Apple to sell music online... but probably not through Apple

Well, it's been a long and winding road, but it looks like the Beatles will finally be selling their music on the internet. A spokesperson for Apple Corps, the record label owned by the surviving Beatles and the estates of John Lennon and George Harrison, confirmed this week that the company is going to start offering music online. The spokesperson said, however, that no date had been set, and added, "there are a lot of projects that Apple are working on at the moment." While no details were provided about which music services will be used, it seems likely that the other Apple, which is involved in a long-running legal dispute over the brand name, will be shut out. Last year, Yoko Ono Lennon made some of John Lennon's solo material available over online services, but Apple Computer's iTunes was not among them. Apple Corps is expected to take a similar stance -- though the announcement, first made during legal proceedings in London last week -- could be part of an effort to pressure Apple Computer into a settlement. Regardless, we have just one request: now that Michael Jackson is on the verge of selling his share of the Beatles' legacy to Sony, we really hope that the fab four's music doesn't end up as a Sony Connect exclusive. Please, please us, and at least spread out to the MusicNet services.

[Balint33 @ Apr 13th 2006 12:54PM]

That's really sad... :(

http://flashmp3player.blogspot.com

[Pfft @ Apr 13th 2006 12:55PM]

Quick fix: Steve Jobs & Apple Computer buy the catalog from Michael Jackson and put it on the iTMS.

[bob @ Apr 13th 2006 12:56PM]

you would think someone as greedy as yoko and co. would want to make as much money as possible, cutting there noses off to spite their faces, cut out 70% of the music download market, great move, lol, will they last as long as the chilli peppers did?

[TZK @ Apr 13th 2006 12:59PM]

They are selling it through iFumes.. its part of the settlement.

Hahahaha.

[Conrad Quilty-Harper @ Apr 13th 2006 1:12PM]

I've never heard of any company so adamant about NOT making money.

[Poopmaster @ Apr 13th 2006 1:15PM]

I'm surprised that any sizable number of people even *remember* the Beatles, much less *care*. Apple corps just doesn't get it, do they? They are marketing ephemerata -- popular music -- and that has a shelf life. Apple Computer is holding the cards here, not them.

[OlivierB @ Apr 13th 2006 1:15PM]

Well the good news is that we consumers don't really care: if you want the Beatle's discography, just go to HMV , buy the CD box, stick it in your computer, Rip with iTunes and 30 min later your are all set.

Not selling the Beatle's on iTMS is no big deal for us consumers, although it could matter for Apple Computers.

[Matt W. @ Apr 13th 2006 1:18PM]

Typo:

music online The spokesperson

Add a period between online and The

[SL @ Apr 13th 2006 1:19PM]

i thought everyone who has even a remote interest in beatles already own their CD. why da heck would anyone bother download their songs unless it is some unreleased tracks (which obviously would be available by CD and most of the fans would've gotten it already)?

[glacia00 @ Apr 13th 2006 1:36PM]

I don't think this has much to do with selling Beatles music. It may have more to do with the breach of contract suit against Apple Computer.

In hindsight Apple Computer probably should have continued to fight for the use of the name without agreeing to never use it or the logo in connection with musical works. Signing the agreement probably seemed like a no-brainer for a computer company back then just to gt the suit over with. And frankly it does seem they've now breached that agreement.

The fix for Apple (Computer) is perhaps spin off itunes as a sepperate entity removing all references to the word 'Apple' and the logo.

[Torontoguy @ Apr 13th 2006 1:40PM]

I don't think that Apple Corp. intends to make a fortume by offering the Beatle's catalog online BUT it would be a weapon in the legal case against Apple Computer and iTunes. If Apple Corp was offering on-line music then Apple's iTunes (and the iPod) would be infringing on the Apple Corp trademark and so could be prevented from operating under that name.
Hmmmm...I wonder if they could do this in the rest of the world and shut out iTunes altogether? A great thought.

[Jarod @ Apr 13th 2006 1:40PM]

WTF cares about the Beatles and Yoko Ono; they're about as dead as the dodo. Can't believe how much attention and fuss are being given to such a dead and stupid bunch. If Apple Corps had an ounce of intelligence they would drop this bullshit and hope that the generation of people would take a 2 sec interest in their music. Instead, they're doing everything possible to ENSURE that no one gives a rats ass about them. I say CRUSH those Beatles; no one likes bugs anyhow.

