You know what's kind of like online digital distribution, and yet not at all like that? Selling the entire re-mastered Beatles catalog
on a USB drive that slots into a fake apple. The fine folks at Apple Corps Ltd. and EMI Music have teamed up to build a limited edition run of 30,000 USB apples to be sold on December 7 in the UK and December 8 in freedom-loving America. Included on the 16GB drive are the 14 stereo titles in FLAC 44.1 Khz 24-bit, in addition to 320 Kbps MP3s and a whole digital stack of special materials like liner notes and mini-documentary films, all for the low, low price of $279.99. The drive is up for pre-order as of now, which means you could be a mere month away from plugging this drive into your computer, dragging the files into your iTunes library and then pretending that you bought them online in some sort of forward-looking content distribution model.
posted Nov 3rd 2009 10:32PM
ONLY $20 a song?! Absolute steal.
I do believe that is 14 albums, not 14 songs. Kind of given since they say "Selling the entire re-mastered Beatles catalog on a USB drive."
That's $20 an album, my friend. Not song.
Still expensive but not outrageous.
Basically you're paying $15 an album and $70 for the flash drive. That's not even a particularly bad price for a flash drive of that size, not great or even good, but certainly not ridiculous.
I can see this being worthwhile to some people.
In that case, it really is a steal imo.
I just bought a 16GB flash drive for 16GB. So yes, it is a bad price for that size.
However, for a flash drive in that design, a 30 dollar premium would be worth it for fans.
Nice, gigabytes are a currency now.
"Remastered", yet again. In other words, dynamically compressed to shit in order to make it sound "louder".
The destruction of our entire musical heritage continues...
Hopefully the 24 bit means its not compressed. Moving from 16 to 24 bit should give lots of headroom.
With my new flash drive, my salary is about 7.8MB/s.
[i meant 16GB for $40]
$70 would be a good price for 16gb drive a couple years ago. I guess it depends on the person whether the novelty is worth $40.
Still to expensive - make it available piecemeal, even at the same pricess, and I'll bite.
With all musicians, I'm not a fan of 100% of their catalog. Hell, I'm lucky to be a fan of 10% of their catalog. The Beatles doesn't escape this. I'm not interested in owning every single song they ever recorded and every little studio outtake that they can find in the back room of the studio...
It is already available digitally remastered at http://bluebeat.com
$0.25 per song or $4.00 for the whole album.
@Information Central
Are you talking file compression or audio compression there?
What the hell is this stupid crap. First transfomers on flash drives and now this stupid crap. Stupid companies doing stupid things annoys me.
It's only stupid if they don't make money off it. Judging by how much people love The Beatles, most likely this is going to sell out on day one.
Yeah you are right.... All companies should do the same thing, hay I know, they should all just give their stuff away for free on a torrent site?!
If the Beatles hadn't have been so creative you wouldn't have the music you no doubt love today. You'd be dancing across a room from any girl and listening to big band music.
So they are trying something new, its a little creative.. they may have come up with the idea whilst on drugs!! ooohhhh but hey, you never know till you try it.
Good for them, we need people to play around with ideas like this.
What's wrong with flash drives?
I just realized that the Beatles collection wasn't yet available on iTunes. I thought they had released it when they went to v9.0, but I guess not. This makes more sense now.
@feng:
I would have no problem with flash drives if there was a standardized format for the media and standardized case the flash drive came in. Anything that has been released on flash drives so far has all been a different style flash drive. For instance, this is coming in the shape of a giant green apple.
With CDs and DVDs/Blu Rays I can easily have a collection on a shelf of things I have. Am I supposed to have a drawer full of mixed flash drives?
@ Jordan:
Point taken. Did think about that myself.
Need a new storage solution then. For example, a case with many little cubicles to drop individual flash drives into. Could take a while to catch on, if and if, distribution by USB sticks catches on. Otherwise, the problem is fairly trivial, you can spare the drawer.
It would still be hard to store (especially if they're stored in irregularly shaped ones such as this). Not to mention the fact that it would be difficult to determine what music was contained as USB drives lack anything that could act like a CD's spine does.
If the special limited edition CD pack had come with this I'd have bought that... but US$279 is just too much for just a USB drive, especially as I plan on buying all of The Beatles: Rock Band DLC...
I'm a USB stick, and The Beatles was my idea.
Touché.
You have quite the idea repetoire. and everyone's stealing them. You need a better copyright and patent group
Well I've never been a Beatles fan...so I have no interest to buy this. But I guess we are never going to see the Beatles music on the Apple iTunes Store...seems clear they want their own profits instead of handing over some to Apple Inc. Can't say I blame them.
The only issue of course being that 100% of almost nothing is almost nothing, and 40% or 60% or what ever it is of a ton of money is still a ton of money...
With this going out to the masses as the first digital copies of Beatles music, I bet iTunes won't be far behind.
I will have this.
Anyone have a torrent link yet?
To a remastered catalog? definitely. Especially since my target had all of their remastered CDs the ast time I went...
torrents were up about a week before the 2009 remasters came out on CD.
Not particularly forward-looking for content distribution, but I'll take FLAC on USB over a CD.
Now, if only they'll do something about that pricetag. Otherwise, put all that 16Gb to really good use.
Gah, titles = albums, not tracks.
Go for it!
24-bit flac in addition to 320kbps mp3 will totally fill a 16GB flash drive.
*Beat me to it... cause of the price... will be available as a TORRENT download soon after... unbelieveable, record companies just don't learn... though I do like the apple...
Why didn't they include the Stereo AND the Mono remasters?
From what I've read, their early stuff just sounds bad/odd mixed in stereo, especially when the Beatles were in on the mono mixes and not the stereo mixes.
you'll prolly find this on amazon for about $200, i already own the Mono box and i was thinking of getting the cds in stereo so they read my mind.
Nevermind, pre-orders at the beatles store only. F@ck you EMI!
Nope, lowest price for the Beatles USB limited edition thingy is almost $240 on Amazon. That's still very steep for a 16GB drive I think but considering you get a bunch of documentaries and some other art with it too and a cool aluminum green apple I guess its not so bad. Good thing the USB is in the cap and not in the apple. That would've been terrible if you want to listen to it in the car. "Hey what is that air freshener doing in front of your car radio?" "Uh, no, thats The Beatles on USB hehe" http://www.limited-editions.info/music/beatles-usb-limited-edition-apple-collection/ Then again, I've seen people pay much more money for much lesser items.
this is stupid
I agree.
mostly because i couldn't give a shit about the Beatles.
I'll just use this blank space here to post.
Why couldn't they use a lossless codec?
Sorry, only scanned the part where it mentioned mp3.
Fuck I was expecting a "crapgadget" tag or something similar-like
I can't imagine John Lennon being super stoked about this waste of plastic.
Screw Lennon; he was the weak sauce in that band.
Ringo says hi...
I haven't heard John Lennon voice any opposition to it.
Man, I love the Beatles, but with this price tag, I'd pass.
Freedom-loving America?
Meh, Not so much for me (junior audiophile) 320kbps is actually the upper end where the human ear can't sense difference in this and higher qualities, but I still prefer to buy my stuff on CD, rip to one iTunes library as lossless, then transfer over to my main library at 320kbps to be synced with my media player. But that's just me. For many people, this would be perfect. Actually, +1 to Apple Corps for not cheaping out and doing a lower bitrate. 320kbps is very respectable.
it is 320k mp3 + 24bit flac. so you don't need to rip...
Yes, I understand that being on a USB flash drive, these are already in digital format. I just prefer to control my audio quality and have the original, uncompressed media. The CD is usually uncompressed (typically in wav format), and from there, even a high bitrate like 320 kbps with 24 bit flac is compressing the music. Like I said, it doesn't really matter to most listeners, and even to me 320 kbps is fine (it's what I load onto my iPod). I'm just saying I like to have the actual CD to have an uncompressed copy, and to be able to digitally archive a lossless-quality format in my alternate iTunes library. d-_-b
For a "junior audiophile" you really have no idea what you are talking about...
They are including a 320kbps, compressed version
AND
a 24bit FLAC (aka Beatles_Song.flac) uncompressed version.
So, that flac file is as good as its going to get. Your CD version won't be any better, you audiophile you...
Assuming I've read the article correctly, in addition to the 320kbps (lossy) mp3s, there are FLAC files provided. FLAC is Free Lossless Audio Codec... meaning the only compression to the music is lossless or the same as the CD. In This case, however, the FLAC version might actually be of a higher quality than the CDs... being 24bit rather than the general 16bit for CDs. Unless you're using ALAC for your iTunes library... 320kbps isn't lossless-quality...
...which is why I put "junior audiophile." I'm just getting into the whole world of enjoying high fidelity amped music through crazy expensive (but worth it) headphones, and I was hoping that would absolve me from any mistakes I made when posting. I guess not. Make a mistake on Engadget and you'd better wear an asbestos suit, for you will be flamed.
I totally didn't realize there is a separate FLAC file included for each song. In that case, I guess this could be pretty cool, even for hardcore audiophiles. I have, however already bought both box sets and ripped them. I listen at 320kbps vbr because otherwise, fully uncompresed files are far too huge and I couldn't carry a very large library on my iPod. I also understand that most of us can't really tell the difference between an uncompressed FLAC and a 320kbps vbr compressed file. Maybe I'm wrong about that, too.
I do admit my mistake and write it off to my relative newness to this crazy mixed up world of the audiophile. Does anyone on Engadget just nicely correct you and not make you feel like an asshole?
Well, not to be nitpicky Jake, but that's like saying, "well I'm a junior videophile... but what's an HDMI port?"
If you're gonna claim you're an audiophile, "junior" or not, you best know what FLAC is.
Having said that, welcome to Engadget. Sorry about your wallet!
