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.
"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.
Blah, blah, blah. You're ticked off because Apple made a big deal over this announcement. News Flash: Apple makes a big deal over EVERY announcement! That's what they do and they do it right. Steve is the PT Barnum of his day and we love him for it.
Second News Flash: They must have done something right because their numbers show the Beatles albums are shooting up the sales charts on iTunes, despite what you and the minority of haters say here.
Nice job dragging your feet...real Beatles fans ripped their CD's years ago.
If they did, they might want to revisit the 2009 remasters. Esp. if they are encoding at 320kbs or lossless. Much improved audio quality over the original CD releases from the '80s IMO.
Amazon have had the entire library of Beatles music on high quality CDs for years, and for a much lower price than iTunes.
So I don't think Amazon are going to lose any sleep over this.
Amazon knows exactly how many people are willing to do an impulse buy of an MP3 download vs. how many will actually buy the CD, have it shipped, then import that into iTunes or whatever when it arrives a week later (i.e. via Super Saver Shipping).
Look at the top selling albums and songs in iTunes this week. Check again periodically throughout the Christmas holiday.
I'm sure Bezos doesn't think they "won" for being able to continue to stock the CDs.
Edit: I wonder if they can still get Beatles logo'ed iTunes cards in stores in time for Christmas.
One image on a website??!! Get a grip, Wonder! It's obvious from a great number of the posts on AI that this was built up for weeks with full page ads in every major paper, 3 minute spots every hour on every major network for the past month and 10,000 billboard ads across the US...
I'll never trust Apple again...
By the way you're reacting, what Apple did worked perfectly. It was a day you'll never forget.
Its not about likes - it is all about wants. Steve wanted the Beatles catalog. And what Steve wants, Steve gets. Good thing he's on our side. we all benefit.
Fortunately, most of the world is more honest than you. What you're proposing is a crime.
I'm glad that Apple was able to get the music in iTunes - causing Amazon to drop the price significantly. I would never have paid the old list price (over $250), but might consider buying it at $129.
However, I think the iTunes version has some minor stuff that isn't on the Amazon box set. Still, I would probably choose the box set - but can understand why others would choose the digital.
What the heck? Do you really think Amazon sold it at list price EVER? That's retarded. Even they list other sellers going for $89.
Saying Amazon lowered the price in half overnight by looking at the list price is utterly, messed up stupid. Other cds listed there have a list price of $19, and they NEVER sold at that price.
I wish there were a way to program the forum software so that once a particular point of view had been expressed, oh, I don't know, 10 times, attempting to SAY THE SAME GODDAMN THING AGAIN would give you a "Really? Have you even looked at the thread?" error message.
Case in point: this thread consists of about a dozen opinions, posted over and over and over and over again by different people. If you're willing to wade through that, occasionally there's a salient point or thoughtful observation.
--People shouldn't care about this, because the Beatles are old, have been available on CD, are cheaper on CD, never were any good, continue to be old.
-- People are outraged because Apple led us to believe something actually cool was afoot, and it wasn't.
-- No, people should not be outraged because Apple just put up a little teaser, and the rest was the usual web feeding frenzy.
-- Beatles are still selling well, were groundbreaking, still relevant, influential, good for Apple.
-- Old music was better.
-- New music sucks.
-- No, old music is old. Anyway, where's my streaming iTunes?
I wish there were a way to program the forum software so that once a particular point of view had been expressed, oh, I don't know, 10 times, attempting to SAY THE SAME GODDAMN THING AGAIN would give you a "Really? Have you even looked at the thread?" error message.
Case in point: this thread consists of about a dozen opinions, posted over and over and over and over again by different people. If you're willing to wade through that, occasionally there's a salient point or thoughtful observation.
--People shouldn't care about this, because the Beatles are old, have been available on CD, are cheaper on CD, never were any good, continue to be old.
-- People are outraged because Apple led us to believe something actually cool was afoot, and it wasn't.
-- No, people should not be outraged because Apple just put up a little teaser, and the rest was the usual web feeding frenzy.
-- Beatles are still selling well, were groundbreaking, still relevant, influential, good for Apple.
-- Old music was better.
-- New music sucks.
-- No, old music is old. Anyway, where's my streaming iTunes?
Does that about cover it? Can we stop now?
You're the third person to give us a synopsis of this thread.
--People shouldn't care about this, because the Beatles are old, have been available on CD, are cheaper on CD, never were any good, continue to be old.
-- People are outraged because Apple led us to believe something actually cool was afoot, and it wasn't.
-- No, people should not be outraged because Apple just put up a little teaser, and the rest was the usual web feeding frenzy.
-- Beatles are still selling well, were groundbreaking, still relevant, influential, good for Apple.
-- Old music was better.
-- New music sucks.
-- No, old music is old. Anyway, where's my streaming iTunes?
Comments
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.
So what does one usually listen to or watch most?
The ones we "find" or steal?
"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.
Blah, blah, blah. You're ticked off because Apple made a big deal over this announcement. News Flash: Apple makes a big deal over EVERY announcement! That's what they do and they do it right. Steve is the PT Barnum of his day and we love him for it.