[PXLated @ Apr 13th 2006 1:42PM]

Money talks...I'm betting Sir Paul, the businessman he is, will want to be on the service that will sell the most...iTunes...the lawsuit is just a different sideshow.

[glacia00 @ Apr 13th 2006 1:48PM]

Just did a quick search. I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention to the lawsuit. It looks like it was moved to London at some point or maybe always was and the decision about the Apple name and logo is due after Easter.

Apple computer's arguement seems to be "people can tell the difference between the two". The arguement would have held more water before it became a breach of contract suit. Now it's a matter of are they in compliance with the agreement they signed.

[oboogie @ Apr 13th 2006 1:50PM]

Some of you guys are incredibly stupid. The Beatles will always be relevant. IF you don't get that, then God help you. Go listen to your iTunes-downloaded Britney Spears and shut the hell up.

[bhaalspawn @ Apr 13th 2006 1:56PM]

It was always a breach of contract suit. The agreement they signed to end the dispute in the early 1990s was a contract. Also it was always in London.

Apple Computer's entire argument is not 'they can tell the difference. The agreement signed between the two actually gives Apple Computer exclusive rights to use the Apple trademark in computer related activities, including but not limited to 'data transmission.' So for example they would be entitled to start an Apple radio station. What Apple Computer could not do was sell music on physical media like CDs or vinyl. Of course the internet wasn't an issue in the early 1990s and this is why there is a problem. Whether you consider itunes to be selling music or data trasmission is, of course, a matter of interpretation, however because of the nature of the internet it is arguable that interpreting in either Apples favour is equally valid.

[Billy @ Apr 13th 2006 1:59PM]

Michael Jackson owns the Beatles catalog, or used to until he sold part of it off do avoid bancrupcy.

I imagine woever bought what he sold will be selling that sh*t pronto to recover some of the expense.

-gjea

[glacia00 @ Apr 13th 2006 2:04PM]

A little more reading about the suit. It looks like Apple Computer may have the upper hand since the presiding judge, Edward Mann, who's deciding the case admitted that he uses an Ipod and Itunes.

[TIMMAH! @ Apr 13th 2006 2:12PM]

Aw c'mon, I'm soooo hoping that the Beatles collection will be available online in ATRAC format only...

[e @ Apr 13th 2006 2:19PM]

If it's such a non-issue why do you dweebs have your panties in a knot over it?

Paul is a freaking BILLIONARE, I am sure they would make plenty of $$ going with an alternative service. It's not as if you can't find a Beatle album anymore, in fact you can't find a record store in the United States without a few of them in stock.

No one is buying them of course... Decades later.

Dumbasses

[ben @ Apr 13th 2006 2:31PM]

I think Michael Jackson owns the publishing rights for the early beatles catalog, not the recordings themselves. Those I believe are owned by Apple Corps and or Capital/EMI

[Ian @ Apr 13th 2006 2:33PM]

I use connect :( Now I hope it shows up just to piss you off.

I don't really care anyway I don't like the beetles anyway and if I did I would download it with limewire or something :p >_>

[JakeW @ Apr 13th 2006 2:37PM]

First, Michael Jackson does not own the record rights to the Beatles catalog - he has absolutely nothing to do with this, *nada*. The rights to the Beatles records are owned by Apple Corps and I would imagine the other labels they were published on (EMI? I forget). Jackson/Sony control the rights to use many of the Beatles songs - that is, if you want to use "Hey Jude" in your movie you must negotiate with them (of course, The Beatles members still get royalties, they just don't control the rights).


Second, to those who say the Beatles are irrelevant now: That is a fairly idiotic assumption. In all these discussions about the lawsuit this always comes up. People always claim that younger generations do not care for the Beatles at all. This is frankly mystifying to me. Obviously they are past their height, but are any of you that claim that college students? The Beatles, and classic rock in general, are hugely popular among college-age people. While hardly scientific, it is interesting to note that The Beatles are the second most popular band on Facebook.

One last thing regarding their popularity: in 2000 they released The Beatles 1, an album of their #1 hits. This album is the fastest selling album in history and has sold 30+ million copies worldwide.


As for selling the music online, no, they won't be on iTunes initially, but they will eventually. I'm sure after the lawsuit is settled they will show up on iTunes. It makes no sense not to (but it also wouldn't make sense to put their music up there while the lawsuit was still being worked out.)

[Dan @ Apr 13th 2006 3:48PM]

No one pays attention to the name of a bloody record company!

