Apple won’t be selling Adele’s album in retail stores

“Adele’s upcoming album, ’25,’ won’t be sold in Apple’s retail stores, sources confirmed to The Post on Thursday,” Claire Atkinson reports for The NY Post.

“Her reps had pitched the idea of Apple selling the album in its retail stores as part of a larger $30 million album- and tour-sponsorship deal,” Atkinson reports. “But Apple has said no to the retail idea, sources said.”

Atkinson reports, “A deluxe version of ’25’ is being sold exclusively in Target stores, however.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Of course Apple won’t. Along with CDs, Apple Retail Stores also won’t be selling buggy whips, wax cylinders, or typewriters. Apple sells (and leases) music in modern, not archaic, ways, Adele reps.

Adele’s reps push for $30 million pact with Apple as Rihanna inks $25 million sponsorship deal with Samsung – October 29, 2015

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Lynn Weiler” for the heads up.]


  1. Frankly I’ll assign more download credit to Apple when it at least makes essentially uncompressed music available in Apple Lossless format. That will be a day long remembered. Until then I usually buy the CD and rip it to Apple Lossless. Your mileage may vary.

    1. Same here. I’ve always hated vinyl, it wears out far too quickly and I’ve always preferred reel-to-reel tape, not cassettes. But I buy CD’s because most online digital music sounds like crap. And I can sure tell the difference in my car, even!

      1. Totally agree, to me apple lossless , flac sound inferior to the cd and MP3 sounds horrible at any rate. I still collect CDs and bluray for stuff I really love as it looks better than any mkv or worse, avi files. I care about quality and am willing to pay for it.

      2. Personally my auditory senses and music appreciation are so refined and advanced above those of the general population that I can only stand to listen to live music.

        And of course it must be totally acoustic with absolutely no amplification or electronic interference at all, performed in only the best acoustic venues.

        The only problems are the difficulty in getting all of these spoiled and selfish so called artists to meet my needs. And, since this would a little impractical while driving in my car, I simply sing to myself; my talent is actually much higher than most professionals so it’s really no great loss.

        Being superior to the common folk does have its’ drawbacks, doesn’t it.

        1. Saying this essentially demonstrates your inability to appreciate the differences. Mockery is no substitute for fact, but please, keep existing in your sarcastic daydream where you imagine yourself so much better than those different from you. It’s not the music geeks you fear – it’s that there exists anyone who can appreciate or do things that you can’t. Everyone must drink swill because you can’t appreciate bisque. Got it. Why don’t you try celebrating diversity?

    2. 256K AAC sounds better (and has better specs on paper) than FM radio. Most people have no issue with the sound quality of FM.

      Driving in your car you have a usable dynamic range given road noise, etc, that is about half the dynamic range of AAC.

      Double blind testing shows that the vast majority of people cannot tell the difference between AAC and CD.

      Chances are that you have convinced yourself and nothing other than participating in a controlled double blind test will convince you otherwise.

        1. I am speaking of technical quality, not quality of content. FM radio’s technical specs are a hair lower than that of an LP record.

          I can’t speak for the quality of FM radio content where you live, but it actually quite good in rural Canada.

      1. I know what you’re saying. I did tests myself couldn’t hear much of a difference past 192kbps and 256 is perfectly adequate for most. But my ears are much older. I sometimes use music in video projects so just like to have the highest quality i can get my hands on.And there;’s plenty of room on my devices to store Apple Lossless so why not. You can at least pretend it’s better and worth all the extra trouble.

  2. Agreed. Especially if you spend more something more like $1000 on headphones rather than $29.95 on in ear something or other.

    My Hi Fi system would cost more to replace than my new car.

    I even spend money on vinyl but I don’t go my local Apple store to buy them.

    1. There age few normal, healthy people who can hear the difference between lossless and 256mbps AAC, and even fewer who care.

      Home stereo systems were a major hobby in the 70s and 80. Today, the only people passionately building and spending on home stereos are those who did it back then. The rest of the world enjoys their music on their $8 air pods. That includes myself.

      And I’m a professional musician with 30 years of experience in the recording studio.

      8 airpor

      1. Abject nonsense. All it takes is time, and a bit of concentration with good equipment making the music. Lossy music is clearly far substandard compared to lossless.

        Anyone with ears can hear this. Even “musicians” like you. LMAO!

        1. There is plenty of data to back up this ‘nonsense’. Back in the 70s and 80s, I was one of those putting together a pristine audio chain for my collection of vinyl classical music (Shure and Ortofon were the names back then), spending far much more than I could afford.

          As time has marched on, most of us who spend days in recording studios and nights playing music realised that money spent on pristine stereo gear is largely wasted. I virtually NEVER had the time to sit down in silence, put a gramophone record on the turntable and focus on listening to music. The only time I did listen to recorded music was on the move, on my Walkman (and then Discman, iPod and iPhone). The gear at home was largely collecting dust. And while on the go, it is literally impossible to notice the difference between 256k AAC and lossless. More importantly, that little difference even for those of us who CAN notice it, is meaningless. We spend much more time watching TV than listening to music from our high-end stereos (those who have them), and those TVs deliver highly compressed picture on a cheap $500 screen.

          The point is, market share for lossless is negligible. 256k AAC satisfies practically everyone else.

  3. Adele who? you may be asking in 6 months time.
    As David Lee Roth said, Rock bands are like dogs that chase cars,, they may a lot of noise, but they don’t last long..

    She better have a HIT… If not, she’ll be praying to sell anywhere and everywhere. We’re talking about an overweight cow who has a few good songs, where the pitch was, Yeah, she’s fat, but she can actually sing… you should check it out…

    She’s going to need a few BIG hits… Repeats are not easy… Fans are fickle.

  4. Guess my point was that the music has to be bigger than the marketing, not the other way around, like this sounds,,
    I suppose we’ll see,, Good luck to her,,, But it all relies on having big big hits.

    They can probably get the records into Cracker Barrel.

  5. Let’s be thankful for small mercies.

    Now if we can only get the album out of every retail store around the country and off iTunes, Spotify et al, then we really will have achieved something for the good of mankind.

  6. Isn’t it funny? Apple once upon a time was a company that sold enabling technology, encouraging people to make things better and to achieve their dreams. Now it – or at least its proponents – are people who say, “Mass market is good enough and don’t you dare question!” So far from the 1984 ads, aren’t we? Sad, guys. Why is there a resurgence in vinyl anyways?

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.