Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, iTunes, Apple
Apple Computer vs. Apple Corps
Dear Apple
Corps:I was a huge Sesame Street fan growing up. My parents didn't let us watch most of the junk of TV but Sesame Street was on the approved list. And so I became quite familiar with the show and and some of its memorable songs. The "pinball" song that counts from 1-12, or Ernie's "Rubber Ducky" song, or my favorite "One of these things is not like the other" which was used to teach small children how to differentiate between things that are similar but different.
Seeing as you, the executives at Apple Corps--the music publishing label responsible primarily for The Beatles music--didn't appear to have watched much Sesame Street to learn this valuable elementary skill, I felt it would be useful to help you out a bit.
Here's a list of things that have similar names but are not the same:
1) General Mills makes breakfast cereal. General Motors makes automobiles.
2) Discovery Channel is a television station. Discover Card is a credit card company.
3) Cisco makes networking switches. Sysco is a large food distributor.
See the pattern, Apple Corps? Just because two things have similar names, doesn't mean they are in competition with each other. I know your fear is that legions of confused consumers might end up wandering aimlessly around the growing number of Apple Stores looking for Beatles music but really, have a little more faith in the intelligence of your customers. After all, I don't hear stories of restaurants suddenly getting deliveries of Catalyst switches instead of potatoes, or people shopping for their Lucky Charms at their local dealership.
Instead you give us another lawsuit over the Apple brand name. This has been legally settled several times in the past with Apple Computer paying you many millions of dollars. Give it a rest. Apple Computer has single-handedly saved the music industry from obsolescence and helped it migrate to the digital future. Millions of people are buying songs from the iTunes Music Store, netting a profit for all parties involved (though the benefit to the artist is still questionable), and yet arguably the single most popular band of all time is still missing from the most popular downloadable music store. All for a stupid argument over a name?
Sesame Street taught me to understand the differences between similar things, but it also taught me that greed is bad and that underestimating people is a mistake. I would love to see the statistics on the little search box that Apple Computer includes in their iTunes program. How many people do you think are searching the ITMS every day for Beatles music to buy? I'm willing to bet it's a very large number. Every day that Beatles music isn't available for sale on the iTunes Music Store is a day that you lose. Get a clue and release your substantial and popular music library to the iTunes Music Store and stop beating that dead legal horse. Few, if any, of your customers care about the name of your record label or that it's similar to the name of a popular computer company.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Justin said 8:11AM on 3-27-2006
Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm pretty damn sure it's "Discovery" channel. Discover is a magazine. Big fan of both. =D
Reply
Justin said 8:13AM on 3-27-2006
Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm pretty damn sure it's "Discovery" channel. Discover is a magazine. Big fan of both. =D
Reply
Mr cooper said 8:14AM on 3-27-2006
Great Post!
Reply
Tyler said 8:16AM on 3-27-2006
Discovery Channel. DiscoverY.
Reply
Nik Fletcher said 8:19AM on 3-27-2006
Which Apple is the world more likely to remember? And Steve and his lawyers know it too.....! Settle it once and for all please Apple Corps and then release all the Beatles' stuff on iTMS. Thank you.
Reply
Steve in Denmark said 8:21AM on 3-27-2006
I'm confused; do The Beatles record for Apple Computers?
Reply
Joshua said 8:23AM on 3-27-2006
Hilarious!!! You see, I was wondering why my new Chevy didn't with a years supply of Cheerios. Thank you for sharing.
Apple Corp should allow for the same deal that U2 had with Apple: entire music catalog for $250; 6G iPod $399. I would buy it on the day they introduced it.
Reply
philip said 8:28AM on 3-27-2006
so the beatles invent the ipod and don't even sell their music on itunes?!?!?!
Reply
jaemz said 8:35AM on 3-27-2006
"General Moters", "Discover Channel", "Discover Card"...
Dude, where's my spell check?
As for your point, I believe Apple Computers told Apple Corporation that they wouldn't get into the music business.
Reply
electronicat said 8:36AM on 3-27-2006
Don't forget, this all started in the '70s because of their logo similarities, not just the names. Jobs named it Apple and had a logo with a bite out of it in tribute to Apple Records. But Apple Records has been out of the public consciousness for over 30 years now. They should just admit defeat.
Reply
James Cummings said 9:03AM on 3-27-2006
Ah, and Apple Computer Inc never sued or harassed anyone over anything that they thought was their proprietary brand mark?
Reply
fleecer said 9:04AM on 3-27-2006
whoa, sesame street taught you that "underestimating people is a mistake"? dang, guess I missed that episode. Good post though. Point well made.
Reply
Bj? said 9:05AM on 3-27-2006
Well said.
It's a shame that there's no Beatles music available on iTMS. Everybody knows that Apple Records is the Beatles' label, and everybody knows that Apple Computer does those iPods... .
Get over it, this is a kindergarden-lawsuit. (Or do you say kindergarten?).
Reply
iJavaJoe said 9:09AM on 3-27-2006
Unfortunately the all but defunked Apple Corp continues to have lawsuit spasms, it's only signs of life. I grew up with the Beatles and the cool Apple label on the records. But Apple corp as a trademark is dead. Perhaps they've produced and sold music in the UK but not much else. It's not been Apple computer that caused this demise, it's Apple corp itself. The time is ripe to toss the rotten fruit and move on.
If god pulled sh*t like this we'd all be sued for patent, copywrite, and trademark infringement.
Reply
john russell said 9:10AM on 3-27-2006
Think of the huge amount of people who want The Beatles' music on the ITMS. Also think of the advertising campaign Apple could have for adding the library of Beatles songs to the ITMS. I can imagine some great silhouette adverts being made for this.
Reply
Damien said 9:10AM on 3-27-2006
Sesame St. also taught me that people make small mistakes like typos and that they don't matter as much as you might think.
Discover(y) Channel typo now fixed. I hope this hasn't caused any of you to try to buy something with your cable nature channel.
Reply
RP said 9:22AM on 3-27-2006
I'm sure most of us can forgive hte typos and appreciate the content of the post. It's very well written. The only problem is you're preaching to the choir. Please send this post (and all of our responses) to Apple Corp Records/EMI (or whomever).
PS. I did the "hte" on purpose.
Reply
Rick J said 9:29AM on 3-27-2006
They're not quite the same, however, "Orange" is the name of three different companies if not more; a telecommunications company, a maker of guitar amps and a maker of mountain bikes as well as being a piece of fruit. The number of times I've been out to buy a piece of fruit and come back with either an iPod or a bunch of Beatles records- I think I'm going to sue.
Reply
warrenpeace said 9:32AM on 3-27-2006
This is ridiculous as the Blackberry v. NTP case. A company which produces nothing, sues a prospering company, with the excuse that it's 'protecting it's patents/trademarks/copyrights'.
Apple Computer is a hugely popular brand and Apple records should just be thankful that some of that may rub off on them.
Reply
Mark Thomas said 9:36AM on 3-27-2006
Nobody on the planet equates the word "Apple" with the Beatles nowadays, and I doubt they ever did. Apple Corps should change their name to "Beatles Music" and get over it already. Lawyers are such pathetic, useless, law-abusing scum. I'm going back to college to devise a new virus that genetically targets lawyers and renders them impotent.
Whoops, too late.
Reply