Beatles: only on iPod?

After years of refusing to make the move to MP3, the Beatles may give Steve Jobs' iTunes an exclusive, reports Fortune's Tim Arango.

By Tim Arango
Fortune Writer

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Click on the iTunes music store and punch in "Beatles" under artist search. More than 50 albums will pop up, including Arthur Fiedler and the Boston Pops Play the Beatles, but none are the real deal. Fans wishing to download the actual Fab Four in MP3 format have to search peer-to-peer sites like Limewire for unlicensed songs they can listen to free.

But that may be about to change. While details remain to be worked out, Fortune has learned that iTunes is close to a deal to bring the Beatles catalog online. Apple Computer is said to be angling to become the exclusive online music store for the Beatles for a limited window of time. Other music stores, such as Microsoft's MSN and Rhapsody, have courted the Beatles over the years to no avail, but it appears Apple is close to getting first dibs on the band's hits.

When reached by Fortune, an Apple spokesman responded that the company does not comment on "rumor and speculation." If the deal goes through, it will mark a Nixon-Brezhnev-worthy truce - with the band's record label, Britain's EMI Group, serving as a peacemaker - between Apple Computer's Steve Jobs and Neil Aspinall, the onetime Beatles road manager who is now guardian of the band's business interests under the rubric Apple Corps.

At a recent industry conference, David Munns, head of EMI North America, said the Beatles would be available online "soon." The parties were hoping to make a splashy announcement to coincide with the Nov. 21 release by EMI's Capitol Records of "Love," a mashup of Beatles songs that serves as a soundtrack to a Las Vegas Cirque du Soleil production. That didn't happen. Apple Corps declined to comment.

As Fortune went to press, numerous deal points were still being hammered out. According to a music industry executive apprised of the talks, the parties were discussing how lengthy a window of exclusivity iTunes might get and how many tens of millions of dollars Jobs - who is said to be personally involved in the discussions - will commit to an advance for the band and marketing costs.

Also being discussed is whether the band would be willing to take two steps at the same time and endorse the iPod by allowing its music to be used in a commercial. Another scenario making the rounds is the prospect of the Beatles following U2's example with a branded iPod. "If the Beatles were in an iPod ad, that would be humongous," this executive said.

The deal could well fall apart for any number of reasons, including the long-running legal feud between Apple Corps and Apple Computer over both their names and the similarities between the Granny Smith that appears on the label's LPs and the half-eaten apple that is Jobs' corporate logo.

Apple Corps has been in and out of courtrooms with Jobs' Apple for more than 20 years. In the latest incarnation last May, a London judge ruled in favor of Jobs - saying that the iTunes service did not violate a 1991 deal in which Jobs was allowed to keep doing business under the Apple name as long as he agreed not to enter the music business. The Beatles have lodged an appeal, which is slated to be heard next February (clearly, if the two Apples wind up in business together, the matter is likely to be dropped).

The 1987 "Revolution" Nike commercial was the first time a Beatles song was used in a TV ad, and the sneaker maker wound up discontinuing the spot after being sued by the Beatles. (Nike thought it had obtained the proper license for the song, only to find itself in the middle of a legal battle between EMI and Apple Corps.)

"The Beatles' position is that they don't sing jingles to peddle sneakers, beer, pantyhose, or anything else," a lawyer for the band told the Associated Press at the time. Notice he didn't say iPods.

The deal might be closer than one would thing. Steve Jobs demonstrated Apple Computer's new iPhone today by playing "Lovely Rita." Story here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070109/ap_on_bi_ge/apple_macworld_18).

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2401

Beatles catalog to reach Apple's iTunes by Valentine's Day?

By Aidan Malley
AppleInsider

Compelling evidence has surfaced that 1 Infinite Loop and Abbey Road are almost ready to bury the hatchet, as both Apple firms drop hints that they may at last bring the legendary music catalogue of The Beatles to iTunes.

Potentially ending decades of pent-up animosity, Apple Inc. and record label Apple Corps may be on the verge of announcing a crucial deal that would give the Cupertino-based iPod maker the first shot at online distribution of Beatles songs, according to discoveries made by Electronista.

Citing a source speaking with Beatles news outlet Abbey Road Best, the technology news website claims that the once bitter opponents have mended fences and are preparing an exclusive campaign that would further cement iTunes' position at the apex of the online music industry.

