How about the "Paul is dead" special edition: plays everything backward. Also comes in handy for deciphering satanic instructions from your favorite death metal purveyors.
a lot of people have probably seen the "i'm a mac, i'm a pc" ads, so perhaps a play on that.
i'm a paul, and i'm a ringo... blah blah.
That's quite amusing, and if well-written, would certainly be one of the most popular Super Bowl commercials. No one would expect Paul to participate like that, with all that's going on in his life right now.
And as far as the British flag is concerned, it would ONLY be designed for a special iPod for The Who. No other band is as strongly associated with the Union Jack. Nobody. It won't happen, though.
Dude: I am the iPhone. WTF are you doing here in my commercial?
I don't think so. If it happens, it will be of the "I'm a Paul and I'm a Ringo" variety.
First off, Paul wouldn't say "I'm the Beatles" because he's not and he knows he's not. Plus, that statement would piss off every Beatles fan on the planet. Won't happen.
Also, Apple wouldn't converge two product rollouts into one commercial. Not their style. Besides, commercials are about a simple, singular message anyway. With a Super Bowl commercial, you need to be funny and direct, not confusing, if you want to stand out and be remembered.
That's the tone I would hope for, it even looks like some of what Apple has been doing recently, what with the colored tracers and laundry list of cool cultural figures and archival footage.
Imagine that same lip-syncing trick for "All you need is love": gets across the "we are all united by music" thing, the "Apple is down with the best people/think different" thing, the "iPod is a force for global harmony" thing ) and the "we got the Beatles" thing, all at one go.
Plus, it's really pretty cool.
As far as lifting the technique of a current video, they did it with that Postal Service video when they introduced the Intel Macs, and seem to have some kind of relationship to U2, so who knows?
I don't think so. If it happens, it will be of the "I'm a Paul and I'm a Ringo" variety.
First off, Paul wouldn't say "I'm the Beatles" because he's not and he knows he's not. Plus, that statement would piss off every Beatles fan on the planet. Won't happen.
Also, Apple wouldn't converge two product rollouts into one commercial. Not their style. Besides, commercials are about a simple, singular message anyway. With a Super Bowl commercial, you need to be funny and direct, not confusing, if you want to stand out and be remembered.
GTSC
Easy Gandalf. I was making a funny. I am not a Beatles fan nor a iPhone hommer (until Verizon picks it up).
Besides, I have the book called "the Walrus was Paul" and Gary Patterson, the author, makes it pretty clear the Paul we know now is the imposter. It is even an autographed first edition. The dude taught at the high school I was supposed to go to. So I had my cousin pick it up and he got it autographed.
Steve Jobs likes to focus and knows that "focus means saying no". He also likes beauty and the fantastic songs by the Beatles. I therefore predict the ad will be 90-95% about the Beatles' music, and 5-10% about Apple and its iPod/iTunes. The 5-10% will be subtle and understated; the ad will convey love for the music.
I was wondering why they're doing a three-month contract with Apple Inc? Why can't the Beatles keep their music on the iTunes Store forever?
Could someone please explain, thanks.
I'm sure they could, but why would they? No one else is exclusive forever to iTunes (as far as I know), and it just wouldn't make good business sense to lose out on sales via other sources.
I can't imagine them releasing the remastered Beatles catalog without offering it in a lossless format. Bundling that with a new iPod would require them to increase the drive size. Since the future model for handheld devices from Apple was established at the Macworld Keynote, if this rumor is true, I foresee a 100gb phoneless iPhone iPod.
I can't imagine them releasing the remastered Beatles catalog without offering it in a lossless format. Bundling that with a new iPod would require them to increase the drive size. Since the future model for handheld devices from Apple was established at the Macworld Keynote, if this rumor is true, I foresee a 100gb phoneless iPhone iPod.
You can't imagine Apple won't offer the Beatles catalog in lossless? Ridiculous.
The lossless crazies are second only to the anti-DRM crazies.
Comments
They should make a White Album iPod. All white with maybe a light gray click wheel or something. Instant classic.
a lot of people have probably seen the "i'm a mac, i'm a pc" ads, so perhaps a play on that.
i'm a paul, and i'm a ringo... blah blah.
