| |
Discussion: #TIDAL LIVESTREAM: Your thoughts?
Member Since: 2/16/2010
Posts: 69,775
|
This whole thing is greedy, egoist, and cringeworthy.
The only reason I sort of see a benefit to it is that it will pay BTS people a bit more. However, the $20/month is a ridiculous amount to stream music for. No way it should be anymore than $10/month.
I expect it to flop once all the marketing smoke & mirrors clear up.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/2/2009
Posts: 20,174
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MusicTalker
This whole thing is greedy, egoist, and cringeworthy.
The only reason I sort of see a benefit to it is that it will pay BTS people a bit more. However, the $20/month is a ridiculous amount to stream music for. No way it should be anymore than $10/month.
|
9,99 per month. Can't ya'll READ?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 23,128
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/10/2012
Posts: 17,020
|
Quote:
Originally posted by KK_Lover
Really? REALLY?
|
As Real As You And Me
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/19/2011
Posts: 4,903
|
Wait did Kanye's album actually release on this service ???? ****...I might even consider it...................ughhhh
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/8/2012
Posts: 374
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2012
Posts: 86
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Cest_La_Vie
That was awful.
I don't hate the idea, but they really should have used this opportunity to convince THE CONSUMER as to why Tidal is a better option than Spotify, Pandora, etc. They didn't, at all. They're really banking on "you like these people on stage and so you should be loyal to them and only stream their music from Tidal cause they said so."
Chile, bye.
I understand that Spotify doesn't pay artists enough, but their job today was to convince consumers of what's in it for them. Nobody wants to hear people they perceive to be rich whine about not getting paid enough. They want to hear what is in it for THEM and why they should buy into Tidal over the free/much cheaper streaming services that are used to and have been using for years - and it needs to be something besides "it sounds better" cause we've heard that before.
Plus, Jay and his whole crew is about 3-4 years too late with this idea anyway.
|
All. Of. This.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/22/2011
Posts: 9,429
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Cest_La_Vie
That was awful.
I don't hate the idea, but they really should have used this opportunity to convince THE CONSUMER as to why Tidal is a better option than Spotify, Pandora, etc. They didn't, at all. They're really banking on "you like these people on stage and so you should be loyal to them and only stream their music from Tidal cause they said so."
Chile, bye.
I understand that Spotify doesn't pay artists enough, but their job today was to convince consumers of what's in it for them. Nobody wants to hear people they perceive to be rich whine about not getting paid enough. They want to hear what is in it for THEM and why they should buy into Tidal over the free/much cheaper streaming services that are used to and have been using for years - and it needs to be something besides "it sounds better" cause we've heard that before.
Plus, Jay and his whole crew is about 3-4 years too late with this idea anyway.
|
Now this is a READ
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 4/27/2012
Posts: 33,811
|
Quote:
Originally posted by hellocory
For starting a business that does nothing but give them more money by making us pay more for stuff we can already get. They treated this like some huge social injustice, when in reality, it's just them being pretentious and greedy
|
Ahh, but that's the thing. They're not MAKING anyone do anything. The point of a business is to make money. Like..?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 3,184
|
Indie artists should have been the face of this movement, not self-serving artists who are already rich.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 796
|
You guys are going to have to face it! Spotify will be on the way out, if it does not go to a fully-paid subscription. You fail to see the bigger picture in the music industry. The major labels and artists are in a big-time dispute over the free tier that spotify offers. The fact that Spotify is stating that streaming revenues has gone up is just an excuse. Where do those revenues go. Yes they are high, but these revenues are spread thin across the board. of the 60 million subscriptions, 15 million are paid subscription; But why should 45 million be getting free music. It is an economics issue. It has nothing to do with whether certain freeloaders should get what they want for free. Music is a commodity and it has value. Anything that has value needs to be paid for, for it to be sustainable, and Spotify stating that they help prevent illegal downloads is also an excuse. Governments should deal with the illegal downloads, not Spotify. It would be the same thing as a pastry shop owner deciding to give away his pastries to prevent people from stealing them. Same notion that Spotify is claiming.
You also fail to realize that Spotify could not exist without the major artists. As I have said, the major labels are up for renewing their contracts with Spotify. Tell me what happens when they choose not to. Rihanna, Kanye, J-Z, Beyonce, Katy Perry, Madonna etc. will no longer have their music on Spotify. And this may very well happen, if Spotify does not go away from the free-tier. We all will have to pay for value in the end, whether we like it or not. You cannot go to some pastry shop and expect to receive free-pastries. If you could, the shop owner would go out of business or give you a crappy and cheap product. This is what Tidal is getting at. The major artists are forming their own streaming service (and they have taken ownership in it). Get used to it. These artists could very well shut down Spotify if they wanted to, and all they have to do is pull their music from Spotify, then Spotify would not exist any longer.
Sorry for the grim prognostics but this is the economic reality.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/2/2014
Posts: 21,183
|
 So true lmao
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/16/2010
Posts: 69,775
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lily Gaga
9,99 per month. Can't ya'll READ?
|
http://liliputing.com/2015/03/tidal-...per-month.html
$10/month for compressed audio, $20/month for uncompressed, HQ audio.
Basically for $10, you don't get as good of an experience, when in reality you should be getting the HQ at only $10. The service, as of now, is severely overpriced.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/25/2010
Posts: 18,931
|
The standing at the end is iconic. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/25/2011
Posts: 41,661
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MusicTalker
http://liliputing.com/2015/03/tidal-...per-month.html
$10/month for compressed audio, $20/month for uncompressed, HQ audio.
Basically for $10, you don't get as good of an experience, when in reality you should be getting the HQ at only $10. The service, as of now, is severely overpriced.
|
I believe for 10 bucks you get standard HQ (256-320kbps) for 20 bucks, lossless.
Nice concept but this wouldn't stray people from Spotify. Sorry guys.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 39,618
|
I SO bet that Iggy's blood was in that pen when they signed the paper.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/25/2011
Posts: 41,661
|
Quote:
Originally posted by katyperryismylife
Wait. |
Now wait a gotdamn minute.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 4,966
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jomarr
I believe for 10 bucks you get standard HQ (256-320kbps) for 20 bucks, lossless.
Nice concept but this wouldn't stray people from Spotify. Sorry guys.
|
The only people that are really going to buy into this are music nerds and rich white folks.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 4,966
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jomarr
Now wait a gotdamn minute.
|
fake bae, you can tell bcc the pic is grainy and its been confirmed fake
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/1/2011
Posts: 9,734
|
Quote:
Originally posted by jomarr
Now wait a gotdamn minute.
|
I just had a little heart attack
|
|
|
|
|
|
