If the artists backing it weren't gunning with an "I need more money!!!" approach, and instead they focused on better features (and didn't have that ridiculous $20 model) this could MAYBE be a Spotify competitor, but instead it'll just be DOA
I refuse to pay $20 a month to stream music when I can pump to YouTube for a quick listen, pirate if I want it on my computer, or visit iTunes if I want to support my fav. I refuse it.
Ok, well most people don't give a ****. They will be happy with their "potato quality" for free. The masses aren't paying for music anymore and that's all that really matters.
15 million people are already monthly paying for Spotify, so there's clearly an amount not happy with potato quality music.
The only way I see this really working is if all of these Tidal artists either take their music off Spotify or release exclusive content (EPs, singles, etc) on Tidal only.
The question is, which artists can afford to not have streaming points to bouy their Hot 100 positions....
Ok, well most people don't give a ****. They will be happy with their "potato quality" for free. The masses aren't paying for music anymore and that's all that really matters.
What I'm confused by is why you think this is such a great thing as based on your comments you seem to be one of the people that will take every loophole possible to get your songs for free. (Not saying this means you're poor or anything.) Do you think this is helping people? If I did this with my favorite artists, my favorite artists would have to get new jobs. If you're contributing to the problem you are the problem even if you're self aware.
