Samsung, Google and Spotify Have Considered Buying Tidal: Report
- Thread starter Uncle Phil 36
- Start date
chabvongaBlackus
Banned
Give this man a Medal the only man who knows what his talkin about not the sheep around here jus bleeting around......Tidal is done their software is shytty....as with anything big players get the cut which are spotify, google music and apple the rest are bleedin' to death n valuations dropping like mixtapes in the ghetto
That valuation was made by a a rumor that SoftBank was gonna invest (which no one knows if they did or not, but they officially denied it) and cited by lazy journalists as they usually do in this age of ctrl + f internet journalism.
Spotify is an expansion face, increasing their (expensive) workforce with 30-40 % per year as of lately, new offices, expensive campaigns and on, which is why they showing negative results. That doesn't stop people from lining up to give them more money.
Last edited:
Ineedmoney504
SOHH ICEY...WE EATIN
I don't think he would care to explain, he don't answer many questions anyway
why is the software shyt? I had all 3 and none of the software is better than the other
Close doesn't mean shyt, he's signed to one of Apple Music's 'founders' and to the label Apple Music's other 'founder' started. And I'm pretty sure that they are closer to Dre too. Cole is a co-owner or whatever of Tidal though, however it felt like he was forced
. He doesn't feel like the dude that's about that exclusive life, his whole marketing is that he's for the people.
Ill bet Jay isn't getting a majority of that
the coli A&Rs and business moguls said it was gonna flop
it's only been a year, King Hov aint sellin this shyt just yet
it's only been a year, King Hov aint sellin this shyt just yet
Bought it for $56 mil. Sell it for $100 mil. Thats $44 mil he didnt have at first. How is it a lost?
How did you possibly come to the conclusion that he would've lost $12 million?
$56 million + $25 million that you ASSUME he spent, but let's say he did spend that much, either way like you said $81 million invested total at that point, if he got back $125 million that covers the initial $56 million dollar investment and the $25 in marketing breh, meaning he would have profited $44 million AFTER accounting for the initial $81 million investment.
The real loss would be that he didn't do what he promised to do in changing the way music is distributed and putting the power in the artists' hands, but we need to wait and see what happens before we can draw that conclusion.
EDIT: I saw you said it was a miscalculation on your part
The Midnight Marauder
All Star
Agreed
Announced 20 million last June. Figured at 25 million at end of 2015, estimated to be "near 30 million" (my direct quote) presently.
As Spotify Nears 30 Million Subscribers and Apple Music Exceeds 11 Million, Is Streaming Turning the Corner? | Billboard
And yes, they haven't achieved profitability yet. As I've said earlier in this thread, the game is to either build the value of your service and flip to a HUGE company, or stay in the game until the streaming market matures enough that there's enough consumers to bring in regular profit. But at this moment in time, in order to have a chance to stay in that long, your company has to be in a position where they can sustain tens of millions in annual losses for a number of years. It's a long term investment, but if you make it, the payoff will be huge.
Aspiro's Balance sheet? I'll do you one better fam. Here's their ENTIRE 2014 FINANCIAL REPORT: http://mb.cision.com/Main/1052/9718782/340280.pdf
From the report you can see their operating margin hovered in the -20% range for most of the year, then hit -49% in Q4. This after the operating margins were routinely being between -30% and -50% in prior quarters. In comparison, Spotify's operating expenses were extremely high in 2014 compared to their 2012 and 2013 expenses, and their operating margin was in the high teens, as their revenue and customer base skyrocketed. Aspiro lost $9.8 Million USD in 2014, and $11.6 Million USD in 2013.
Take all this into consideration, then add in the amount of money needed to execute a launch to the degree that Tidal did, plus the fact that Tidal only added about 500,000 subscribers in 2015 to the 700,000 that already existed when they acquired the company. These numbers are very troubling for Tidal.
Not smart? Fam, the company's worth $8 Billion! And I'm sure you'll argue that we "don't really know" how much it's worth, but if somebody like Google or Amazon was wanting to put a bid in to acquire Spotify, that bid is mos def gonna be around that $8B mark.
And the extensive growth strategy is one of the primary methods that built their valuation that high. Freemium builds your market for advertising sales potential, brand awareness, and can serve as a gateway to hooking consumers into upgrading to the subscription service. Plus increase in customer base = increase in company value.
Meanwhile Rdio tried to salvage their company by bringing in a terrestrial radio company. Any idiot should've been able to figure out that betting the future of your company on a dying medium such as AM/FM radio was a horrific move.
Well fam, thats kind of an impossible question to answer considering that Spotify had been in business for four and a half years and was already bringing in annual revenue of nearly $100 million when Rdio launched. Rdio launched in the US a few months before Spotify, but Spotify had already established themselves in Europe and was building a HUGE buzz in the US well before they came here. I remember my dude using a pirated version of Spotify a year before it dropped here.
Nope.
Nope.
Nope.
So I guess I should shut up, because obviously only people who know Jay Z or work for him would know whether or not Tidal is performing well financially compared to the competing streaming services, right?
U work for him? You a Social Media Guerrilla Marketing Coordinator for Tidal? Cuz this is quite an impressive PR spin job you're orchestrating right here. Some real Fox News type shyt.
I prefer to call them what they are. Estimates. Which when the full and final data isn't available, is what is used in business. It's what companies use to make critical decisions, set sales goals, etc. The Dow Jones can go up or down hundreds of points in an hour strictly based off, Estimates.
Well, putting your company up for an IPO and selling or merging your company with a larger company are two completely different things. But I see where you're coming from.
To help with your argument, Instagram sold itself to Facebook 4 years ago for $1 Billion. Today Instagram is worth $25 Billion (that's an estimate). Considering that Instagram's financial figures were FAR better than Tidal's currently are, had investors literally begging them to take their money, and was competing in a market (social media) that was already solidified and profitable, yes, Instagram sold themselves WAY too early.
As far as whether or not a Silicon Valley should should sell now, that would in large part depend on the financial.... estimates. If their operating margin is similar to what Aspiro's was when Jay Z acquired it, and likely won't improve for a number of years considering EVERY streaming service has a negative operating margin, then hell yes they should sell.
But what is the market demand and market opportunity for all of this? YouTube's offered steams of exclusive live events for years, most of which were free. And what is the real market potential for Hi-fi audio currently? Sure it's attractive for audiophiles, but what percentage of the market considers lossless audio a major selling point? And how much of that segment is willing to pay double for that feature. Not up on WiMP tho so I'll leave that alone.
He got a couple of infusions of funds from Venture Capitalists firms last year. He negotiated with Sprint and Softbank for major investments, but those fell through.
Bottom line is, unless major investments dollars are brought in, Tidal isn't going to be able to survive on its own. And that's not even an argument.
Last edited: