| |
Music News: TIDAL's Complete Press Conference
Member Since: 5/24/2011
Posts: 29,233
|
Ehmm he kinda has a point though.
Let me perch for the exclusives to come.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/3/2011
Posts: 22,014
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Doc
That opinion came before we even explained what it was — "This thing is horrible! … What is it?" You know? You never hear Tim Cook's net worth whenever he tries to sell you something. Steve Jobs, God bless, he had to have been pretty rich — nobody's ever said, "Oh, the rich getting richer! I won't buy an iPhone!"
Tea, tho
|
Because he doesn't sell the iPhone 6 Plus by telling consumers, "The people at Apple aren't properly compensated for the effort that we put into our products. By purchasing this more expensive model, we will be more fairly paid and given the credit we deserve."
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/22/2010
Posts: 3,171
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Doc
That opinion came before we even explained what it was — "This thing is horrible! … What is it?" You know? You never hear Tim Cook's net worth whenever he tries to sell you something. Steve Jobs, God bless, he had to have been pretty rich — nobody's ever said, "Oh, the rich getting richer! I won't buy an iPhone!"
Tea, tho
|
Apple is pretty clear that it's out to sell you a product. Tidal from the beginning was presented as something being done simply to protect the interests of artists who aren't making money from streaming. It was a clear attempt at preying on the emotions of consumers. If he wants to sell something, no problem. Tell people what they gain from it, why they should buy it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/29/2012
Posts: 29,059
|
Quote:
Originally posted by rayrrock
I think y'all are missing the point.
Obviously consumers don't care. They just want the cheapest product on the market. (Keep in mind, though, that the $10 version of TIDAL is in line with Spotify's pricing... so it's not really more expensive.)
The point is to get artists to realize that there's value in what they're creating and they shouldn't be okay with giving it away for free. As more artists jump on board with TIDAL and leave other streaming services (as Taylor already has), TIDAL's value will increase.
|
Basically what was said.
Quote:
|
Someone asked me the other day, "Well, isn't free streaming better than piracy?" And I responded "In any other industry, are you having the conversation around 'Yeah, but, if they're gonna steal anyways shouldn't you be giving it to them for free?' Would you have that in the auto industry, the fashion industry, the tech industry? No! You don't just give it away for free because people might steal it! That just means you need to change the conversation. We want to grow the market, we want to allow the content creators to have better control over the distribution of the art, and we want the tides to rise with everybody
|
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 11,649
|
Some of you just want everything for free. Tidal is providing the same service as Spotify, just with no free option, and more money to the artists, but people are acting like Tidal is asking for an arm and leg... If you already pay for spotify then why are you bitching? and if you use spotify for free then good for you.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/8/2011
Posts: 642
|
I'll just spend those 10 dollars on 69 cent songs on iTunes and stream the songs I've bought on spotify for free.
I love the artists and I support my artists with my limited resources. I don't care if Blue Ivy has gotta go to LAUSD cause her parents aren't a billion dollar power couple.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 3,943
|
Quote:
Originally posted by FreeBitch
So they want to brainwashed us to make them rich ? We will run back to ZipShare.
Music is a for Art. Art does't have any value until capitalism jump in.
They buyers should be the ones giving the value not the company.
 |
This.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/3/2011
Posts: 7,281
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Eternium
Good for them. Still not here for Tidal, but maybe that's because I buy my music first and then stream on Spotify/VEVO to make sure artists I like get as much support as possible.
Educate yourself on "Fair Trade," henny.
http://www.fairtradeusa.org/?gclid=C...uAAaAtYj8P8HAQ |
Sis have been to Business School.
Still fair trade doesn't work as comparison in this case because IT'S NOT a pure mercantile model.
