Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! The Beatles are now on iTunes
Fans can buy individual songs ($1.99) or albums ($12.99 for a single LP, $19.99 for a double album like "The Beatles"). A complete box set is offered for $149 and includes a free video of the Beatles first U.S. concert held in Washington D.C. in February 1964 (playing on a stage in the middle of a circular arena, watch as Ringo turns his drum kit around to face a different part of the audience).
The two surviving members of the band commented while the widows of John Lennon and George Harrison also were quoted. Sir Paul McCartney said, "We’re really excited to bring the Beatles’ music to iTunes. It’s fantastic to see the songs we originally released on vinyl receive as much love in the digital world as they did the first time around.". The eldest member of the group, Ringo Starr wrote, "I am particularly glad to no longer be asked when the Beatles are coming to iTunes. At last, if you want it—you can get it now—The Beatles from Liverpool to now! Peace and Love, Ringo." Olivia Harrison said briefly, "The Beatles on iTunes—Bravo!", while Yoko Ono Lennon made reference to here husband when she said, "In the joyful spirit of Give Peace A Chance, I think it is so appropriate that we are doing this on John’s 70th birthday year."
It is known that Apple CEO Steve Jobs is a big fan of Beatle music. "We love the Beatles and are honored and thrilled to welcome them to iTunes," said Jobs. "It has been a long and winding road to get here. Thanks to the Beatles and EMI, we are now realizing a dream we’ve had since we launched iTunes ten years ago."
The Beatles can offer Apple a big surge in revenue. Despite the age of the music, the songs of the band are timeless and have spanned a number of generations. With their youngest fans now conditioned to use their Apple iPhone or Apple iPod to listen to music, we would expect the cash register at Apple to be ringing constantly as the tunes-some as old as 48 years-get downloaded on today's high-tech music players.
2. android_hitman posted on 16 Nov 2010, 13:38 1 0
but... then again .. apple fans are rich :)))
10. jtucker1987 posted on 16 Nov 2010, 15:57 0 0
Apple fans are rich? Ok? Android and Apple phones cost the same with contract, the apps have almost the same ratio as paid vs. free, last time I checked doodle jump was a buck in the app store and 5 bucks in the android market....plans are similar in price when compared to att and verizon, zunes and ipods are priced basically the same. Where was your point? O you must be talking about the computers, actually when I bought a macbook pro I spent less over time because I didn't need the malware, adware, and virus scanners and didn't spend the money for the subscriptions. A lot of software also comes free on the macs which I didn't spend money on. All in all, the computers ended up the same....mac may have been cheaper in the long run.
16. protozeloz posted on 17 Nov 2010, 06:31 0 0
you have a point there, only thing i don't agree with is that macs GET virus (they are less then windows but they exist and are quite troublesome) Ive seen them, Ive fear them....
and well windows have a load of free stuff for nearly everything you might need
-AVG and comodo both come in free version and are fairly good.
-open office can be your free office tool.
-the gimp can be our picture editor.
-there are free cd/dvd burners.
-VLC is a free media player that plays nearly anything.
I'm not siding up with windows (I have UBUNTU) but saying mac users have free apps and PC users don't and also saying that macs are virus free are as ignorant as saying apple fans are rich.
17. jtucker1987 posted on 17 Nov 2010, 08:14 0 0
No I know windows has free software as do macs I'm just saying it is true that Microsoft charges you for ever little thing that Mac gives for free. I'm not sure if microsoft does that anymore but I know they used to. I know macs get viruses BUT they are basically no concern. Norton stopped making anti-virus for Mac because there is no point. With macs you get what you pay for. High build quality, an OS that hasn't crashed or frozen for me yet, and no blue screen. I haven't had windows since xp so I don't know how windows 7 is. I know on an xp computer if you turn the computer off while it's still starting then the computer is shot and have to reformat. I've put so much on my Mac and hasn't slowed once. I put 1gb of music on an xp and the thing slowed to a snail. It comes down to preference. I think macs are more stable and you get what you pay for. If you like windows then fine. No need to bash one another like the android fans do. You have to remember microsoft and apple are buddies not enemies. The real enemy to them is google and android.
