what is #TIDALforALL

[Insensitive]

I haven't looked up everything but I've been wondering for a while how
you could possibly improve on the spotify model while bringing more profit to
not only yourself but users who submit their music to the service.

That way everyone wins, for a small fee you get unlimited access
to your favorite music and artists can still eat off of what they submit.
I don't know the exact goal but whatever Jay-Z has in mind sounds dope.
I'll read the interviews posted in this thread to see what I can learn.

 

[RTF]

what is the advantage to streaming though, rather than just downloading the music. im not a streamer

Spoiler

so i never understood the fascination

is it just the legal aspect or what

Do you use Dropbox or Evernote?
It has your playlists and albums on every device at all times. You can even import your existing library and download the songs that aren't on the service onto other devices.
Now they albums only leak days before they are official I don't even bother with illegal downloads.


More options on more platforms. Try a 30 day trial on one of the services. Imo the Spotify app is Men

 

[African Peasant]

Youtube >>>

 

[RTF]

Tidal is necessary. Just for the fact that the "tide" of change to streaming is still in growth phase and the opportunity/cost is relatively low for artists to make their own gambit.. but it has a number of issues.

1. No free service - 80% of Spotify user service just uses the free version. That's close to 50m people worldwide. While the artists might consider this substandard that's how a lot of people want to consume music. They are going to stream it for free. You can't force people to change their habits.

2. Price points - $10 version : what separates this from Spotify or Google Play Music? For the user and artist? I don't get it. I like the Beats curation angle. I've read they've got that down very well and they're getting specialists to make it even better fro when it is rebranded with Apple.

3. $20 Lossless - this is not a compelling USP at all. All the other services offer 320kbps as standard for paid models. That's CDQ. I'm assuming the $20 is where the margins open up but for the user the benefit is minimal vs costs.

4. Exclusive content / removing music from other channels - the first one is a good idea but fro me.. would be a loss-maker fro the majority of artists. I'm not going to go from my $10 Google subscription to Tidal because my favourite artist Yeezus, drops his new album Tidal only. I'll Atrilli the album, put it on my Spotify account and Yeezus won't see my money. Removing music from other channels would be a bad PR move imo. Before Tidal it would have artistic integrity to some degree like Taylor Swift... now it would look like rich artists trying to bully the consumer. I would just go back to illegally downloading their music.

 

[Will Ross]

why are people complaining about the price point? You get extremely high quality streams of pretty much any song you want for 65 cents a day....is that really a lot to ask? 2 quarters and 3 nickles.

But like others have said the quickest way for Tidal to make a major dent in the market is if all of those artist pull their albums off spotify and have them streamed on tidal. How did Tswift get out of her spotify contract and on to tidal?

http://www.today.com/money/can-taylor-swift-defeat-spotify-get-people-pay-music-1D80314536

damn spotify pays artist next to nothing...$1,900 for almost 500K streams

You have a gang of rich people telling hey we are not making enough money.
So you leave the free service and pay us 20$ and everyone wins.

 

[eerieBell]

Tidal is necessary. Just for the fact that the "tide" of change to streaming is still in growth phase and the opportunity/cost is relatively low for artists to make their own gambit.. but it has a number of issues.

1. No free service - 80% of Spotify user service just uses the free version. That's close to 50m people worldwide. While the artists might consider this substandard that's how a lot of people want to consume music. They are going to stream it for free. You can't force people to change their habits.

2. Price points - $10 version : what separates this from Spotify or Google Play Music? For the user and artist? I don't get it. I like the Beats curation angle. I've read they've got that down very well and they're getting specialists to make it even better fro when it is rebranded with Apple.

3. $20 Lossless - this is not a compelling USP at all. All the other services offer 320kbps as standard for paid models. That's CDQ. I'm assuming the $20 is where the margins open up but for the user the benefit is minimal vs costs.

