All things may not be that rosey between Apple/Apple. It looks like the Apple computer giants may not be making the boon of the century in the digitally-infused music chase that would net them The Beatles. To me, it would be a windfall and a huge coup to snag The Beatles exclusively, or at least exclusively for a short while.
OK, they may not be making a mint, but I’m sure there are going to find some way to scrape by with The Beatles on board. Time will tell. I really just want to see what the ad campaign for The Beatles on itunes will look like.
- Read another report about the lack of financial impact that The Beatles might have at the Mac Daily News.
Here’s what we’ve read.
Despite signs that Apple Inc. may land a historic deal with the Beatles to make the band’s entire catalog of music available on its iTunes store, analysts say that such a move would be a “non-event” in terms of the company’s profits.
Rumors of such a deal have been circulating for years. Speculation grew to a feverish pitch Friday when ex-Beatle Paul McCartney told Billboard magazine that an agreement with iTunes is “virtually settled.”
Currently, none of the digital-music merchants has rights to sell Beatles tunes online.
Apple’s iTunes is by far the largest player in the sector, but the company was hampered by a long-running trademark dispute with the band’s music-publishing arm, which is named Apple Corps.
The two sides reached a settlement in February, which many expected to pave the way for an eventual deal to sell Beatles songs.
Still, this won’t do much to boost profits at Apple and other online sellers, analysts said Friday.
At 99 cents a song, it is believed by most that Apple simply breaks even on song sales.
Though the company does not disclose its actual profitability on music sales, Chief Executive Steve Jobs has said publicly that there is little in the way of profits in sales of music. He added that he started iTunes as a way to help boost sales of the company’s popular iPod music player.
“Having the Beatles on iTunes is fabulous, but it’s a non-event,” according to W.R. Hambrecht & Co. analyst Matthew Kather, who has a buy rating on Apple.
“It’s not a needle mover,” agreed Shaw Wu, an analyst with American Technology Research, who also has a buy rating on Apple.
Wu and others believe that to significantly boost any music seller’s bottom line, it would take a jump in online sales, and such a spike is unlikely to come from the sudden availability of the Beatles.
Still, the development is sure to be a boon for music aficionados and for Apple Corps, the company that manages the Beatles’ commercial interests, Wu said.
Apple Corps and EMI Group, which holds the rights to the band’s recordings, in April said that they had settled a long-standing dispute over royalties — paving the way for the band to release its back catalog through digital-music retail platforms.
A recent agreement between Apple Inc. and EMI to make EMI’s artists available over iTunes without copyright-protection software, albeit at a higher price point, also has raised expectations that a deal will soon be reached to allow the Beatles’ material to be sold digitally.
Source: North Jersey
Filed under: Apple, Audio, Beatles News, Download |
I read the news today: All Beatle news. 
The Beatles missed the boat already. They have waited way to long to put the music on services like iTunes. Tons of people have already ripped the music or downloaded it from p2p. Real Beatles fans have the music on their iPods already. and don;t forget while the Beatles music has not been available thought 100% LEAGEL sites such as iTunes it has been available from allofMP3.com for years in any format you wish including unprotected ACC that plays great on an iPod. While the legality of allofMP3.com is questionable – they do operate legally under Russian laws – the fact is the music is being bought.
So yes the Beatles coming to Itunes will be big but not as big as it would have been 2 or 3 years ago. I have resisted the urge to get the Beatles music from allofMP3.com. The temptation has been great and I know many people probably say heck I bought the Albums years ago any way so don;t I have a right to own it digitally?
for Jay:let me tell you my opinion,i could answer to your question:yes! but,why not?why everytime people should downloading Beatles and every kind of music in a illegal way?that’s not right!maybe you already know there’s a wide sort of market ,but is an illegal market about downloading songs.so,i can tell you that downloading music in legal way could be a better way for listening free music,so everybody could have possibility-and give rights to all music bands,singers who worked a lot in the past for producing so many albums which have done music history.
The true collectors are waiting for the deluxe edition – Superior sounding albums with Bonus tracks and liner notes written by Bob Dylan or something.. Maybe a DVD full of videos.. Who knows if we’ll ever get that.. The true collector already has the material.. In one form or another.. That’s the only way someone like me is going to go out and Re-Purchase everything I’ve already bought..
And it’s sad with I-tunes – The artist gets screwed.. The album as we know it – is dead… The album cover is dead.. The excitement is gone.. And hear me out.. When an artist or Pop star signs a deal, they really sign their life away.. They usually wind up owing the record company money.. Money for advances etc. The record company will then take your share of royalties until you pay them back.. And few ever do.. And few ever get the chance to release a 2nd album.. I think with Paul moving over to Starbucks was a good move.. He’s attacking the system at a different angle, and good for him.
The artist has to share their paycheck with several people.. A good 50% will go to Uncle Sam.. 5-10% will go to a manager.. 5-10% will go to an accountant.. 5-10% will go to a lawyer.. And you also have to split things up with your band, road crew etc. etc.. And that doesn’t include the Ex-Wife..
Best Buy now has a Monopoly on music stores here in the US.. I mean you can go to other places like Target, Wal-Mart or Circuit City, but Best Buy seems to be the Best out of all of those choices.. The thing is.. I don’t like Best Buy.. You can’t go into a Best Buy and count on finding McCartney’s Band on the Run for example.. It’s going to be hit or miss.. And once you get out of Best Buy, choices really start to get slimmer.. You can go to a bookstore like Border’s or Barnes and Noble, but the prices there are off the charts.. You’ll pay atleast $5 more for an album or DVD than you would at Best Buy or Wal-Mart..
Best Buy killed the record store as far as I’m concerned. And the Internet added to it.. There is such a vast amount of people that trade rare albums and bootlegs.. If you’re searching for it, chances are, you can find it for free.. The Beatles did jump on this boat a bit late, but it’s a boat that might not do them any good.. People already have it. And the exciting thing about the Bealtes albums.. Was – They were ALBUMS>> If I bought Abbey Rd. I wouldn’t want to buy it over the net.. I’d want to look at and feel the cover.. There’s something special about older albums in that way.. Revolver.. Sgt. Pepper.. Abbey Rd.. It’s a package deal.. A lot of that is missing in today’s music world.. There’s no mystery behind the covers..
I wonder why people would prefer an itunes download to the actual cd. Let’s see, lossless wav versus lossy m4v or mp3 or other? hmmm, seems like a no brainer to me, but many seem to get excited about being able to buy an individual song online, so go figure