Big Financial Losses at Tidal

[The Computer Audiophile]

My argument is in terms of making people pay for something. If you start with a free/freemium model, going forward it is going to be next to impossible to make them pay for it down the line. Most industries that started with a free/ad supported model have not been able to transition to a paid/subscription model.

 

Tidal does not have deep pockets, at least not to the extent like Apple or venture capitalists. If it did, I'd say they are in a much better position than Spotify whose major chunk of the business are ad supported free listeners. Apple on the other hand makes more money from hardware sales, and it is in their best interest that folks are locked in to their services (even at a loss to Apple).

 

How many of us would pay for a newspaper? I don't even need to go to a website to get the latest news, it gets delivered to me on my smartphone screen via Google Now. Using Windows 10 has also been a similar experience, breaking news gets delivered on the Windows Tiles as it happens. Ebooks vs. physical books, etc. the list goes on, and while most industries have learnt to adapt and move on, the music industry is trying to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted. Tidal has bolted/locked the door and so most of us (including myself) pay for lossless streaming music simply because it is not available for free from anywhere else.

I disagree. I have friends who used to used the Spotify free tier. When I installed Sonos in their house, Sonos required the paid tier of Spotify. They signed up immediately because they new and liked the service.

 

P.S. I pay for the New York Times, HBO Now, Showtime Anytime, Hulu, and Netflix (all my music subscriptions are work related so they don't count). I don't think I can get NYT quality writing form a free source, and I like commercial-free video services.

[master]

I disagree. I have friends who used to used the Spotify free tier. When I installed Sonos in their house, Sonos required the paid tier of Spotify. They signed up immediately because they new and liked the service.

 

P.S. I pay for the New York Times, HBO Now, Showtime Anytime, Hulu, and Netflix (all my music subscriptions are work related so they don't count). I don't think I can get NYT quality writing form a free source, and I like commercial-free video services.

 

According to reports, Spotify has over 100 million subscribers, but only 30 million of them are paying subscribers.

 

Now imagine what they could do with 100 million paying subscribers if they removed the free tier. Or if the 70 million left (if there was no free service), then think of how much they would save on overheads, server, bandwidth, employees, salaries, etc. Either way, it's a win-win situation IMHO.

 

I'm not against free services, but in some industries and businesses the free/freemium/ad supported model does not make any sense.

 

PS: The example of your friends is exactly what I mean, people only pay when they're forced to pay. I myself began to pay for Spotify when the free tier would not let me cast to Chromecast Audio. CCA has become essential in my setup, with over 70 sources. However, if it wasn't so, I'd still be listening to Spotify for free.

[Musicophile]

Beware, the industry has found the next enemy: http://www.wsj.com/articles/music-industrys-latest-piracy-threat-stream-ripping-1473718919

[firedog]

 

P.S. I pay for the New York Times, HBO Now, Showtime Anytime, Hulu, and Netflix (all my music subscriptions are work related so they don't count). I don't think I can get NYT quality writing form a free source, and I like commercial-free video services.

 

There's "an app for that"....try the extension called "no paywall"...(it really exists).

 

Just joking, I think it's good you pay for media you appreciate. Just trying to point out that the Internet will always come up with solutions for people who don't want to pay.

 

Most of the younger people I talk to don't understand why anyone would pay at all for music. They consider it a free commodity and are happy with "listening" via youtube.

[realhifi]

I disagree. I have friends who used to used the Spotify free tier. When I installed Sonos in their house, Sonos required the paid tier of Spotify. They signed up immediately because they new and liked the service.

 

 

Exactly same experience here. Also, in order to get "Spotify Connect" you need a premium subscription, which when enabled, allows excellent control with many receivers, speakers, etc. It's a move in the right direction and when people new to streaming (or are used to free Pandora, etc.) realize what they are getting for their money they are happy to pay the monthly fee.

 

The million dollar (or multi million) question is IF Spotify had 70 million PAYING customers would they then be profitable AND would they be able to pay artists a better slice of the revenue pie?

 

PS. As an aside, I saw that Tidal integration will now be included on Onkyo networked receivers. Good start for them.

[Kenn]

I signed up for Qobuz lossless streaming a couple of months ago and find it excellent. The user interface is now much better than it was during an earlier trial,and I find that they offer all the (mostly classical) albums I want. Many albums come with a booklet produced by Qobuz which is useful. The wide selection, of classical albums makes it possible to compare performances of a single piece by different orchestras and soloists, which Is a key part of the music experience for me. I don't know what the selection is like for other types,of music, though the Jazz selection looks extensive. Both streaming and download quality ( up to Hi-res) are excellent and I can store music for offline play. If Tidal goes then Qobuz may offer a good alternative for some folks. This costs £200 per year which is less than I pay for a Sky TV subscription and less than the cost of a daily newspaper, yet I get more hours of use from the Qobuz subscription than from the other two put together. Seems pretty good value to me!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

[asdf1000]

I mentioned a few days ago that the tech companies will slowly become labels themselves and just saw this today : http://www.businessinsider.com.au/apple-hires-scott-seviour-epic-records-2016-9?r=US&IR=T

 

As I previously mentioned this will mean more money for both artists (we are currently being ripped off by major labels) and more money for the tech companies, taking a big slice of the pie. Win win for both sides if you ask me, which is good for music overall.