4. Exclusive content / removing music from other channels - the first one is a good idea but fro me.. would be a loss-maker fro the majority of artists. I'm not going to go from my $10 Google subscription to Tidal because my favourite artist Yeezus, drops his new album Tidal only. I'll Atrilli the album, put it on my Spotify account and Yeezus won't see my money. Removing music from other channels would be a bad PR move imo. Before Tidal it would have artistic integrity to some degree like Taylor Swift... now it would look like rich artists trying to bully the consumer. I would just go back to illegally downloading their music.

320kbps isn't CDQ. CDQ is 1411kbps = lossless.

$20 a month on Tidal essentially gets you an entire library of CD quality music.

 

[mson]

I don't blame the artist for doing this. Jay is right about the devaluing of music. What's crazy is music plays a very important role in damn never everyone's life on the planet. Now I've spent 1,000's in my lifetime on albums and singles and yes I've downloaded plenty too as the Napster sh!t popped off my freshmen year of college. I understand the internet is what it is now and it's impossible to stop. But this idea that TV, Music, Movies should all be free is wrong and against people that create art. Imagine you work for 8 hours a day and two weeks later you don't get a check. I'm not saying it's that bad but that's Jay point. Also why is it when a Black Man makes a big business move the crabs and haters have to come out? If this was a White or Jewish individual with this press conference you wouldn't be hearing a peep.

I don't see why people are hating on Jay for this.

 

[BronxFleeZ]

Youtube >>>

To MP3

 

[African Peasant]

To MP3

Classic rare concerts

 

[RTF]

320kbps isn't CDQ. CDQ is 1411kbps = lossless.

$20 a month on Tidal essentially gets you an entire library of CD quality music.

That must be the optimal output of a CD. I've downloaded Lossless albums and i've not been able to tell the difference between that, 320kbps or a direct CD. From a digital rip, we've always called 320kbps CDQ. Most of our libraries would be at that quality.

At its peak Lossless is meant to be better than sticking your CD in your laptop and playing from there. But nobody cares. 320k sounds as good as sticking in a CD in most instances. It's not a compelling USP. I have $90 headphones and $180 music system in my house and the same music system in-built to my car that it was bought with. I won't be able to tell the difference. And nobody will know either. IMO this move is partly from Iovine banging on about quality experiences with headphones. But Beats USP isn't being a top end headphone but being a luxury fashion piece.

 

[Foxmulder]

I can't hear a difference in sound quality. I got 100$ headphones maybe that's why. Guess you need the real expensive shyt.

 

[Jone2three45]

320kbps isn't CDQ. CDQ is 1411kbps = lossless.

$20 a month on Tidal essentially gets you an entire library of CD quality music.

Word, 320 kbps is Lossy not Lossless and there is a difference in audio quality between the two.

This is really the game changer besides the exclusives. If you are a person that streams rather than purchasing compact discs and have an expensive pair of headphones but never experienced lossless audio, be prepared to put your $199-$499 pair of headphones to some great good use with your phone.

Also, this also could open up an avenue to purchase an external amplifier/Dac to use with a Apple and Android phone just like you would with an iPod or other Digital Audio Player.

 

[Malcolmxxx_23]

Give more money to the rich breh

 

[RTF]

Word, 320 kbps is Lossy not Lossless and there is a difference in audio quality between the two.

This is really the game changer besides the exclusives. If you are a person that streams rather than purchasing compact discs and have an expensive pair of headphones but never experienced lossless audio, be prepared to put your $199-$499 pair of headphones to some great good use with your phone.

Also, this also could open up an avenue to purchase an external amplifier/Dac to use with a Apple and Android phone just like you would with an iPod or other Digital Audio Player.

How much of the music consumption market is that? Personal, gym, home, room, car? How much of that market, does not include Beats? Beats is a fashion product first and an audio product second. Motivation for buying them is likely to be the former. For everyone else, it would be about quality.

Moving forward more people will be listening to music wirelessly from longer ranges. Think Sonos but mid-range and lower. That often makes the quality drop.

HDTV and streaming only become a factor when most people got HD. Music is consumed in a variety of formats. i don't think it's a legitimate USP.

 

[Mike Otherz]

not tryna hate, but the sound quality from spotify and tidal aint that big of a difference. maybe my headphones too cheap but there is no immediate super improvement. can any of u spot a big difference?