Fair trade is solidarity economic model + Consumers get good product, quality products. it improves lives. protecting the environment. These are actuals legit benefits for consumers themself.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 3,943
|
Art was never meant to have a monetary price. Music was invented before speaking was and was a way of life- for everyone. I support my faves, no doubt. However, the biggest musicians are way overpaid. There are other far more important professions in life that do a lot more good. This goes for all entertainers. I love music more than anything, but some people just can't afford to pay and some can. Those who can't should not be bashed nor accused of not supporting artists. If Jay and Bey want to help others-they should honestly help the less fortunate-those who will never be able to afford albums because they are born in dire poverty. Music and art should be shared and created by everyone. I know that's not the world we live in-but art was never meant to be a business.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/23/2010
Posts: 16,089
|
Quote:
Originally posted by FreeBitch
This is so dumb argument from a businessman. Consumers dont care about that.
Nobody pay for items because the brand 1 pay better salaries than the brand 2.
People only care about what they will gain from a product or service.
|
But he also clearly stated that people don't have to subscribe. They give you an option for better quality and to give more to the singers. If you don't care for it. It's okay, don't subscribe.
Marketing is about telling people "why" you do things not necessarily what you're doing stuff or how you're doing stuff.
He just applying this : http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek...inspire_action
Whether his product works or not, it's doing what he should do. Didn't Steve Jobs sell you Iphones telling you about their designs? Music is not supposed to be free, it seems lately people have been so comfortable with YT and Spotify that they forgot it. Still not on board with Tidal though.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/23/2010
Posts: 16,089
|
Quote:
Originally posted by rayrrock
I think y'all are missing the point.
Obviously consumers don't care. They just want the cheapest product on the market. (Keep in mind, though, that the $10 version of TIDAL is in line with Spotify's pricing... so it's not really more expensive.)
The point is to get artists to realize that there's value in what they're creating and they shouldn't be okay with giving it away for free. As more artists jump on board with TIDAL and leave other streaming services (as Taylor already has), TIDAL's value will increase.
|
Exactly. They are missing the whole point. He is not forcing his product on you. Actually he needs to get the artists on board and that's what he is doing. If he can manage to convince artists about the profits they'll get from TIDAL then he'll win the bet.
That's why he keeps insisting that you "don't have to subscribe", "you don't have to be on board".
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/5/2009
Posts: 13,743
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Doc
That opinion came before we even explained what it was — "This thing is horrible! … What is it?" You know? You never hear Tim Cook's net worth whenever he tries to sell you something. Steve Jobs, God bless, he had to have been pretty rich — nobody's ever said, "Oh, the rich getting richer! I won't buy an iPhone!"
Tea, tho
|
But no one is saying that Apple's streaming is going to work, nor do we know the exact information about it yet to even have an opinion.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/27/2012
Posts: 18,963
|
Quote:
Originally posted by igor
They should change #TidalForALL for #TidalForARTISTS, since they're the only people gaining something out of this ****. I'm gonna stick to Spotify, and so are everyone else, this is going nowhere.
|
Did you not read when he said that writers and producers will get paid in ways that they previously weren't?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/25/2010
Posts: 23,013
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Doc
That opinion came before we even explained what it was — "This thing is horrible! … What is it?" You know? You never hear Tim Cook's net worth whenever he tries to sell you something. Steve Jobs, God bless, he had to have been pretty rich — nobody's ever said, "Oh, the rich getting richer! I won't buy an iPhone!"
Tea, tho
|
Uh, the iPhone is a useful, innovative product that changed how we communicate and connect worldwide (I own a Samsung Galaxy). Tidal is none of these things. Furthermore, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Evan Spiegel, et cetera... these people are actually legitimately intelligent businessmen (sorry, Jay Z is not smart and is not a business man, no matter how much he tries to sell that as his image). If you can't even market your product correctly without making it look terrible, you really should just hire someone else to handle the business and marketing side of things.
...Vin
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/27/2012
Posts: 18,963
|
Quote:
Originally posted by mcuykend
Art was never meant to have a monetary price. Music was invented before speaking was and was a way of life- for everyone. I support my faves, no doubt. However, the biggest musicians are way overpaid. There are other far more important professions in life that do a lot more good. This goes for all entertainers. I love music more than anything, but some people just can't afford to pay and some can. Those who can't should not be bashed nor accused of not supporting artists. If Jay and Bey want to help others-they should honestly help the less fortunate-those who will never be able to afford albums because they are born in dire poverty. Music and art should be shared and created by everyone. I know that's not the world we live in-but art was never meant to be a business.
|
Art is just a human expression. But some people use it to make their livelihoods. Of course it can be a business just like child care was never meant to be a business but you still pay your babysitter.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/29/2012
Posts: 29,059
|
Quote:
Originally posted by swissman
Did you not read when he said that writers and producers will get paid in ways that they previously weren't?
|
People will read what they want and be sheeps.
