Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I'm "pro-tidal" because they offer something unique no other service does, so don't take this as knocking the service, but it's my understanding that streaming royalties from spotify etc are laughably paltry. How much more could Tidal really be paying the artists and still maintain a profitable business model? Even mid tier artists who play theaters report getting checks for pennies, so even if you paid them 100x more thats still not even enough for a lunch (EDIT: ok its enough for lunch but not enough to live on).
Again not jumping on the knock tidal bandwagon, but maybe the reason they didn't specify how much more they pay artists is because a shit increase in shit pay is still shit pay.
Delicious Meatball Sub you seem well versed in this stuff, tell me where I'm thinking of this wrong.
If Jay-Z and friends really cared about helping artists get paid for their music, struggling artists with small fanbases would have been at the forefront of TIDAL's roll out. Not to mention the additional monetary value they would see if users supported the service.
Yeah because nothing will get people to flock to the newest and coolest music streaming service like the guys playing to empty tents at noon at your local festival. Good business plan.
That would have at least told a story that a consumer could latch onto and buy. THIS on the other hand is such an epic failure that it's going to be taught in MBA programs as an example of what not to do next to the Netflix split and New Coke for a decade.
I'm "pro-tidal" because they offer something unique no other service does, so don't take this as knocking the service, but it's my understanding that streaming royalties from spotify etc are laughably paltry. How much more could Tidal really be paying the artists and still maintain a profitable business model? Even mid tier artists who play theaters report getting checks for pennies, so even if you paid them 100x more thats still not even enough for a lunch (EDIT: ok its enough for lunch but not enough to live on).
Again not jumping on the knock tidal bandwagon, but maybe the reason they didn't specify how much more they pay artists is because a shit increase in shit pay is still shit pay.
Delicious Meatball Sub you seem well versed in this stuff, tell me where I'm thinking of this wrong.
Well the basic idea with Tidal is that buy not offering a free tier they will automatically be bringing in more money per play than Spotify's largely ad-based service does. Spotify (and I assume Tidal) doesn't pay a set royalty per play, instead a portion of their revenue is distributed to artists (and record labels) pro-rata. The vast majority of Spotify's users are free users, and it's paid service brings in way more revenue per user than ad-based. So if the basic Tidal service is equivalent to Spotify premium, Tidal will have larger revenues per play and significantly more money available to distribute to artists.
Edit: There's also a huge issue regarding how royalties are paid to the major labels vs how they're paid to indies. The short version is that Spotify's license agreements pay lots of money upfront to majors, and leaves less in the pool for indies. This means that an artist on a major with 1 million streams could get paid more than an artist on an indie with the same number. However, the majors may not even be passing those royalties along to artists, the agreements very well could be structured to allow the label to keep it. If Tidal avoided all this, it would be another tick in favor of artists getting paid for the music they write.
Side note: Spotify actually isn't profitable yet
In its latest financial statements, Spotify reported that it had 747 million euros in revenue in 2013, or about $1.03 billion, according to the exchange rate at the end of the year. That was up about 74 percent from 2012, the company, which is privately held, said in filings made public on Tuesday.
Spotify had $80 million in net losses during 2013, down from its $115 million loss in 2012.
I'm "pro-tidal" because they offer something unique no other service does, so don't take this as knocking the service, but it's my understanding that streaming royalties from spotify etc are laughably paltry. How much more could Tidal really be paying the artists and still maintain a profitable business model? Even mid tier artists who play theaters report getting checks for pennies, so even if you paid them 100x more thats still not even enough for a lunch (EDIT: ok its enough for lunch but not enough to live on).
Again not jumping on the knock tidal bandwagon, but maybe the reason they didn't specify how much more they pay artists is because a shit increase in shit pay is still shit pay.
Delicious Meatball Sub you seem well versed in this stuff, tell me where I'm thinking of this wrong.
Well the basic idea with Tidal is that buy not offering a free tier they will automatically be bringing in more money per play than Spotify's largely ad-based service does. Spotify (and I assume Tidal) doesn't pay a set royalty per play, instead a portion of their revenue is distributed to artists (and record labels) pro-rata. The vast majority of Spotify's users are free users, and it's paid service brings in way more revenue per user than ad-based. So if the basic Tidal service is equivalent to Spotify premium, Tidal will have larger revenues per play and significantly more money available to distribute to artists.
Side note: Spotify actually isn't profitable yet
In its latest financial statements, Spotify reported that it had 747 million euros in revenue in 2013, or about $1.03 billion, according to the exchange rate at the end of the year. That was up about 74 percent from 2012, the company, which is privately held, said in filings made public on Tuesday.
Spotify had $80 million in net losses during 2013, down from its $115 million loss in 2012.
All good points, I didn't even take into account the fact that only a little over 20% of spotify users actually pay for the service. I'd love to actually look over those financials but I don't think they are freely available on the web. Coincidentally I did find a company called PrivCo where I can sign up for a subscription to get access to a whole bunch of financial statements, including Spotify's. PrivCo should offer a free version but with ads between the note disclosures.
