appleinsider.com — Peter Kafka with MediaMemo cited "a source familiar with the band's plans" in a story Tuesday, in which he debunks the ongoing rumors that the world's most famous rock band would see its catalog debut on Apple's iTunes Music Store.
Sep 8, 2009 View in Crawl 4
c3rb85Sep 8, 2009
If you notice though the cost of a CD at wal-mart averages around $12 where as the average on iTunes will be around $10. So that 2 extra dollars would be covering the cost of actually delivering a tangible product. In the case of the Beatles though, I completely agree with selling $2 a track for content that has been out for decades is outrageous and for something that would be digital and has really no cost at all to make just comes off as I'm in it for money.Agreed though that the labels cry foul to often yet they sit there and screw over the people that actually create something. I'm surprised though that there hasn't been a push for new artists that control their own label with the way social networking is now. But then again, you have to have a good working knowledge of publishing, licensing, and contacts to get your material heard by the masses.
austingalavizSep 8, 2009
Or people that want ridiculous bloatware on their computers. Come on, iTunes cons outweigh the pros.
hellicusSep 9, 2009
No one using iTunes deserve to listen to The Beatles.
hellicusSep 9, 2009
Yes, yes you do.
Closed AccountSep 9, 2009
Well clearly you do, seeing as you have them on every other format, why stop with the most convenient?
rand21althorSep 13, 2009
I agree. I already have all the Beatles tracks I want in digital format.
PaulTheBookGuySep 14, 2009
Why would I want to save retail giants who sell physical media?What I'd love to see is direct downloads where the money goes to the artists, and not some retarded 90 year olds sitting in a boardroom desperately trying to stop the digital age.