29 March, 2006

Apple Vs. Apple

The long-awaited showdown is underway.

The Beatles' Apple is suing Jobs' Apple for putting one toe squarely over the line into the music business.
"What Apple Computers are not doing (when) using the Apple mark is selling software, delivery systems, or anything of the like. They are selling music," Vos said. "and that is in violation of the agreement."

Of course I take the Cupertino side in all of this. In my view, the MusicStore is a "delivery system". Apple Computer hasn't branded the songs, they've merely undertaken an efficient successful way to get music to the public.

But of course the whole thing isn't about music. It's about money. The Beatles catalog is ever diminishing in value. With 2 and a half members of the original band deceased (honestly--Ringo?) there are few--if any-- contributions being made to keep frontlist worth. 35 years after the breakup of the band, Apple Music has devovled into a curiosity. But pot and one-legged wives don't come cheap. So you better believe that Apple Music is interested in a royalty payment from the computer company. Record companies have gotten too used to making money for nothing.

It's ironic to see Apple Computer filling the big-money-target role usually reserved for Microsoft. But I can't help wondering how Lennon would see this if he were alive. That dude was always wanting to give stuff away. And in the 60s Apple Music was a classic example of mismanagement. I love how greedy some former hippies get when they realise that life actually is easier when you have money.


At 11:53 AM, March 29, 2006, Blogger Patrick said...

So who's sexy in this post? Steve Jobs or John Lennon? (or Ringo Starr?)

At 12:54 PM, March 29, 2006, Anonymous Hubby said...

You know, even contemplating an answer to that question makes me more than a little queasy...


Post a Comment

<< Home