18. protozeloz posted on 17 Nov 2010, 11:56 0 0
well Ive played with all windows version and i think it could do a better job, many people ask why windows crashes or breaks, all i can say is that they have to carry a load of drivers with them cuz they have to deal with a lot of different things, and Mac tend to need less drivers to run around, remember windows sells its os to anyone, wile apple builds macs themselves. remember that a PC and windows are not necessarily the same thing, I'm a PC user not a windows user (I have windows at work tho), and really I was not trying to bash on macs i think that macs are great computers and should not be underestimated or considered a waste of money, I was just trying to say that PC And mac will cost around the same at the end of their average live spawn, as you say its just a matter of taste, you go to apple and order a mac and you are ready to go, I go paces get stuff and get my PC working (I Kinda arm my last few PCs)
just for laughs i found this:
15. whatjtuckersaid (unregistered) posted on 16 Nov 2010, 18:55 0 0
exactly, apple fans know that the extra money we pay is because of actual quality. My macbook pro was the best money I've ever spent. Everytime i use some windows garbage pc, its slow (painfully slow), bugging and crashes all the time. Macs are how computers are suppose to run
3. jtucker1987 posted on 16 Nov 2010, 13:45 1 0
you people do realize the same box set on CD is much more expensive, retail price is 269.99....when it came out last year best buy raised the price to 300.00 since they were scarce, don't blame apple....if you want good music then there is a price, beatles stuff is always expensive, duh!!
4. alex (unregistered) posted on 16 Nov 2010, 13:58 0 0
Big deal. I could care less for the Beetles. In my opinion, and a lot of you may disagree, music was better before they came out. For me, they influenced the msuic industry in a bad way. I'm in my early 30's btw, but I appreciate songs pre Elvis/Beatles.
5. JeffdaBeat posted on 16 Nov 2010, 14:58 0 0
Coming from an Apple Fan Boy...that was the lamest annoucement ever...
I thought there was going to be something like streaming my music over the web or wireless syncing...but I get the Beatles? Great...time to go back to sleep...
6. JeffdaBeat posted on 16 Nov 2010, 15:00 0 0
And to add to that...yes the Beatles are new to the store. If I were some big Beatles fan, I would have had their albums burned to my computer by now. A Beatles fan isn't going to sit and say, "Welp, since iTunes doesn't have this album, I guess I'm going to have to wait..." No, they are going to buy the album from Amazon and burn it to their computer or simply add it to iTunes.
7. Ashnnat posted on 16 Nov 2010, 15:24 0 0
Very true, but then again, they're making a big deal about it so the casual music fan get interested. They already know that hardcore fans already have all that music in their computer. Still, the box is a good deal since it includes a couple of documentaries and is much much cheaper than buying it at a record store.
8. jtucker1987 posted on 16 Nov 2010, 15:51 1 0
yea you're right, since I'm a fan I bought it last year when the box set came out but casual fans will buy it since its a bit cheaper and a little more convenient, the only problem is is that the digitally remastered on CD sounds much better!!
9. Zorin posted on 16 Nov 2010, 15:52 0 0
Itunes...u swear we don't have these songs on our ipods already, friggin nubs. Even a casual fan knows where to find this at a flat rate.
11. jtucker1987 posted on 16 Nov 2010, 16:09 0 0
it's also a celebration that michael jackson no longer controls the beatles music, it used to be only allowed to sell to certain stores, i remember best buy never being allowed to sell the beatles but target was, amazon was never allowed to give thirty second samples on their website.....a lot has changed and its good that a classic band can finally spread their roots much more....the beatles music is still controlled by Yoko and McCartney BUT it's not as bad as when jackson controlled it
12. Ashnnat posted on 16 Nov 2010, 17:06 0 0
Funny that you should say that because I was wondering if Lisa Presley had some stake in the songs's rights as I remember reading that the real reasom she married jackson was to create an association for some kind of musical cash machine by combining both Elvis and the Beatles's copyrigth from which they both would greatly profit. I guess that was just yellow press.
13. jtucker1987 posted on 16 Nov 2010, 17:10 0 0
yea I heard that Yoko and McCartney bought the rights back or got them back somehow....they have to own them because they were the ones in the negotiation with apple and not Lisa Presley though maybe I'm wrong....
14. jtucker1987 posted on 16 Nov 2010, 17:12 0 0
Though EMI owns the Beatles' master recordings, the band retains veto power over new uses of the "masters," as they are known in the industry. It exerts that power through Apple Corps, whose board comprises band members Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, as well as Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison, the widows of the late Beatles John Lennon and George Harrison.
There's your answer!!