Mix: Olympus, John Lennon, iDoom, Thought Out | iLounge News

2014 iPad iPhone iPod Buyers' Guide from iLounge.com

News

Mix: Olympus, John Lennon, iDoom, Thought Out

Author's pic

By LC Angell

Contributing Editor
Published: Wednesday, November 9, 2005
News Categories:

Olympus said today that it would halt production of portable digital music players because it is unable to keep up with companies such as Apple and Sony.

Brand Republic reports: “iTunes is to be denied access to John Lennon’s entire solo back cataloge, most of which becomes available for digital download for the first time next month, due to a long-running dispute between Apple and The Beatles’ management.”

iDoom 1.1, the latest version of the Doom port for the iPodlinux platform, adds support for the iPod nano.

ThoughtOut will be attending the Portable Media Expo & Podcasting Conference this week and is offering 10% to 20% off its line of iPod stands.

« Mix: iSkin eVo3 for 5G iPods, iLoad PC-less ripper, i-Pax Speakers

Cingular cuts ROKR price by $100 »

Related Stories

Comments

1

I agree another beatles misstep.  Aside from the other music service, you can also get the music for free.

Posted by Mike on November 9, 2005 at 6:24 PM (PDT)

2

The idiocy of this isn’t that Yoko and/or EMI won’t put Lennon’s music on iTunes. That’s their loss - Apple won’t lose much money from it nor will it keep anyone from buying an iPod.

No, the idiocy is Apple Records insisting that an agreement that predates anything but computer beeps and bloops has any meaning today. Time and technology moves on. The Beatles haven’t. And except for a bunch of middle-aged ex-hippies, how many people think ‘Beatles’ when they hear Apple?

The music business seems intent on destroying itself. I won’t cry over Lennon’s music being unavailable at the iTunes store. Will I buy the CD? Certainly not if it is copy protected. So what does that leave me? And how does that benefit EMI?

Idiots.

Posted by david on November 9, 2005 at 7:07 PM (PDT)

3

Just because the agreement was made before Apple Computer became involved with music does not in itself make the agreement irrelevant. If Apple Corps had believed that Apple Computer would never ‘move on’ in that direction, they would not have insisted on the agreement in the first place. Just because the technology has made it lucrative for Apple Computer to do so, does not automatically mean that the agreement was unfair. The truth is, Apple Corps had the forsight to try and protect themselves, whereas Apple Computer signed away their musical soul believing they would never need it.

Having said that, it seems clear to me that the lawyers at Apple Corps are either just plain stubborn, or are desperate to try and ensure that ‘Apple’ remains associated with The Beatles in public the public mind. Since they have already clearly lost that battle, why don’t they just negotiate a settlement that lets both companies move on?

Posted by Magic Rabbits in Aberdeen, Scotland on November 10, 2005 at 2:21 AM (PDT)

4

Hi guys, the Beatles don’t need iTunes.  If iTunes needs the Beatles, who cares, let them figure that one out, that’s what they’re paid for.

Posted by Berci on November 10, 2005 at 3:40 AM (PDT)

5

“Hi guys, the Beatles don’t need iTunes.”

And vice versa.  Nothing but a bunch of overrated hacks.

Posted by TheRaven on November 10, 2005 at 5:54 AM (PDT)

6

Overrated hacks! That’s a good one. Yeah, real funny. Do you mean overrated like, say, Radiohead? Overrated hacks. That’s rich! Ha ha ha!

Posted by Mark on November 10, 2005 at 6:50 AM (PDT)

7

You guys are full of it. I have two ipod and I love itunes from day one but this is a big loss for apple corps. I don’t care about 1.5 million songs anymore because napster and everyone else have that now.  Music is about content. I care about the songs and artist that I love.  For me and millions of others, John Lennon is the greatest artist in the world.  Will you guys be telling the same lie when the greatest band in the world (Beatles) comes out on napster, not itunes? don’t me a Mac geek. be honest with yourself.  I love itunes but i’m not going to bullsshhht myself like you guys are.

Posted by mike on November 10, 2005 at 7:06 AM (PDT)

8

TheRaven:

Overrated hacks?

You are officially an idiot. Congrats. Not like them? That’s fine. Overrated hacks? No, son, you’re a fool and it’s good that you announced it to the public at large. Go pop in whatever Black Metal album you cry to after a tough day at school and leave the music judgements to people with more taste.

Posted by regalbegal on November 10, 2005 at 9:24 AM (PDT)

9

I can’t say I mind John’s music not being available on iTunes. I love Lennon and The Beatles, but there’s just some music I have to have a hard copy of. Not that I don’t put it on my iPod, but I like the feeling of holding that disc (be it compact or vinyl).