Quote:
|
The royalty rates will be higher than other services. In addition to that, there won't be that free tier that's been depressing the recorded music industry, and frankly been a part of what's been driving the downfall of the recorded music industry, is that free consumption. Music is not free, fundamentally. Someone came in and produced that beat, someone came in and sang that song, someone wrote that song. Someone came in to clean the studio afterwards. There is an entire ecosystem around this, and we've somehow come to believe that it's okay to pay hundreds for consumer electronics but to pay nothing for the music that helps sell it. It's around the education process, with that there will higher royalties. And then another point that I want to touch on that's really important philosophically, not just from a dollars and cents perspective, is the equity ownership. All artists who come in — and this is an open platform, an open invitation — will participate in the equity upside. And that is important, too, because of that participation in the process, by having a board seat, by actually being an owner in this. It's a different type of involvement
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/27/2012
Posts: 18,963
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Vin
Uh, the iPhone is a useful, innovative product that changed how we communicate and connect worldwide (I own a Samsung Galaxy). Tidal is none of these things. Furthermore, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Evan Spiegel, et cetera... these people are actually legitimately intelligent businessmen (sorry, Jay Z is not smart and is not a business man, no matter how much he tries to sell that as his image). If you can't even market your product correctly without making it look terrible, you really should just hire someone else to handle the business and marketing side of things.
...Vin
|
Yes the iPhone is AMAZING. But you know Apple just holds back on it's technology so it can keep releasing new versions ever 2 years. Tidal is an improvement in sound… it's not revolutionary but still.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/3/2011
Posts: 7,281
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BnPac
But he also clearly stated that people don't have to subscribe. They give you an option for better quality and to give more to the singers. If you don't care for it. It's okay, don't subscribe.
Marketing is about telling people "why" you do things not necessarily what you're doing stuff or how you're doing stuff.
He just applying this : http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek...inspire_action
Whether his product works or not, it's doing what he should do. Didn't Steve Jobs sell you Iphones telling you about their designs? Music is not supposed to be free, it seems lately people have been so comfortable with YT and Spotify that they forgot it. Still not on board with Tidal though. |
Well i'm well aware people won't suscribe if they don't want to. USA is a demoncratic country after all. I'm just saying from a consumer point of view why i'll prefere Spotify over Tidal.
Other people will do the opposit because the argument touched them but just remember there's NO business model in the world who isn't based on consumer need. People who want the quality sound coming with Tidal will obviously suscribe but How many of them ? That the question no one in their team seems to have la réponse.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 12/7/2011
Posts: 27,655
|
Quote:
Originally posted by swissman
Yes the iPhone is AMAZING. But you know Apple just holds back on it's technology so it can keep releasing new versions ever 2 years. Tidal is an improvement in sound… it's not revolutionary but still.
|
It's not an improvement in sound.  Even with an amazing sound system you will not even recognize the difference. I've asked my friend who is an concert sound engineer and he said it's almost indistinguishable.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 9/14/2010
Posts: 78,921
|
Higher royalty fees from what, though? Spotify is losing money because most of the revenue is paid to the artists, and they're waiting year after year for more paid users to join their service so they can pay both the artists and make a profit. If TIDAL was to be a successful, they'd need to be profiting more than the average to be able to sustain these 'higher royalty fees'.
Spotify, unlike the newly launched TIDAL, is able to rely on the high probability of more paid customers as their losses have been less year after year ($115M in 2012, $80M in 2013 *). Who's funding this, Jay Z or have all the artists involved invested?
I don't see how this is going to work at all. Sorry, I'm out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
