It's artist-owned.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tidal, lossless Spotify competitor launches
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
- Status
It's artist-owned.
It's just Jay Z and friends wanting to make some mad cash like Dre did. They realized (correctly) that the next big format for music was streaming. Unfortunately they realized it a bit late in the game.
Rookje
Member
Saint Gregory
Member
Was Beat Streaming making that much money? I'd never even heard of it until I read an article saying that it was the real reason that Apple bought the Beats brand.
I suppose that may answer my question right there though...
Diddy also has a streaming service I believe. None of them are successful except for Spotify. A lot of Jay-Z's success is due to who he is as a person, not because whatever he is doing is "smart business." Robinson Cano and Kevin Durant went with his agency because he is Jay-Z. No other reason. They could have got contracts/endorsements just as big without him. People will sign up for this shit due to the same reason.
I honestly don't understand how Roc Nation sold for as much as it did, but that's with many things. Beats got way more than I thought it was worth. WhatsApp...I think everything nowadays just gets way overpriced.
This is like Google going after Facebook with Google+, it's already over, Spotify won. A higher quality version isn't going to do shit.
Yeah, that's more likely.
Kill Your Masters
Member
I use google play music so when looking at this picture first I thought its all just a Tidal interface screenshot, what a blatant rip off.
Dat original
I'm not referring to Dre's money with Beats streaming. I'm just referring to him making money on other music-related business ventures. Beats streaming didn't do much at all. The headphones (and buyout) did.
Eh, Apple got Dre and Iovine, took out a competitor, got a foundation and some experience for their foray into streaming music, and got a really well known and profitable headphones brand in one swoop. And it's not like they didn't have a shit-ton of money lying around.
toastyToast
Member
Dat original
What did you expect from Jay? It's in his DNA
Saint Gregory
Member
Well Jay-Z, I guess to his credit, has been trying other business ventures outside of hip-hop for as long as anyone in the business. Dre just did it much better.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
By exclusive you mean ripped on YouTube by 1pm?
Holy fuck is this real? That's so similar that i'm sure there's grounds for a copyright lawsuit here.
Dat original
Sgt.EntryEnass
Banned
Wonder what kinds of exclusive content this service will get.
freenudemacusers
Member
not sure what the big deal is, you shouldn't be able to copyright rectangles
This is going to be a major flop and I almost feel bad for the artists. The idea behind this (and The Verge makes sense) is that it's similar to the United Artists move in Hollywood. The sad thing though, is that this is just another ploy from Hov to gobble up more profits. He's getting irrelevant in hiphop, the only thing he has holding him above water is his reputation and label.
Kanye and other artists are jumping on this to be in more control of their music, a la Taylor Swift putting her catalog on Tidal instead of other streaming services. Yet the average consumer will not understand or notice the difference between FLAC and a 320kbps MP3 they have in iTunes. The $20/month is a joke for anybody but audiophiles.
Kanye and other artists are jumping on this to be in more control of their music, a la Taylor Swift putting her catalog on Tidal instead of other streaming services. Yet the average consumer will not understand or notice the difference between FLAC and a 320kbps MP3 they have in iTunes. The $20/month is a joke for anybody but audiophiles.
Allforce
Member
Isn't the obvious rebuttal to this just Spotify offering a "320kbps" upgrade for cheaper than Tidal does? Am I crazy for thinking that nobody running this Tidal thing would see that as a viable answer to their strategy?
I don't understand how this Tidal service aims to overtake or even grab a substantial portion of the market. Hell I won't even pay for Spotify, I use it on occasion (holidays with family around) but Google Play Music just lets me store 50,000 songs online for free to access wherever I want.
I don't understand how this Tidal service aims to overtake or even grab a substantial portion of the market. Hell I won't even pay for Spotify, I use it on occasion (holidays with family around) but Google Play Music just lets me store 50,000 songs online for free to access wherever I want.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
Service looks fine but them pleading the 'for the people' and 'revolution' angle - when it's for all intents and purposes a bog standard streaming app if you don't need lossless - is a load of pretentious shit designed to pad their own bank accounts. You couldn't ask for a less relatable bunch of rich people to push this product on the public.
I lol'd at Kanye looking miserable as per.
Mr. Wonderful
Member
Really though, what codec is this? If it's FLAC, shouldn't it be all or nothing if your reception dips? Otherwise, it's build-to-lossless, in which case, you might as well have 320kbps, not that you're getting that all the time on Spotify anyways.
