

Apple Strikes Deal to Sell Beatles Catalog Online - linhir
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/business/media/16apple.html

======
sumeetjain
I get it: The Beatles are huge, and Apple's had a colorful relationship with
them. But why does that make tomorrow unforgettable?

 _"While the move to digital does not quite rival the band’s first trip across
the Atlantic to appear on “The Ed Sullivan Show” in 1964, it is an
acknowledgment that online purchases dominate the music industry’s sales
strategy."_

I didn't realize that the online purchasing model was something that still
needed acknowledgement, and I definitely don't see how one artist's addition
to the iTunes catalogue (even if that artist is The Beatles) is such an
acknowledgement.

~~~
sumeetjain
Also, this reminded me of a friend's tweet from a while back.

<http://twitter.com/holman/status/20483293633>

~~~
protomyth
If you are a Beatles fan you have their music on (much better quality than
mp3/aac) CDs. You have probably also ripped the songs to mp3/aac at a higher
bit rate than iTunes will sell you (or maybe to a lossless format). Given
that, I would expect some second day stories about how much better the CDs are
anyway.

The only reason I would see a Beatles announcement as worth much is if it
signaled that iTunes was going to sell music at above CD quality. At that
point I could see some really big time sales.

~~~
Dbug
Above CD quality? With 60's material done with vacuum tubes and magnetic tape,
CD sampling rates and bit depth won't limit the distribution quality. Of
course there are often cases where there's room for noticeable improvement
over earlier CD releases, but that's due to better hardware and differences in
mastering and other processing.

~~~
ssp
I bet you could sell music sampled at some ridiculous rate to audiophiles. How
about "Copelab Music Company"?

------
dotBen
For those of you too young to remember, the Beatles were a band from
Liverpool, England that your grandparents probably enjoyed.

~~~
Legion
There's more to explain than that.

Young reader, you may know the Beatles as a teeniebopper boy band. You've
probably seen old videos of them playing sappy pop like "I Want To Hold Your
Hand" to crowds of fainting 14 year old girls.

What you may not realize is that they turned into an experimental band that
really pushed the envelope of their day, in a way we almost never get to see
in mainstream pop music today. (Sadly, almost all the boundary-pushing today
is on the indie fringes - great stuff but only heard by people who seek it
out)

To try and make an illustration using more contemporary pop acts, imagine if
The Backstreet Boys turned into Radiohead and were the ones putting out albums
like OK Computer and Kid A. That's kind of like the progression the Beatles
took.

Skip the early albums and grab a copy of Revolver.

~~~
philwelch
This is a common narrative; I think the dissenting point of view is worthy of
consideration as well: <http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html>

------
qjz
Perhaps a little background will help explain why some consider this a big
deal: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer>

------
glhaynes
If this is all that's announced tomorrow, then the apple.com post today was
overhyping. And I don't generally accuse Apple of overhyping.

~~~
brudgers
Maybe overhyped, but definitely Incredible, Amazing, Magical, and
Revolutionary.

------
powera
Does this really matter? Has anyone waited 7 years to listen to the Beatles
and not, you know, used a CD to add it to iTunes?

------
dstein
The Beatles being made available in MP3 17 years after the invention of the
MP3 isn't exactly noteworthy.

~~~
jws
Not MP3. AAC. They managed to wait out mp3 entirely.

~~~
InclinedPlane
The Beatles have already embraced MP3, last year's release of the box set also
saw a limited edition USB key containing FLAC and MP3 versions of the songs.

<http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-USB/dp/B002VH7P4O>

------
davidjhall
Phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust.