Second News Flash: They must have done something right because their numbers show the Beatles albums are shooting up the sales charts on iTunes, despite what you and the minority of haters say here.
So I don't think Amazon are going to lose any sleep over this.
Nice job dragging your feet...real Beatles fans ripped their CD's years ago.
If they did, they might want to revisit the 2009 remasters. Esp. if they are encoding at 320kbs or lossless. Much improved audio quality over the original CD releases from the '80s IMO.
BTW, it's been pretty much established that the foot dragging was between EMI and Apple Corp (the Beatles entity). http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...257903424.html
Amazon have had the entire library of Beatles music on high quality CDs for years, and for a much lower price than iTunes.
So I don't think Amazon are going to lose any sleep over this.
Amazon knows exactly how many people are willing to do an impulse buy of an MP3 download vs. how many will actually buy the CD, have it shipped, then import that into iTunes or whatever when it arrives a week later (i.e. via Super Saver Shipping).
Look at the top selling albums and songs in iTunes this week. Check again periodically throughout the Christmas holiday.
I'm sure Bezos doesn't think they "won" for being able to continue to stock the CDs.
Edit: I wonder if they can still get Beatles logo'ed iTunes cards in stores in time for Christmas.
Some of the songs I haven't heard since the 70s-80s when I was first listening to them on vinyl.
I know everyones like to act superior by being negative and saying 'meh'. These people are not above the Beatles, they are just, well.. 'meh'.
This music is still beautiful and very enjoyable and I'm happy to see it an buy it on iTunes.
One image on a website??!! Get a grip, Wonder! It's obvious from a great number of the posts on AI that this was built up for weeks with full page ads in every major paper, 3 minute spots every hour on every major network for the past month and 10,000 billboard ads across the US...
I'll never trust Apple again...
By the way you're reacting, what Apple did worked perfectly. It was a day you'll never forget.
Excellent post, but unfortunately wasted on the ones who only seem to live to tear down others instead of trying to build themselves up....
Those people are horrible. The lowest of the low. Scum.
Its not just about sales, nor about SJ's likes.
Its not about likes - it is all about wants. Steve wanted the Beatles catalog. And what Steve wants, Steve gets. Good thing he's on our side. we all benefit.
Fortunately, most of the world is more honest than you. What you're proposing is a crime.
I'm glad that Apple was able to get the music in iTunes - causing Amazon to drop the price significantly. I would never have paid the old list price (over $250), but might consider buying it at $129.
However, I think the iTunes version has some minor stuff that isn't on the Amazon box set. Still, I would probably choose the box set - but can understand why others would choose the digital.
What the heck? Do you really think Amazon sold it at list price EVER? That's retarded. Even they list other sellers going for $89.
Saying Amazon lowered the price in half overnight by looking at the list price is utterly, messed up stupid. Other cds listed there have a list price of $19, and they NEVER sold at that price.
"Meh", my arse!
Case in point: this thread consists of about a dozen opinions, posted over and over and over and over again by different people. If you're willing to wade through that, occasionally there's a salient point or thoughtful observation.
--People shouldn't care about this, because the Beatles are old, have been available on CD, are cheaper on CD, never were any good, continue to be old.
-- People are outraged because Apple led us to believe something actually cool was afoot, and it wasn't.
-- No, people should not be outraged because Apple just put up a little teaser, and the rest was the usual web feeding frenzy.
-- Beatles are still selling well, were groundbreaking, still relevant, influential, good for Apple.
-- Old music was better.
-- New music sucks.
-- No, old music is old. Anyway, where's my streaming iTunes?
Does that about cover it? Can we stop now?
I wish there were a way to program the forum software so that once a particular point of view had been expressed, oh, I don't know, 10 times, attempting to SAY THE SAME GODDAMN THING AGAIN would give you a "Really? Have you even looked at the thread?" error message.
Case in point: this thread consists of about a dozen opinions, posted over and over and over and over again by different people. If you're willing to wade through that, occasionally there's a salient point or thoughtful observation.
--People shouldn't care about this, because the Beatles are old, have been available on CD, are cheaper on CD, never were any good, continue to be old.
-- People are outraged because Apple led us to believe something actually cool was afoot, and it wasn't.
-- No, people should not be outraged because Apple just put up a little teaser, and the rest was the usual web feeding frenzy.
-- Beatles are still selling well, were groundbreaking, still relevant, influential, good for Apple.
-- Old music was better.
-- New music sucks.
-- No, old music is old. Anyway, where's my streaming iTunes?
Does that about cover it? Can we stop now?
You're the third person to give us a synopsis of this thread.
You're the third person to give us a synopsis of this thread.
--People shouldn't care about this, because the Beatles are old, have been available on CD, are cheaper on CD, never were any good, continue to be old.
-- People are outraged because Apple led us to believe something actually cool was afoot, and it wasn't.
-- No, people should not be outraged because Apple just put up a little teaser, and the rest was the usual web feeding frenzy.
-- Beatles are still selling well, were groundbreaking, still relevant, influential, good for Apple.
-- Old music was better.
-- New music sucks.
-- No, old music is old. Anyway, where's my streaming iTunes?
?
Thanks for this.