@infinity: and now I am informed. I have thus far just enjoyed the benefis of high quality audio through good equipment. I obviously have a ways to go on the tech stuff. I just knew a few basics about bit rate and whatnot. When I first heard music through amped grado sr80s, it was like not wearong glasses all my life and someone putting a pair on me. Who knew the world was so fuzzy? Anyway, thanks from the info. I think i should be a bit more confident about what im sayoig before I open my mouth.
The 24-bit FLAC versions are the only reason I want this; I wish they were 48kHz though.
blah blah looks like APPLE logo, blah blah MP3 music....lawsuit!
pretty sure that lawsuit already happened.
just a liiiitle behind the times.
You've never heard of Apple Corps, have you?
Apple (computer maker) can't use their name in reference to music. Why do you think it is only the iTunes store?
Oh, and i assume that Apple inc. will be suing mother nature, and granny smith for unauthorized use of an apple?
I wouldn't mind it if they sold that USB key by itself. As far as caps on a USB drive go, that one seems like it might actually stay on. And 16GB is nothing to sneeze at.
Yeah I'm digging the design as well but when you mention caps on USB drives, this one is more like a giant cap with a USB drive attached.
Careful with that sneezing, you might give the flash drive H1N1.
Achoo.
Releasing it in the US on the date of Lennon's murder? Weird.
Wonder if this will ignite any of the Apple Corps vs. Apple Co. legal disputes... the two tacitly agreed to stay away from each others material, and back when Apple released the iPod it stoked up new lawsuits... Wonder if this can encroach similarly?
Would be awesome, but obviously, too freaking expensive.
Also, do you own the songs or are they DRMd?
The price isn't fantastic, but still decent enough for 14 albums.
FLAC and MP3 DRM'ed?
It would be much more desirable if the apple also played the music itself and could be connected to a stereo.
my girlfriend would be more desirable if she did my chores and wore sexy clothes for me everyday and wasn't so expensive!
Don't some newer stereo systems have a USB-in? Would that work?
I have this already pre ordered, I must say the first box set I can remember purchasing was the beatles, I give this design two thumbs up pretty smart marketing. I'm looking forward to the bonus materials that come with it too.
I have pre-ordered this too. I'm so glad I didn't buy the remastered cd re-releases.
I have already downloaded FLAC rips on the new remasters and I hadn't planned on buying the CDs, but Apple Corps totally sucked me in with this marketing scheme.
I wonder if other major artists' catalogs will be released as USB sticks? That would be the only way to get me to actually buy music again, especially on physical media, at least until the novelty wears off.
Brilliant.
I'm really happy that the record companies have finally got the sense to release their music in decent quality MP3s and also in FLAC.
www.Bluebeat.com has all the Beatles albums, remastered, for only 25 cents a track in MP3 format. Just slightly cheaper. Course you could always torrent the tracks but that would be illegal. This is a US-based company so it must be perfectly legal.
Their legal position is very gray right now:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/beatles-for-salefor-25-a-track-but-is-it-legal.ars
Why on earth would you think that just because it's a US company, it's legal? I expect Bluebeat to be sued out of business.
Although? What's the likelihood of DRM, especially cross platform, self contained DRM?
I want to be able to plug this into my car stereo's USB port. Is there anyway that could be prevented?
now Apple is going to sue them for trademark infringement ... oh, wait ...
What trademark is being infringed upon here? The Beatles were on Apple Records, which existed long before Apple (the computer company) did.
@Jasmine: Word.
Hey, newbies, there have been numerous suits over trademark between the two Apples. As it stands now, Apple Inc. (Computers, iPods, iPhones) owns the trademark, and licenses it to Apple Corps. (the Beatles company).
Why are they selling it as an apple? Do apples have anything to do with the Beatles, or is it because of Apple the company?
It's because the Beatles were on Apple Records...
Oh so this has nothing to do with Apple, the company that makes iPods?
no, The Beatles created their own record company back in 1968 called Apple Corps Ltd. They have nothing to do with Macintosh's Apple.
Why is it an apple and not a yellow submarine?
Good question. I think a yellow submarine would've been a much more iconic (and awesome) design.
I think because, although iconic, Yellow Submarine was one of their poorest albums. There weren't many tracks on there, and half of it was George Martin's "Sea of Holes" orchestral stuff. The Apple signifies Apple Corps., the Beatles own recording label.
This is why
http://www.beatlesnews.com/gallery.blackdykemills-big.html
something something "sticking it to apple" something something.
I know there's a joke in there, I'm just too tired to get to the core of it.
Or the corps of it.
While 24 bit is really nice but 44.1 kHz. MEH.
88.2kHz/24 bit is where its at.....
Sorry, but I've never gotten the fixation with quality. As long as I can actually hear the music clearly how does it really matter? Why do people get ripped for so much money off of something so pointless?
@Altair
If you're listening to an iPod (or even a Zune) with tinny default earbuds, it's hard to determine quality of sound. But if you have a good sound system, or decent enough headphones, then sound quality matters. It really does make a huge difference when your ears can actually distinguish among, for example, MP3s at 192, 256, and 320kbps.