Will Tidal Continue

[bhobba]

Well it was published 13 December last year they think Tidal may not survive 6 months.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/13/tidal-jay-z-financial-trouble/

 

It's nearly that time now - what do people think - it will be going down the gurgler soon?

 

Many devices and software players now integrate with it, I personally think its great - use it all the time espicailly the MQA stuff.  If it was to go under I suspect a lot of ripple effects.   But that has nothing to do with its financial health.

 

Is it about to die?

 

Thanks

Bill

[aussievintage]

I think, in general, music streaming services are way overpriced.  No way they should charge the same or more than for movie streaming.    That alone may see them lose market and die off.  

 

Having high res files is not enough to save Tidal, because charge significantly more as well.  Having MQA is not a plus for me either.  I don't like the idea at all, but more importantly I don't want to spend even more money for a device that can use it.

 

Now that's just my point of view, but I wonder if there aren't many who think similarly? 

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by aussievintage

[awayward]

I disagree, I have always thought that music streaming was too cheap for the service they provide, and for them to survive. I pay the price of one new CD per month and get access to millions of albums, all at CD quality or better. New releases appear weekly, I listen to those that look interesting and most are not my preferred genre, expanding my musical taste in the process, and then I purchase CD/vinyl/download those I really like.

Alternately movie steaming can be limited, and with delays to new releases which usually have to finish in cinemas first.

Honestly, I would pay much more for Tidal if I had too. IMHO

[Tobes]

29 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

I think, in general, music streaming services are way overpriced.  No way they should charge the same or more than for movie streaming.    That alone may see them lose market and die off.  

  

Having high res files is not enough to save Tidal, because charge significantly more as well.  Having MQA is not a plus for me either.  I don't like the idea at all, but more importantly I don't want to spend even more money for a device that can use it.

I don't think so.

There is a huge amount of music available from Tidal  - around 50 million song titles - this is a massive catalogue compared to the shallow Video/TV catalogues of the video streaming services. The value is off the charts for anyone interested in music. It baffles me when people say it's expensive.

 

While I'm no fan of MQA - which seems to be all smoke and mirrors to me - you don't need an MQA compatible device to play back the files, so you don't have to spend anything extra.

[Guest Sime]

Yup, too cheap imo, I’d pay $50 a month to keep it going. 

[brumby]

Music streaming services in general and Tidal in particular have GARGANTUAN amounts of music on tap and cater for any conveivable musical taste.  Movie streaming services are pathetic in comparison in their selection.  IMHO, if Netflix is "worth" between $10-20 a month, Tidal, Deezer etc is worth much more than that.

[aussievintage]

54 minutes ago, Tobes said:

I don't think so.

There is a huge amount of music available from Tidal  - around 50 million song titles - this is a massive catalogue compared to the shallow Video/TV catalogues of the video streaming services. The value is off the charts for anyone interested in music. It baffles me when people say it's expensive.

 

I don't see the logic in comparing the size of the catalogue.    As long as there are always heaps of things that I would listen to, any more than that is not relevant.       Movie streaming, AND music streaming both have more than I could ever want to watch or listen too, so they are equal to me.     

 

Now movies cost more to make, cost more to buy etc etc, so, the money I should pay to experience them should be more.

[Andrews_melb]

I love tidal, use it daily and would be sad to see it go. Also due to a quarterly record subscription deal with third man records i get it for about $6, tidal hifi.

Sounds great through my main system/bluesound, and good app for iphone car listening

[aussievintage]

1 hour ago, awayward said:

I disagree, I have always thought that music streaming was too cheap for the service they provide, and for them to survive. I pay the price of one new CD per month and get access to millions of albums, all at CD quality or better. New releases appear weekly, I listen to those that look interesting and most are not my preferred genre, expanding my musical taste in the process, and then I purchase CD/vinyl/download those I really like.

Alternately movie steaming can be limited, and with delays to new releases which usually have to finish in cinemas first.

Honestly, I would pay much more for Tidal if I had too. IMHO

I do not buy a new CD each week.     I think what is overlooked is that I (and others) already own a huge catalogue of my/our own and it's all stuff I/we like.   I can sample new stuff for free,  and I only want to buy stuff that I want to listen  to frequently.  So, my ongoing cost for musical entertainment does not equate to having to buy a new CD each month, so the value of a streaming service is  much less.  

Edited May 26, 2018 by aussievintage

[aussievintage]

1 hour ago, Sime said:

Yup, too cheap imo, I’d pay $50 a month to keep it going. 

Fair enough, but it seems as though the companies with cheaper prices are doing way better.  If nothing else, that seems to say most people think it is too expensive.

[Guest Eggcup The Daft]

They've just released a new interface. I'm finding it a bit awkward - it seems to be based around the "my" concept for people creating playlists and bookmarking regularly played stuff. I prefer to browse or search and listen widely. Maybe it will learn my tastes over time and recommend things I might actually listen to? Still, not the move of a company that's going to go bust next week, unless this is one of those "last throw of the dice" efforts. They still can't split artists with the same name or play gapless. It's still worth the money.