Apple Corps is getting a bit out of hand, though. I’m a huge Beatles fan, but I’ve never associated “Apple” and “Beatles”, or any of them in their solo careers.

I’m surprised at Yoko, however. She always acts like she wants to carry on John’s ideas, but I know John once said “Music is everybody’s possession, it’s only the producers that think people own it.”

I can imagine he would have his own music in file-sharing networks.

Posted by Eric on November 10, 2005 at 2:41 PM (PDT)

10

My 40GB 4G’s LOADED with Beatles music, done the old-school way…ripping it myself.

BTW, for the longest time I’d always associated Apple with The Beatles, but then again I’m an old fart. When Apple Computer started up however, back then I never really thought the two Steves were ripping off the trademark like Apple Corps claimed.

Funny how times change but self-serving greed doesn’t…now it’s Apple Computer going around left and right protecting their precious ‘iPod’ name and throwing their lawyers around, even though someone else had already beat them to it.

Posted by flatline response on November 10, 2005 at 8:15 PM (PDT)

11

iTunes doesn’t need the Beatles—that part you did get right. But in this day-and-age, The Beatles DO NEED iTunes. Napster? Give me a break. Napster started sucking the second it went legit. John Lennon ISN’T the greatest artist in the world—HE’S ONE OF THEM, BUT HE’S NOT THE GREATEST. The Beatles ARE NOT the greatest band in the world—THEY’RE ONE OF THEM, but they’re NOT THE GREATEST BAND. Sorry, to whoever said that “John Lennon/The Beatles were/are the greatest” but you need to get your facts straight.

Posted by Jack on November 12, 2005 at 9:22 PM (PDT)

12

Beatles need Itunes? That’s retarded. The day they want to be in Itunes, they’ll be in Itunes.  The ball is in their court, always has been, always will be.
I think they’ve been doing ok for the last 40 years without itunes.  Don’t take my word for it, look at all the previous comments, people would rather own the cd or buy the cd more they want the itunes or napster restriction on it.  I can’t blame them.

Posted by Antoine on November 13, 2005 at 8:23 PM (PDT)

13

Itunes is the best software and I love it, that’s why i frequently visit this website. 

I have over 3100 albums, which is about 44000 songs.  90 percent of them were ripped from cd, the rest was from itunes music store, napster, rhapsody, yahoo music and emusic.  I don’t like the restriction on any of them so I always convert them all to mp3 format so I can do whatever I want with it.  The quality is almost perfect.

Anyway to make a long story short, do I believe itunes is going to be around in 10 years? Yes. Will it maintain it dominant market share? No.

Apple’s restriction (ipod only, quicktime only, no third party anything) will eventually hurt them.  Apple hasn’t learn from the PC, I’ll be damned if in 10 years, the only option that I have for my Itunes is an Ipod and quicktime video.

Hey Steve Jobs, I know you a smart guy but how about some choice? no, the shuffle is not an option.

Posted by Antoine on November 15, 2005 at 2:57 AM (PDT)

14

Jack,

What rational person doesn’t think about 10 years from now?

lol and “get your facts straight” is what you said about people who said John Lennon/The Beatles were/are the greatest.
Wouldn’t really be a fact anyway, would it? More like a opinon, so, infact, they can’t get their facts straight, because thats what they beleive.

Lennon, is one of my favorite artist and I think a lot of people will agree. But whether or not he is on Itunes, his music, along with Beatles will live on forever.

Posted by Josh on November 15, 2005 at 10:23 PM (PDT)

15

Jack,

Did you say who thinks about 10 years from now? You don’t think about 10 years from now?

It must be nice to be you.  No retirement account, no 401k, no saving account, no mortgage account, never went to college, never save for your children’s college fund, I can go on and on forever but who thinks about that right?

I’m 26 and i’ve been listening to my music for more than 10 years and I hope to continue to listen to it for the next 10 years and beyond. Who wants their music to expired?

I care about this moment, that’s why in december, myself and others are going to give my money to napster instead of Itunes so we can listen to John Lennon. 

I know it piss you off but don’t get all geek on me.

Itunes music store is exactly what it says it is.  It is a music store.  I’m not going to buy a cd at walmart just because I like walmart.  I’m going to buy a cd at walmart only if they have my cd.

Posted by Antoine on November 16, 2005 at 2:31 AM (PDT)

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.

Email:

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Shop for Accessories: Cases, speakers, chargers, etc.