Apple’s not so subtle “F U” to the Beatles - Macenstein

Apple’s not so subtle “F U” to the Beatles

Is a giant multi-billion company above petty squabbles? Doesn’t look like it.

One of the most popular rumors leading up to Apple’s “It’s Only Rock and Roll” music event this week was that the Beatles would finally be announcing the availability of their newly remastered catalog on iTunes. In fact it seemed like a dead lock once word of a Beatles Special event was announced for the same day. Well, the event came and went with nary a mention of an Apple/Beatles partnership, or even an Apple/Ringo partnership. But should we have been surprised?

We pointed out earlier that Apple’s choice to use a Rolling Stones song to promote a Beatles-themed music event seemed a little odd, and it turns out we were right. Real or imagined, music fans have historically considered the Beatles and the Stones to be “musical rivals”, and while they do not quite have the public Blur/Oasis feud we were using an example, there’s enough of a “who’s better?” debate to make Apple’s motivation of lyric choice highly telling.

In hindsight, it would appear that Apple knew in advance that The Beatles’ 9/9/09 multi-format musical event was going to diss iTunes, and they were none too happy about it. Perhaps Apple even purposely scheduled their music announcement to coincide with the Beatles’ to steal a little Beatle thunder – after all, it’s not the 1960’s anymore, and these days a new iPod announcement tends to generate more buzz than a re-re-re-release of 30 year-old songs with slightly less hiss than before. Apple’s little jab at the Beatles in the invite should have stopped the iTunes/Beatles speculation dead in its tracks, but I suppose the Beatles still have an optimistic fan or two.

Oh and by the way, if you were wondering, the Stones are better than the Beatles.

23 Responses to “Apple’s not so subtle “F U” to the Beatles”
  1. Anonymoose says:

    The Stones and the Beatles both suck.

    Yeah. I said it.

  2. Jim says:

    Check your math, dude; that would be *40* year old music now. Yep, you don’t get to have those 10 years back just yet… 😉

    In another 10 years, it’ll be a half-century old at which point it’ll probably sell another 30 million copies just because it’s 50 years old. Of course, it won’t be physical media of any kind. They’ll just beam it straight to your brain and then send a C&D when you sing along aloud in public. :p

  3. Prescott says:

    Dude, Beatles FTFW

  4. crsrc says:

    I think you’re reading too much into this. And you’re wrong, the beatles are wayyyy better than the stones

  5. Sj says:

    If it were an F U at anyone, it would be EMI.

    Paul McCartney has done several recent interviews making it clear that Apple Corps wants this to happen, and that EMI is to blame.

    Even Sony/ATV, which is tied up with probate issues following it’s 50% owner’s overdose, was able to get their publisher’s issues ironed out.

  6. Julian Asamer says:

    No. The stones are better.

  7. Chris Leither says:

    Whatever guys…

    Just buy their CDs… and rip them yourself to iTunes…
    Problem solved…

    And if you are way too lazy to accomplish that (just like the Doc) then order these CDs via amazon…

  8. Goobi says:

    Maybe the Beatles were supposed to make it to the event. But that Yoko Moko bitch spilled the beans and Steve didn’t like it. I thought this post would be about that.

  9. Matthew says:

    Stones – Sexy, earthy Rock N’ Roll
    Beatles – Nursery Rhyme music

  10. Larry says:

    I think the owners of the Beatles music are trying to wait long enough that anyone with any interest in their music has stolen it via the internet prior to it being available.

    I have already lost too many minutes of my life to hearing their crap on the radio. I’m glad to say my ipods are Beatles free.

  11. Bonneswe says:

    beatles are good, stones are great…

  12. Some Guy says:

    As to who is better?
    The Stones still tour to the day.

  13. Anonymous says:

    idiot, the beatles don’t tour because half of them are dead. the stones are barely clinging on, but they’re nonetheless alive and still physically able to tour

  14. Yeah, I think John and George would both need doctor’s notes in order to tour.
    – The Doc

  15. Justin says:

    I still think it’s going to happen, but they get the money for the physical release first which they can probably charge more for with “extras” and then later release it on iTunes.

  16. Killer's Dad says:

    Uh, um, Doc, shouldn’t that be FY as in F YOU?

  17. slappy says:

    Britney beats both Stones and Beatles. There I said it. 😉

  18. Anon says:

    Let me just say from having first hand experience of EMI people, when they came to our company way back in the mists of time, they spent all day downloading crap and installing Kazaa or some other bittorrent crap. After that we had to ban all sorts of stuff on our public computers. They were a bunch of C***s. And a total waste of space. Worst clients we had ever had.

  19. Rob says:

    You’re crazy. There’s a Beatles course at my university about their impact on music. No such course exists for the Rolling Stones anywhere AFAIK.

  20. Mick Jagger may be physically melting, but at least he’s still kicking.

    Either way, I know how to trump them both – Bono.

    That’s right. U2. Amen.

  21. herman says:

    herman’s hermits, dude….

  22. LouRob says:

    Any true rock/pop fan can appreciate the Beatles and the Stones. Oh, and Led Zeppelin too.

    Besides, haven’t all the real Beatle fans already ripped our CDs to iTunes? What’s the idea of having to pay for them again.

    The Beatles lost their window of opportunity back when iTunes opened. They could’ve made a splash, now it looks like their just going to be grabbing for attention. It’s kinda pathetic.

Leave A Comment


Click here to inquire about making a fortune by advertising your game, gadget, or site on Macenstein.