 

There's something odd going on in this marketplace though. Streaming is supposedly responsible for the pickup in earnings in the music industry, yet musicians are not seeing any more income, and all the streaming moneys are losing, well, lots of money. I guess someone's getting rich...

[aussievintage]

2 minutes ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

They've just released a new interface. I'm finding it a bit awkward - it seems to be based around the "my" concept for people creating playlists and bookmarking regularly played stuff. I prefer to browse or search and listen widely. Maybe it will learn my tastes over time and recommend things I might actually listen to? Still, not the move of a company that's going to go bust next week, unless this is one of those "last throw of the dice" efforts. They still can't split artists with the same name or play gapless. It's still worth the money.

 

 

I find many streaming media interfaces to be poorly designed.  Foxtel Now is so bad they should give up right now    Good on Tidal for trying to improve though.

 

3 minutes ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

There's something odd going on in this marketplace though. Streaming is supposedly responsible for the pickup in earnings in the music industry, yet musicians are not seeing any more income, and all the streaming moneys are losing, well, lots of money. I guess someone's getting rich...

Same old story isn't it.    Musos never get what they deserve.  I think they should get the majority of the money to be made in each sale.

[betty boop]

ive recently given tidal another go and even though over my initial issues I had pre nbn, sorry its just not extensive enough for me to appreciate. perhaps my musical styles i appreciate are a bit out there. they might have one album from an artist I like but thats it and thats not good enough to replace my physical collection. for just introducing myself to music we have apple music which is $5.99 a month and there are also plenty of other free streaming music services

 

once introduced to music I tend to go seek out the disc, so to me no value the sound quality aspect of tidal and rather put the cost of its service towards buying media instead. as for streaming, once have the disc version i would just get to lossless streaming via my blue sound so either way am not missing seeing the back of tidal. 

[Tobes]

55 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

I don't see the logic in comparing the size of the catalogue.    As long as there are always heaps of things that I would listen to, any more than that is not relevant.       Movie streaming, AND music streaming both have more than I could ever want to watch or listen too, so they are equal to me.     

 

Now movies cost more to make, cost more to buy etc etc, so, the money I should pay to experience them should be more.

The movies offered by the streaming services are a tiny fraction of available releases. It's  very seldom that I find a movie I'm looking for (l have both Stan and Netflix).

The opposite is true of Tidal - I can find most music I look for....and much, much more to discover.

If you can"t appreciate this difference then your taste must be far simpler than mine. Which is fine.

Tidal is a great boon for music lovers though.

[Guest Sime]

1 hour ago, aussievintage said:

Fair enough, but it seems as though the companies with cheaper prices are doing way better.  If nothing else, that seems to say most people think it is too expensive.

So, the companies that are doing it cheaper are naturally doing better, because it’s got nothing to do with what’s right, but the fact that people now days want everything cheaper regardless of the consequences. The people paying $10 a month on Spotify do not care about the artists at all, just themselves. 

Me, $50 a month for practically all recorded music ever is a steal, literally. And even if I find an album I like, I still pay full RRP to own it. 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Sime

[betty boop]

7 minutes ago, Sime said:

The people paying $10 a month on Spotify do not care about the artists at all, just themselves. 

why judge them sime, I am sure everyone has their own reasons to make choices they do. if talking financially see for myself apple music is $5.99x12=71.88 vs $600 a year of tidal

 

Thats a difference of $528 a year I can spend on buying discs  for some people thats quite a bit of cash ! enough for them to drive choices.

[A J]

3 hours ago, bhobba said:

Well it was published 13 December last year they think Tidal may not survive 6 months.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/13/tidal-jay-z-financial-trouble/

 

It's nearly that time now - what do people think - it will be going down the gurgler soon?

 

Many devices and software players now integrate with it, I personally think its great - use it all the time espicailly the MQA stuff.  If it was to go under I suspect a lot of ripple effects.   But that has nothing to do with its financial health.

 

Is it about to die?

 

Thanks

Bill

I think for me - Roon would be much less value without Tidal integration, so it would I imagine be a threat to them unless they manage to negotiate another deal. The Roon/Tidal pair is perfect as far as I'm concerned.

 

AJ

[Guest Sime]

20 minutes ago, al said:

why judge them sime, I am sure everyone has their own reasons to make choices they do. if talking financially see for myself apple music is $5.99x12=71.88 vs $600 a year of tidal

 

Thats a difference of $528 a year I can spend on buying discs  for some people thats quite a bit of cash ! enough for them to drive choices.

The only people that don’t have a choice are the people creating the music you listen to. 

Out of all those people that are either on the cheapest option or the free version of Spotify, how many of these people do you actually think spend the money they save and buy the media outright? We are the minority’s here, we don’t count. 