That's quite amusing, and if well-written, would certainly be one of the most popular Super Bowl commercials. No one would expect Paul to participate like that, with all that's going on in his life right now.
And as far as the British flag is concerned, it would ONLY be designed for a special iPod for The Who. No other band is as strongly associated with the Union Jack. Nobody. It won't happen, though.
GTSC
Paul: Hi. I am the Beatles.
Dude: I am the iPhone. WTF are you doing here in my commercial?
I imagine the commercial will be like:
Paul: Hi. I am the Beatles.
Dude: I am the iPhone. WTF are you doing here in my commercial?
I don't think so. If it happens, it will be of the "I'm a Paul and I'm a Ringo" variety.
First off, Paul wouldn't say "I'm the Beatles" because he's not and he knows he's not. Plus, that statement would piss off every Beatles fan on the planet. Won't happen.
Also, Apple wouldn't converge two product rollouts into one commercial. Not their style. Besides, commercials are about a simple, singular message anyway. With a Super Bowl commercial, you need to be funny and direct, not confusing, if you want to stand out and be remembered.
GTSC
They should make a White Album iPod. All white with maybe a light gray click wheel or something. Instant classic.
brilliant.
Yellow iPod with waterproof cover!
with one song installed: Can't Buy Me Love!!!
Cute. But Apple is all about Revolutions.
That's the tone I would hope for, it even looks like some of what Apple has been doing recently, what with the colored tracers and laundry list of cool cultural figures and archival footage.
Imagine that same lip-syncing trick for "All you need is love": gets across the "we are all united by music" thing, the "Apple is down with the best people/think different" thing, the "iPod is a force for global harmony" thing
Plus, it's really pretty cool.
As far as lifting the technique of a current video, they did it with that Postal Service video when they introduced the Intel Macs, and seem to have some kind of relationship to U2, so who knows?
I don't think so. If it happens, it will be of the "I'm a Paul and I'm a Ringo" variety.
First off, Paul wouldn't say "I'm the Beatles" because he's not and he knows he's not. Plus, that statement would piss off every Beatles fan on the planet. Won't happen.
Also, Apple wouldn't converge two product rollouts into one commercial. Not their style. Besides, commercials are about a simple, singular message anyway. With a Super Bowl commercial, you need to be funny and direct, not confusing, if you want to stand out and be remembered.
GTSC
Easy Gandalf.
Besides, I have the book called "the Walrus was Paul" and Gary Patterson, the author, makes it pretty clear the Paul we know now is the imposter. It is even an autographed first edition. The dude taught at the high school I was supposed to go to. So I had my cousin pick it up and he got it autographed.
Any chance that Apple, Inc. outright buys Apple Corps?
Yeah, they could call it Apple inCorpsorated.
Could someone please explain, thanks.
I was wondering why they're doing a three-month contract with Apple Inc? Why can't the Beatles keep their music on the iTunes Store forever?
Could someone please explain, thanks.
Three month exclusive. Meaning, after three months the Beatles appear on other down load services, as well as ITunes.
Three month exclusive. Meaning, after three months the Beatles appear on other down load services, as well as ITunes.
Got it, Thanks.
"And I'm a PC,"
"And I'm a Beatle"......
Mac: I listen to music using iTunes and my iPod.
PC: And, I listen to music using iTunes and my iPod. I am not all about just "business", you know.
Beatle (played by Paul himself): And, now the entire catalog of Beatles songs is available exclusively at the iTunes Store.
Enter from stage left, Ringo Starr: What do you think of my new iPod in Submarine Yellow?
All exit to Yellow Submarine.
I was wondering why they're doing a three-month contract with Apple Inc? Why can't the Beatles keep their music on the iTunes Store forever?
Could someone please explain, thanks.
I'm sure they could, but why would they? No one else is exclusive forever to iTunes (as far as I know), and it just wouldn't make good business sense to lose out on sales via other sources.
I can't imagine them releasing the remastered Beatles catalog without offering it in a lossless format. Bundling that with a new iPod would require them to increase the drive size. Since the future model for handheld devices from Apple was established at the Macworld Keynote, if this rumor is true, I foresee a 100gb phoneless iPhone iPod.
You can't imagine Apple won't offer the Beatles catalog in lossless? Ridiculous.
The lossless crazies are second only to the anti-DRM crazies.