Under the terms of the purported deal, Apple Corps would make at least some of the British rock group's music collection available through iTunes on Valentine's Day, providing a convenient means of promoting the band's recent Cirque du Soleil project, Love. The deal would not only grant Apple Inc. one of the most coveted distribution agreements in modern music history, but would also afford the company a valuable weapon against its challengers, according to the report.

Additionally, it was reported that iTunes would become the exclusive home of the Beatles' online music library for a three-month period, delaying the CD release of newly remastered Beatles albums in the process.

The news, while to be taken with a grain of salt, gains momentum from Steve Jobs' recent Macworld keynote address. The Apple Inc. chief executive recently piqued the interest of many avid Mac and iPod followers by making seemingly continuous use of The Beatles material in the music sections of both his Apple TV and iPhone demos, leading some to believe that he was deliberately stoking the fires of existing rumors linking The Beatles and iTunes.

Conspicuously, Jobs scrolled past a "My Beatlemania!" playlist and at least one Beatles album when browsing songs on the Apple TV set-top box. He also played two songs from Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band -- complete with high-detail album art -- while showing the iPhone's music playback functions. Lastly, keen-eyed viewers pointed out the disproportionately large number of Beatles albums in the iPhone's music library.

While the notion of the two Apples settling their grievances has seemed implausible in the wake of Apple Corps' embarassing legal defeat at the hands of its Californian rival, reports since the completion of the lawsuit point to a sudden willingness on the part of the Apple Corps to sign an agreement.

In November, Fortune magazine made the initially audacious claim that the two vocal opponents would put aside their differences to bring The Beatles to both iTunes Store and iPod ads in one fell swoop.

For those who haven't yet seen the Macworld keynote rebroadcast, photos of The Beatles' influence on the presentation are available below.

http://images.appleinsider.com/beatles-mw-070115-1.jpg

http://images.appleinsider.com/beatles-mw-070115-2.jpg

http://images.appleinsider.com/beatles-mw-070115-3.jpg

Just don't tell Heather Mills.

;)

http://ce.seekingalpha.com/article/24542

Apple Meets the Beatles? We'll Find Out Superbowl Sunday

Carl Howe (Blackfriars Communications) submits: I've speculated previously that Apple's (AAPL) introduction of the iPhone at last week's MacWord was just the start of many announcements to come this year. AppleInsider observes that Apple has picked up rights to air a Super Bowl commercial on February 4.. The rumor is that they'll use that commercial to announce an three-month exclusive deal to electronically distribute some Beatles music via the iTunes Store.

Now wearing my marketing hat, this raises a question: Does this ad buy make sense from an ROI point of view? Current Super Bowl ad rates are about $2.6 million for 30 seconds. Apple makes only about US$0.04 on each song sold via iTunes. So it would have to sell about 65 million Beatles tracks during that limited three-month period to break even on the commercial time, to say nothing of the cost of the ad production. And even if it were to sell 100 million Beatles tracks, that would only make Apple $1.4 million or so. So the open question becomes, "Might there be more in an Apple Super Bowl ad than just the Beatles announcement?"

My call: Assuming it was able to negotiate the rights, Apple will probably announce a Beatles-themed iPod to bundle with the Beatles music, just as it did with the U2 iPods. And given that Apple just talked down iPod projections for the first quarter, that would be a smart way to boost sales during this traditionally slow period -- and again surpass analyst projections.

http://seekingalpha.com/wp-content/seekingalpha/images/beatlesipod.jpg
The Fab Four, with a little help from their friends at Apple

In my more speculative moments, I wonder whether even that is big enough for a Super Bowl ad. Apple has been sparing in its use of Super Bowl ad spots, usually (but not always) reserving them for times when it wants to announce something really big, starting with the Ridley Scott only-ever-shown-once-on-TV 1984 Macintosh ad. A Beatles iPod that had all the sexy wide-screen and touch-screen goodness of an iPhone without the phone functions would certainly fit that bill, but I don't think Apple would be willing to confuse the market quite this soon after the iPhone introduction. Regardless, my bet is that the Super Bowl ad is about more than just adding the Beatles catalog to iTunes.

Full disclosure: I own Apple shares.