I can guarantee you that the statistics with millenials are that the majority are not paying for music at all, but sure, they have to hear adds, but they are getting it for free essentially, and there’s only one loser in that. 

Me, tidal is purely for album selection. The only albums I listen to regularly on Tidal are the ones I can’t buy. 

 

But it I hear you point about some people who may not be able to afford discs (you didn’t quite phrase it that way I know) but if that’s the case, you can’t pay, you don’t listen, simple. When I was a kid, you either had the radio or physical media, and that’s the only way one gets paid for their hard work and talent. 

 

In a perfect world, Tidal being vastly more expensive than Apple Music will mean that everyone gets paid. 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Sime

[Tobes]

14 minutes ago, al said:

why judge them sime, I am sure everyone has their own reasons to make choices they do. if talking financially see for myself apple music is $5.99x12=71.88 vs $600 a year of tidal

 

Thats a difference of $528 a year I can spend on buying discs  for some people thats quite a bit of cash ! enough for them to drive choices.

But Tidal is only $24 per month, which is 288/yr.

If SQ is a priority, this is no biggie imo.

BTW, I also have a Spotify family subscription, though this is more for the use of other family members.

[PKay]

24 minutes ago, A J said:

I think for me - Roon would be much less value without Tidal integration, so it would I imagine be a threat to them unless they manage to negotiate another deal. The Roon/Tidal pair is perfect as far as I'm concerned.

 

AJ

I agree, without Tidal I wouldn’t bother with Roon. Not that the Roon guys would have the financial backing needed by Tidal. 

[betty boop]

12 hours ago, Sime said:

The only people that don’t have a choice are the people creating the music you listen to. 

Out of all those people that are either on the cheapest option or the free version of Spotify, how many of these people do you actually think spend the money they save and buy the media outright? We are the minority’s here, we don’t count. 

hi sime, I have family in the industry. they have choices, the one performing tomorrow live and there is literally nothing else like it on earth has only produced one cd. another one to be released tomorrow. we wont find them on tidal.

 

you might be suprised re people buying media out right.

 

12 hours ago, Sime said:

I can guarantee you that the statistics with millenials are that the majority are not paying for music at all, but sure, they have to hear adds, but they are getting it for free essentially, and there’s only one loser in that. 

Me, tidal is purely for album selection. The only albums I listen to regularly on Tidal are the ones I can’t buy. 

wouldnt be suprised on the masses, but wouldnt tar all with same brush as you might be suprised on millenials.. we have them for niece and nephews.... but they are close enough to the arts that they do pay for their music. my nephew is constant with pride posting about his latest vinyl acquisition. and i bet you wont find any of those on tidal. he cant afford constant monthly cost of tidal and buys an album here and there. when can afford he is a student wiht a part time job... often working all hours behind stage etc. 

 

12 hours ago, Sime said:

But it I hear you point about some people who may not be able to afford discs (you didn’t quite phrase it that way I know) but if that’s the case, you can’t pay, you don’t listen, simple. When I was a kid, you either had the radio or physical media, and that’s the only way one gets paid for their hard work and talent. 

not suggesting at all ! and would never condone stealing... ie illegal downloads and such if was thinking it was what i was suggesting.  

 

12 hours ago, Tobes said:

But Tidal is only $24 per month, which is 288/yr.

If SQ is a priority, this is no biggie imo.

BTW, I also have a Spotify family subscription, though this is more for the use of other family members.

sure just was talking around sime's $50 a month figure. but its still 4x more than apple music for instance at $5.99 or free streaming services all totally legal and of which there are many on the internet. 

 

I can totally understand if chasing sound quality of streaming and if its something that makes sense for you. just making point it doesnt for everyone... 

[Tobes]

8 minutes ago, al said:

I can totally understand if chasing sound quality of streaming and if its something that makes sense for you. just making point it doesnt for everyone... 

Sure, I get that.

But I'd  suggest that, in general, SNA members have a higher than average interest in SQ.

Personally I'd forgo a takeaway coffee a week for access to a huge CD quality catalogue. YMMV.

[Steffen]

2 hours ago, Sime said:

In a perfect world, Tidal being vastly more expensive than Apple Music will mean that everyone gets paid. 

 

In this world, though, Tidal is the one that fails to pay content owners. And this isn't the first time either, they've made the news for that before.

 

[aussievintage]

12 hours ago, Sime said:

So, the companies that are doing it cheaper are naturally doing better, because it’s got nothing to do with what’s right, but the fact that people now days want everything cheaper regardless of the consequences.

It's not about what's right.  Not a moral issue at all.  The topic is whether Tidal will continue.  I don't think it will because of it's cost vs the value to the consumer.

[Guest Sime]

31 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

  I don't think it will because of it's cost vs the value to the consumer.

This is where I have the issue. Cost vs value to the customer? 

Regardless of the competition, $25 a month for that extensive library! I think it’s undervalued.