Lennon, what the fuck, no what cares about your trivial, meaningless enterprise. The real Apple is loved the world over. It's about time you died!

[narco @ Apr 13th 2006 3:53PM]

I think that Bill Gates is unloading his BILLIONS to Apple Records to get them to not use iTunes. A lot of the people who already know and love the Beatles' music have it in their CD collection already, but there are new fans every day and it could be a big draw for people wanting to download their music online.

There isn't going to be an "iPod killer" anytime soon, but competitors can sure get together and try to hurt the big boy. We'll see.

Fishes,
narco.

[oboogie @ Apr 13th 2006 4:00PM]

I never realized how many dumb, uninformed people there are in this world. And then I read the comments on Engadget, and it appears many of them gather in one place--here.

The Beatles records still sell well on CD. Most Beatles fans already have them already, but new discover them all the time because they are timeless. Unlike the shite most of you morons listen to.

[Mike Watt @ Apr 13th 2006 4:26PM]

Where is CNNMoney (story origin) getting their information? Every other gadget blog and news site is reporting that Apple Records have confirmed that music will be sold on the iTMS. This is old news now as most sites reported this morning. Come on Engadget! You guys are normally so much better at checking your facts and reporting info promptly.

[Russ @ Apr 13th 2006 4:50PM]

Regardless of what you think of the Beatles or their music, their recordings are still worth more than any other catalog of music and that catalog makes a enormous amount of money some 30 years later. It's a global money maker that continues to rake in the cash with every little revision/publication they make from it.

Just like Star Wars, you slap the 'Super Secret Anamorphic Sans Jar Jar' edition on it, and it's bank. In Apple Computer's case you sell a slick looking, technically mediocre, tremendously marketed product, and your dedicated fans will gladly overpay for it.

[oboogie @ Apr 13th 2006 4:58PM]

Bless you, Russ. You seem to be the only one here who gets it.

[mike @ Apr 13th 2006 6:17PM]

hum.. so they're going to pitch us music we already have .. on only selling it on some service no one is using...


BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

Poor Ringo....

[Javaflash @ Apr 13th 2006 6:25PM]

Google "Apple," and no Beatles anywhere.

... some trademark.

-------------------

Google "Apple Corp," a placeholder website comes up.

... lawyers. =)

[Javaflash @ Apr 13th 2006 6:35PM]

To #30

If John Lennon is still alive, we probably get digital format of the wholte Beatles without DRM.

"It's about the music, man." :)

[DC @ Apr 13th 2006 6:53PM]

Russ wrote: "In Apple Computer's case you sell a slick looking, technically mediocre, tremendously marketed product, and your dedicated fans will gladly overpay for it."

Bull's eye.

[ipad @ Apr 13th 2006 7:46PM]

Hell I'm so sick of 'The Beatles'. I'm old enough to remember them back in the 70's... I'd pay not to hear them. Plus I think Apple and their iPod crap sucks...

[Reg @ Apr 13th 2006 8:26PM]

> Russ wrote: "In Apple Computer's case you sell a slick looking, technically mediocre, tremendously marketed product, and your dedicated fans will gladly overpay for it."

1. True. iPods are slick.

2. False. Most of the audiophile analysis shows the response curves generated by the audio chips used in recent generation iPods are the highest performing in the industry. Most (biased) commentators who claim the specs are "mediocre" point to vital missing features as an FM player. Whatever.

3. True. Getting those silhouettes on billboards on every street corner cost a crudload of money. But seeing people wearing the white cords probably sold far more and cost the advertising agency nothing.

4. True. iPod fans keep coming back for more (I'm on my 5th) - because they get more perfect with every generation. But they cost no more than the competition, as any perusal of a Creative, Toshiba, Sony, etc pricelist shows.

So take your anti-Apple bigotry and go buy a non-iPod music player. You'll be paying just as much for a lesser product.

[mike @ Apr 13th 2006 9:46PM]

34. Russ wrote: "In Apple Computer's case you sell a slick looking, technically mediocre, tremendously marketed product, and your dedicated fans will gladly overpay for it."

Bull's eye.

-------------

Um.. I see two Windows fanboys agreeing with each other.
Allow me to shed some light:

Look at the Mac mini. Due to Apple's engineering brilliance, that thing was SHIPPING before intel was showing PROTOTYPES of the same thing (hollow innards).