 

Sent from my Blackberry DTEK50 using Tapatalk

[The Computer Audiophile]

I mentioned a few days ago that the tech companies will slowly become labels themselves and just saw this today : This is a big sign Apple Music is acting like a record label | Business Insider

 

As I previously mentioned this will mean more money for both artists (we are currently being ripped off by major labels) and more money for the tech companies, taking a big slice of the pie. Win win for both sides if you ask me, which is good for music overall.

 

Sent from my Blackberry DTEK50 using Tapatalk

I wish I agreed with you about more money going to artists, but I don't think that will happen. Someone has to do everything the artist doesn't do and that costs money. Plus, artists have freely signed away money and screwed themselves since the beginning of time. Nobody is forcing them to sign with a label. The truth is that 99% of them want or need a label to do everything except create music.

[asdf1000]

I wish I agreed with you about more money going to artists, but I don't think that will happen. Someone has to do everything the artist doesn't do and that costs money. Plus, artists have freely signed away money and screwed themselves since the beginning of time. Nobody is forcing them to sign with a label. The truth is that 99% of them want or need a label to do everything except create music.

Understood and I mean this respectfully of course but take a look at the recent Frank Ocean case. He ditched his label and released a new album exclusively and they report he took about 70% of the earnings. This is all relatively new and changing so there's only one example that I can think of but I think this example is a sign of things to come. In that example Apple was behaving like a label. Both artist and tech company profited no doubt, by cutting the middle man.

 

 

That Frank Ocean case made the Universal Music boss come out and speak against these tech company exclusives. So things are happening that the labels are scared of.

 

Labels won't vanish overnight for the reasons you mentioned.

 

Also, Apple has just co-funded a major artists tour. He's a main stream artist and this is a first but I see more moves like this happening (its Drake, for those of you playing at home :-) )

 

Also, let's not forget that in the case of Apple it's not just a tech company thats behaving like a label - its headed by Jimmy Iovine who's been poaching label execs and employees non stop.

 

Its all a guessing game but I think if more of these streaming service companies start to give the artists a bigger slice of the pie, it's good for all and for music.

 

Sent from my Blackberry DTEK50 using Tapatalk

[The Computer Audiophile]

Understood and I mean this respectfully of course but take a look at the recent Frank Ocean case. He ditched his label and released a new album exclusively and they report he took about 70% of the earnings. This is all relatively new and changing so there's only one example that I can think of but I think this example is a sign of things to come. In that example Apple was behaving like a label. Both artist and tech company profited no doubt, by cutting the middle man.

 

 

That Frank Ocean case made the Universal Music boss come out and speak against these tech company exclusives. So things are happening that the labels are scared of.

 

Labels won't vanish overnight for the reasons you mentioned.

 

Also, Apple has just co-funded a major artists tour. He's a main stream artist and this is a first but I see more moves like this happening (its Drake, for those of you playing at home :-) )

 

Also, let's not forget that in the case of Apple it's not just a tech company thats behaving like a label - its headed by Jimmy Iovine who's been poaching label execs and employees non stop.

 

Its all a guessing game but I think if more of these streaming service companies start to give the artists a bigger slice of the pie, it's good for all and for music.

 

Sent from my Blackberry DTEK50 using Tapatalk

I'd love to see it all happen like Frank Ocean. Let's hope this is a beginning.

[asdf1000]

I'd love to see it all happen like Frank Ocean. Let's hope this is a beginning.

Completely agree.

 

Sent from my Blackberry DTEK50 using Tapatalk

[master]

I mentioned a few days ago that the tech companies will slowly become labels themselves and just saw this today : This is a big sign Apple Music is acting like a record label | Business Insider

 

As I previously mentioned this will mean more money for both artists (we are currently being ripped off by major labels) and more money for the tech companies, taking a big slice of the pie. Win win for both sides if you ask me, which is good for music overall.

 

That is really hoping against hope, and cute…

 

Apple DOES pretty much rip everybody off anyways. It's very naive to even think they are getting into it for the love of music and not the profits.

 

I wish I agreed with you about more money going to artists, but I don't think that will happen. Someone has to do everything the artist doesn't do and that costs money. Plus, artists have freely signed away money and screwed themselves since the beginning of time. Nobody is forcing them to sign with a label. The truth is that 99% of them want or need a label to do everything except create music.

 

While I do agree the artists are primarily to blame, nobody held a gun to their head, it's also not so black and white.

 

End of the day, both the music and the musician need publicity, and that's something only the record labels or companies with huge advertising budgets can pull off successfully.

 

Or look at it another way, thanks to publicity and the shameless whoring of the media, talentless hacks like Justin Bieber and Kim Kardashian are raking in the millions. It's a pretty messed up world, any way you look at it.

 

PS: I recently heard of Billy Joe Shaver, who I have never heard of before, and seriously some of the best country music ever. Sad, the travesty of the times we live in, especially by those controlling the media.