[psmith2.0]

http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2466

It's only about time.

How funny this is announced the day after the venue we were all expecting and hoping for (and that might've resulted in a pretty spiffy commercial).



Dorks.

[Brad]

For the official report, direct from Apple:

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/02/05apple.html

CUPERTINO, California and LONDON—Apple® Inc. and The Beatles’ company Apple Corps Ltd. are pleased to announce the parties have entered into a new agreement concerning the use of the name “Apple” and apple logos which replaces their 1991 Agreement. Under this new agreement, Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to “Apple” and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. In addition, the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies will end, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes®. The terms of settlement are confidential. Commenting on the settlement, Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO said, “We love the Beatles, and it has been painful being at odds with them over these trademarks. It feels great to resolve this in a positive manner, and in a way that should remove the potential of further disagreements in the future.” Commenting on the settlement on behalf of the shareholders of Apple Corps, Neil Aspinall, manager of Apple Corps said, “It is great to put this dispute behind us and move on. The years ahead are going to be very exciting times for us. We wish Apple Inc. every success and look forward to many years of peaceful co-operation with them.”

[psmith2.0]

Yes, the official (and comma splice-free?) version from Apple. Good show!

I hate to start all this back up again (after yesterday and all) but I guess this means some sort of "Beatles on iTunes" announcement is in the works?




*ducks behind a Vox amp*

[drewprops]

I hope the ad is as good as that Sheryl Crow one that I saw.... MAN that thing was good.

[zippy]

How many people instantly thought of Paul when they saw that ad?

*/raises hand/*

[chucker]

Originally Posted by drewprops I hope the ad is as good as that Sheryl Crow one that I saw.... MAN that thing was good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY4Dp-WZwr8

That?

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by zippy How many people instantly thought of Paul when they saw that ad? */raises hand/*

Ha!

Imagine if she did one for the orange iPod shuffle...you people couldn't get me out of your head!

It was a bad commercial. Just a bit silly. I was reading online that there are some who are a bit torqued-up at the depiction of the stylist. Because, you know, there are no effeminate, catty, funky-haired hairstylists/make-up artists out there working for high-profile celebrities.

The shock.



If that's really her stylist, then what's the problem?



If, on the other hand, that was an actor they hired and instructed by some ad agency honcho to "fruit it up pretty good...hit all the stereotypes that Crow's real stylist doesn't represent", then yeah...pretty cheesy and a ham-handed stereotype.

Expect a letter from Rosie, I guess? I don't know...

Either way, it was a pretty lame commercial. Made her look a bit shallow and girly, and I've never really thought of her in that way.

Beyond that, I can't imagine the majority of the Super Bowl-watching crowd giving two flying figs about such a commercial or product. It was out of place and clashed, at best.

"Ohmigod...dude, put down the beer and come watch this! I was totally thinking about coloring my hair after the game today, but I was concerned about fading. Looks like Revlon delivered. High five!!!"



Just seemed like a spot better geared toward the Grammys or Oscars. Or one of those goofy fashion/style award shows on E! or VH-1.

[BuonRotto]

Also, the NY Times and speculation off the front page:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/business/06apple.html

(y'all know the user name and password, here, right?)