Beatles Hit iTunes, World Fails To Care

Beatles Hit iTunes, World Fails To Care

Apple and the Beatles finally did a deal last week, and iTunes was flooded with new Beatles product as a result. To judge by this week’s Australian chart positions, no-one cared quite as much as was predicted.

The absence of the Beatles from iTunes has long been a cause for discussion. In part, it reflects the turgid legal history between the band and Apple over who has the rights to the Apple name, which was a record label for the Beatles several years before it was a computer company for Steve Jobs. In part, it reflects the determination of the surviving Beatles and Beatles’ widows to get as much money as they can. But mostly, it reflects that fact that any Beatles news is still considered a big deal by news media editors. Add Apple to that mix and it’s little surprise the press went crazy.

And while it might have been hyperbole of Apple to describe the announcement as a day “you’ll never forget”, it did garner an awful lot of media coverage. There were widespread predictions that Beatles tunes would flood the singles and albums charts worldwide, and lots of breathless repetition of the claim from Ringo Starr (direct from Apple’s press release) that “if you want it, you can get it now”. Both turned out to be wrong, despite Apple instituting what looked like a Beatles-only policy on the front page of the iTunes music store for several days last week.

To address the first and geekier point: while iTunes currently includes all the studio albums and singles which the Beatles released while active, it doesn’t include the three-part Anthology series of out-takes and rare recordings, the Live At The BBC radio recordings, or the remixed and Love albums. So it isn’t the complete Beatles catalogue.

The chart domination also wasn’t obvious. In Australia, two Beatles albums reached the Digital Albums chart (Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band at 42 and Abbey Road at 43). Neither sold enough copies to make the regular top 50, which combines digital and physical sales. For individual tracks, nothing ranked in the Top 50 Singles chart or the Top 40 Digital Track chart at all.

One obvious explanation in Australia is that the pricing for Beatles content is a total rip-off. Individual tracks from the Beatles cost $2.19, single albums are $20.99, and double albums are $35.99. In the US, the same content costs $1.29, $12.99 and $19.99 respectively. Given the near-parity between the US and Australian dollar, it’s no wonder many people decided not to buy those tunes in this format. (Some might have used a US iTunes account instead.)

However, pretty much the same situation occurred in the UK, where old tracks reappearing on the charts is a much more regular occurrence and there was less whinging about the price. Just one track made the UK Top 40 (‘Hey Jude’), only only four made the Top 75. Placing four tracks in the charts is something of an achievement, but it’s not a unique one, even this week: Rihanna also has four songs in the UK Top 75. (The US charts aren’t out as I write this, but since the Hot 100 there factors in radio airplay as well as sales, the impact was always likely to be smaller.)

What does this tell us? Firstly, that Beatles fanatics already own all the material on CD, possibly multiple times, and aren’t racing to get it in another, lower-quality format. Secondly, that there hasn’t been an enormous queue of people whose only reason for not buying Beatles tracks was the fact they weren’t on iTunes. And that shouldn’t come as a surprise: the band hasn’t been active for 40 years, and a lot of other musicians have appeared.

Of course, first week sales aren’t everything either. From now on, if someone suddenly thinks “I really need my own copy of ‘I Am The Walrus’,” there’ll be an easy, legal way to get it online, and that will represent a pleasant trickle of income for the Beatles and Apple. But given the hype, a pleasant trickle seems a slightly disappointing outcome.

Lifehacker’s weekly Streaming column looks at how technology is keeping us entertained.


  • Wait, so Beatles tracks are selling at a 30% mark-up compared to other iTunes songs? Yeah, I can see something like that putting a serious dent in enthusiasm. It doesn’t matter how good their music is, a rip-off is still a rip-off.

    And just like the author said, there’s also the fact that many Beatles fans (i.e. the elderly ones) have already bought the entire catalogue on multiple occasions in multiple formats, so why would they fork over money again just to get it over iTunes? The more tech-savvy Beatles fans would almost certainly have made mp3s out of their Beatles CDs years ago, so why would they pay for something they already have? (Oh dear, I think I can already hear audiophiles seething at that remark) And I can’t see much demand for the Beatles coming from younger generations (being the utter musical philistines that they are), so I can’t help but wonder if Apple have gravely miscalculated the commercial potential of having the Beatles in their catalogue (or indeed the relevance).

    But you know that’s not going to stop the fanboys from crowing on about how great Apple is for securing this deal.

  • The Australian rip off pricing, and the fact that I suspect that most beatles fans have long, long since given up waiting for a legal mp3 release and downloaded the damn things illegally certainly contributed.

    But I expect that Christmas will see an awful lot of 40+ types getting mp3 players pre-loaded with The Beatles, or using the itunes gift cards that came with their Christmas presents to go and buy the Beatles mp3s. I know it’s a strong candidate for this year’s Christmas gift for a couple of people in my family.

Log in to comment on this story!