought them
  • Reply 14 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by John.B View Post


    Meh. I picked up the remastered CD of all the albums I care about (RS, R, SP, MMT, WA, AR, LIB, + Past Masters) in September and made my own 320kbs AAC rips. So this means nothing to me.



    If they ever do get around to releasing their stuff on iTunes, Amazon MP3, etc. it'll still probably be "album only" and not per song. A missed opportunity IMO but it's their decision to make.



    So long as they continue to do that there will continue to be torrents out there - the people are going to find a way to get what they want. If you offer it to them in the way they want it (iTunes, Amazon.com, etc) it has been shown that people are willing to pay for it but if you refuse to give the people what they want they will find other ways of getting it and the only way of getting anything from the Beatles on a per song basis is via torrents so...
  • Reply 15 of 88
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by philb View Post


    So they're selling them on USB keys in unprotected format, but not on a (reasonably) secure store? What have they been smoking... (don't answer that...)



    I don't think iTunes still sells protected music. They might, but I think most of the catalog has shifted already.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post


    Well I think the major thing is they are still stuck with this idea that they want people to buy the whole damn thing rather than just a few songs or even a CD or two. Eventually they'll milk it out to the point where they realize that iTunes isn't going to cannibalize their idiotic addiction to selling $200+ sets and then they are going to realize that, holy crap, they could have made way, way, way more if they had just put the CDs out on iTunes at 1 month increments and allow people to download a track at a time at $1.29.



    They are arguably worse than George Lucas IMO...



    That I've heard, The Beatles didn't alter the songs to say different things in the newer remastered release, so maybe not as bad as Lucas? I'm told it's a faithful restoration of the original work. They are selling the individual remastered CDs. Why they can't do any digital downloads, that is quite the mystery.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post


    Wow, color me surprised but I never imagined you, of all people, would shell out hundreds of $'s for decades old music that you can get from isohunt.com for free.



    Maybe he has more scruples than you expected?



    Besides, I've seen the mono set, it has very nice packaging, and the designs appear to be faithful reproductions of the original packaging and liner notes, just scaled down for CD size.
  • Reply 16 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    Lucas is much worse- you can't even get the original Star Wars anymore. He's altered it so much then released it but letterboxed it and not anamoorphic.



    It's just remastered... And yeah, the Beatles are just as bad as George - *cough* Beatles Rock Band *cough* (which, yeah, I own, I know I know)
  • Reply 17 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post




    That I've heard, The Beatles didn't alter the songs to say different things in the newer remastered release, so maybe not as bad as Lucas? I'm told it's a faithful restoration of the original work. They are selling the individual remastered CDs. Why they can't do any digital downloads, that is quite the mystery.




    I am specifically addressing the endless money grab not the changes he made and then unmade and then remade. Comparing the two in terms of artistic vision is a little hard (music vs movie) but comparing the endless re-release of the same thing over and over again in fancy new packaging is easy to compare.
  • Reply 18 of 88
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Besides, I've seen the mono set, it has very nice packaging, and the designs appear to be faithful reproductions of the original packaging and liner notes, just scaled down for CD size.



    It took me a long time to decide but I'm glad I did. I only had one CD of theirs previously. All the new Cds have been fully reviewed in the month's Sound and Vision and the Mono comes out on top as it has about everywhere else as well. I'm lucky they repressed it as it sold out so fast. I ordered it as soon I heard it was getting reissued- at Amazon. The sound is spectacular- and it's Mono! And the packaging is relatively small- excellent job.
  • Reply 19 of 88
    Good for them! I hope other artists and labels explore options of distributing music. It's too bad they're really excluding new fans of the music in this process, as most people discovering the Beatles probably can't afford the $279 price tag... but the older, more loyal fans, who probably already own all of this stuff can.
  • Reply 20 of 88
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post


    I am specifically addressing the endless money grab not the changes he made and then unmade and then remade. Comparing the two in terms of artistic vision is a little hard (music vs movie) but comparing the endless re-release of the same thing over and over again in fancy new packaging is easy to compare.



    Endless? I thought the Beatles didn't have a rerelease since the mid-80's and from what I understand, the new version does a very good job of restoring the music with technology that wasn't available in the 80's. Waiting 25 years to release a new version doesn't strike me as "endless re-releases", there even were a lot of fans begging for a restoration. Hard to see where the comparison is valid here against someone else that might have done different packaging every five years.
Sign In or Register to comment.