Show me one example of Apple's technical mediocrity. You guys are too old and too smart to mention the Mhz Myth. You ... can't possibly be talking about that.

[MACBOT vX @ Apr 13th 2006 9:48PM]

IPOD...BEEP BOP...IPOD IS SUPERIOR!...BOP BOOP BEEP...IPOD IS PERFECT FOR EVERYONE...BOP BEEP BOOP...THERE ARE NO OTHER MP3 PLAYERS... APPLE WILL TOTALLY CRUSH...BEEP BOP...THE BEATLES WITH APPLE COMPUTER'S NEW PROGRAM...BEEBOP...'iBEATLE'...WHICH WILL COMPLETELY REPLICATE THE ENTIRE BEATLES CATALOG IN TEN YEARS WITH A SLEEK STERILE SOUND...BEEP BOP...MADE ONLY FOR iTUNES...BOOP BOP...IT WILL BE THE MOST GENIUS THING INVENTED...BEEP BOOP DID YOU KNOW USERS OF APPLE PRODUCTS TEND TO HAVE HIGHER IQS THAN MOST PEOPLE?homphglomph uhghaghgahgahgha

[Javaflash @ Apr 13th 2006 10:24PM]

There is something about user experience in the whole Apple deal. It's not just advertising or trends. Those won't last this long (watch cars or fashion for a while and you will get the idea). It's more like switching from VHS to DVD.... something a little more complex/severe than what people think.

My two cents. Please be kind on your assaults. Thanks.

[Galley @ Apr 14th 2006 12:06AM]

I'm officially starting a new rumor. RealNetworks will be given an exclusive contract to sell The Beatles entire recorded output in both the RealPlayer Music Store and through its Rhapsody service. Remember, you read it here first! ;-)

[Adam @ Apr 14th 2006 12:08AM]

So what, if I wanted to listen to the Beatles I would just pirate it... I am not about to go through a hassle to buy and download somewhere else just because Apple Corps wants a fat settlement, screw those greedy bastards... they are only doing themselves more harm by being idiots. Also, Yoko Ono sucks.

[ThinkKnot @ Apr 14th 2006 12:20AM]

Apple Computer should blame Apple Corps for moving into the computer business for making things muddy. When the Beatles collection became available on CD-R discs that made them computer data instead of the old records.

[Adam @ Apr 14th 2006 12:25AM]

Goddamn hippies!

[kineticfrog @ Apr 14th 2006 6:53AM]

it's so sad...

[Matt @ Apr 14th 2006 9:49AM]

20. "Allofmp3.com has it already :-)"
----------------

I don't understand why people use these Russian sites. If you're going to download illegal files, you might as well download them for free.

[Warren @ Apr 14th 2006 4:33PM]

You people naysaying The Beatles just don't get it. The Beatles had 3 double CDs go multi-platinum within a year in 1996-7. The only group to EVER do that. Then the Beatles 1 CD broke every sales record in the book in 2001.

Dead? Forgotten? Hardly. Whichever online service manages to sell them legally is going to make a s***load of money. Their popularity grows every year as does the sales of their music.

As for Apple Computer, they are the ones who signed a contarct with Apple Corps promising not to go into the music business. They did it to themselves. One sympathetic judge and Apple Corps owns the ITMS.

[glacia00 @ Apr 14th 2006 5:01PM]

"Look at the Mac mini. Due to Apple's engineering brilliance, that thing was SHIPPING before intel was showing PROTOTYPES of the same thing (hollow innards)"

Mike

Admittedly Apple did a good job on the mini and a great job marketing it but the 6X6 form factor was around years before Apple did one.

[Javaflash @ Apr 14th 2006 9:31PM]

Hey #47, tell me what "Apple" means beside fruit...

You get the picture? That's 30 years of pretty hard earned reputation, don't you think?

We love Beatles. We just don't love lawyers taking hostage of Beatles. We certainly resent Beatles bites into Apple.

[Enda P @ Apr 16th 2006 8:39PM]

Much as I like and use Apple products, I've abandoned iTMS. 128kpbs DRM just doesn't cut it anymore. Beatles fans need not worry that much, methinks.

[Iain @ Nov 27th 2006 3:13PM]

To all you Apple fans:

Apple Computer is a business. That means that at the end of the day, their sole purpose is to make money.

Hate to wake all of you's up, but they dont make products just to keep you happy.

If you stand up for them, or camp for a week outside their stores, they are taking advantage of you, and making you look a fool.