HAPPY BIRTHDAY APPLE

Apple turns thirty with another one of its periodic battles with the Beatles. The nearly-impoverished Beatles have hauled Apple into court claiming the iPod and iTunes breaks a 1989 agreement to, erm, not distribute music on physical media such as compact discs.

You'd think that someone at the Beatles would understand that the whole point about digital downloads are, erm, they're not physical media.

It's hard to see why The Beatles are wasting their time on this (their money, of course, they have so much of, frittering it away on lawyers is not a problem for them.) Nobody thinks that iTunes is anything to do with them. They would be hard pressed to find any evidence that anyone assumes Steve Jobs is behind their back catalogue and a few Mary Hopkins records. They should just let it go.

Of course, it'll be interesting to see if Apple manages to be relaxed in the face of Barratt's horrible iPad concept. The homebuilder freely admits it's trying to ride on the back of iPod mania:

Barratt plans to build about 1,800 iPads in more than 40 towns and cities, including Coventry, Slough, Edinburgh and Reading. The iPad hopes to catch the tailwind of the iPod, Apple's popular digital music player. "We haven't cleared it with Apple, but we have registered the trademark," Mr Dearlove said. An Apple spokeswoman said she was unaware of the flats.

Since the key thing about iPods has always been how tiny they are, we're not sure invoking their name in the context of homes, especially ones which are hugely "compact and bijoux, Mostyn", is the wisest marketing move. (And at up to £125k for a piddly 380 square foot, their flats make the Nano seem cumbersome.)

music apple ipodthe beatles ipad