Right. All 16 of them.
Plus the record labels of course.
http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6516945/jay-z-jimmy-iovine-streaming-tidal
LMFAO.
I H8 Memes
Member
Yeah so I guess the outrage about spotify from that bony ass famous chick probably wasnt so genuine and she's actually on this service. the whole thing against spotify was just BS.
I would credit Monster for the success of Beats by "Dre."
He got lucky and won a lawsuit that essentially gave him the company.
umop_3pisdn
Member
what's wrong with flac
I don't understand why you would want to stream lossless audio. The major benefit is having a compressed music library you don't have to transcode and ruin when producing copies. As far as audio quality goes controlled blind testing generally eliminates any perception differences between properly encoded 320kbps MP3 and lossless or source. I don't know if many can consistently tell the difference to any statistically valid level.
DOWN
Banned
It has huge file sizes and in blind testing, no one can tell the difference between that and 320kbps. No matter what the audio experts of the internet tell you. This means it is a nonsense distinction for streaming. For storage archives, fine, but streaming? Nah
I like lossless audio. I like streaming audio. I would like to stream lossless audio. I'm also smart enough to know that the US (aka primary market for this) has piss poor infrastructure. While the demand for such a product may exist, there isn't a good method of delivery. To add to that, it seems really silly to charge $20/month for this. Try again in 15 years.
Melon Husk
Member
No thanks! 320kbps MP3 is good enough on-the-go. FLAC is great for storage though.
Spotify's current UI isn't even their best version, Tidal's is shamelessly copied from the current one.
Spotify's current UI isn't even their best version, Tidal's is shamelessly copied from the current one.
sir_kevith
Member
I only got 3/5 correct on that test.
Using Fostex T50RP with a cheap ass Fiio E7. Not really getting the most out of these headphones tbh.
Don't think my headphones could do the sub-bass on James Blake justice either way and there was nothing else to listen for so I just guessed. Then I got the Eagles song wrong but I didn't feel the recording was super good. The Dixie Chicks song I could tell instantly it was crazy.
Seems like a cool site tho.
Using Fostex T50RP with a cheap ass Fiio E7. Not really getting the most out of these headphones tbh.
Don't think my headphones could do the sub-bass on James Blake justice either way and there was nothing else to listen for so I just guessed. Then I got the Eagles song wrong but I didn't feel the recording was super good. The Dixie Chicks song I could tell instantly it was crazy.
Seems like a cool site tho.
JCreasy
Member
I'm guessing Spotify will have to negotiate for the ability to stream lossless audio. While I could see a future where Spotify, Google Play, and Beats stream lossless audio also, I doubt it'll be any cheaper. With this service, I think the industry collectively "decided" that regular streaming will be $10/month and lossless will be $20/month. Considering that even Apple can't get them to budge on the $10/month, I doubt anyone else will be able to.
PflargBlarg
Member
You can call it "snake oil" if you wish. The main point is, there is almost nobody that can really tell the difference between 320 kbps and lossless. The human ear simply isn't capable on most people.
I'm going to give the test a shot once I get home on very high end headphones and see if I can tell a difference. I suspect the answer will be no.
Miss.Selfdestruct
Member
Dat original
"artist" owned and can't even introduce a slick original design at launch...
lovely ladies
Member
Nope. that's exactly how it is lol. I noted the same in the other Tidal thread. I'm sure in a week or two, you'll see a Tidal top US and viral 50.
I mean I guess it's good for people who are really used to the Spotify interface.
edit: They also copied Beats Music's fast forwarding and rewinding with the circle scroll.
JJDinomite
Banned
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
I'm not sure anyone could say it is a bad idea though - it's just another competing music streaming service. It's just the marketing of it that is making everyone think, 'WTF?'.
jamesinclair
Banned
The fact that cd quality is being hyped as a good thing is sort of hilarious
It pretty much exceeds human hearing ability so it's really all you need.
FootballFan
Member
Dat original
Wow, that honestly is incredible lol.
You lost me. Spotify is already twice as expensive as it should be.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Got 3/5 on that test thingy with my M50's and through the headphone jack on the front of my computer lol.
Ben Morales
Member
I just did a search and yes her music is on Tidal. LOL
But she didn't put 1989 on there though.
Pops Maellard
Member
This seems like realizing movies are going to be huge a few months after Titanic releases. They're way, way waaaaaay late to the game.
- Status