I do like the functionality of Tidal over Spotify, in terms of using them both through Sonos. Spotify is kind of annoying because I can only play playlists, so if I want to hear an album, I have to add it to a new playlist in spotify, then it's svailable through sonos spotify service
This must be a Canadian problem, because with my Sonos Controller (the phone app or on my laptop) I can search any artist/track/album on Spotify and play them without having to be in my playlists. I freaking love my Sonos, best electronics purchase I've made in awhile.
2013~Bonnaroo, Gentlemen of the Road-Troy 2014~McDowell Mountain, Beale Street, Bonnaroo, Riot Fest 2015~Coachella 1, Bonnaroo 2016~Summer Camp, Bonnaroo, Live on the Green, Pilgrimage 2017~Bonnaroo, Live on the Green, Pilgrimage 2018~Bonnaroo
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" 2019~BROKE 2020~M'fking COVID 2021~ditto 2022~tbd
I do like the functionality of Tidal over Spotify, in terms of using them both through Sonos. Spotify is kind of annoying because I can only play playlists, so if I want to hear an album, I have to add it to a new playlist in spotify, then it's svailable through sonos spotify service
This must be a Canadian problem, because with my Sonos Controller (the phone app or on my laptop) I can search any artist/track/album on Spotify and play them without having to be in my playlists. I freaking love my Sonos, best electronics purchase I've made in awhile.
EDIT: Or maybe because I'm a premium subscriber?
i am too, so must be a Canadian thing. We're always late to the party when it comes to things like this
Post by itrainmonkeys on Apr 26, 2015 11:48:33 GMT -5
Over the past week, Jack White has been putting on intimate (and cheap) acoustic shows in five U.S. states that he’s never played in before. After the mini-tour is over, he says that he’ll be “taking a break from performing live for a long period of time.” Which makes tonight’s final performance at the Fargo Theatre in North Dakota a pretty big deal, and it’s being treated as such and will be livestreamed tonight exclusively for Tidal subscribers. Additionally, Tidal is giving away 50 tickets to the show for people in the area who are already Tidal subscribers or subscribe to the service by 1PM CST. The stream will start at 8:30PM CST tonight, repeat once immediately, and will eventually be made available on-demand.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Apr 26, 2015 14:00:26 GMT -5
Didn't want to copy and paste all the tweets but some interesting info (75% royalty rate) about Tidal from Jay-Z who logged into Twitter to talk about Tidal
Didn't want to copy and paste all the tweets but some interesting info (75% royalty rate) about Tidal from Jay-Z who logged into Twitter to talk about Tidal
That’s all fine and dandy. Jay wants to make a statement to his fans and detractors, cool. But that doesn’t do anything to assuage any concerns that consumers may have with the service. It costs too much, the end.
Instant access to essentially all the world's recorded music for $10 a month? Such a rip.
Post by FuzzyWarbles on Apr 27, 2015 8:32:16 GMT -5
Grimes' statement on Tidal
"Mad respect for tidal!! I literally know musicians who live in cars and storage spaces etc. And I know some pretty popular musicians who still struggle to make ends meet. Unless artists have a popular live show there aren’t a lot of income streams available. People have characterized tidal negatively but I promise it’s 100% artist friendly, and fan friendly since yall have the option to pay the same rate as other streaming respect to everyone involved for doing the right thing for struggling artists – this kind of thing is so important, especially for indie music! PS I AM SIGNED TO 4AD!! The misconception that I am not an independent artist anymore is incorrect, i can speak as an independent artist here. Roc nation manages me, I’m not signed to them nor do I have any investment in tidal, nor did anyone ask me to say this. Ps to everyone who buys music respect! Glad to hear many of u buy music rather than stream which is the best way to support smaller artists! ^_^ and also, for those who can’t afford streaming or buying music, I do not judge anyone for that! This is a suggestion, not a demand, in sorry it has created so much anger amongst y'all"
That’s all fine and dandy. Jay wants to make a statement to his fans and detractors, cool. But that doesn’t do anything to assuage any concerns that consumers may have with the service. It costs too much, the end.
Instant access to essentially all the world's recorded music for $10 a month? Such a rip.
This makes me think about back in the mid nineties, when I guess I was 13-15 years old. My weekly allowance was $20, and every week I had to decide exactly how I was going to spend that money. I was either able to play Q-Zar or buy a CD. I did not play a lot of Q-Zar, I instead spent a lot of time obsessing over every CD at my local record store. I could easily spend 2-3 hours in the store, listening to used CDs and just talking with other people about music.
I just remember how much thought and research went into those somewhat weekly CD purchases, how I would typically try to buy different CDs than my friends had because we could always swap CDs for a couple weeks, or just go over to each others houses and hear the CDs you didn't own there.
So I could estimate I was spending anywhere from $30-45 a month on music, the majority of my "disposable income" (which was all my income because I was a kid).
So when I'm paying $10 a month for a streaming service now it still blows my mind. I don't want to pick on younger people, but maybe if someone never had that experience of music scarcity, and have pretty much always lived in a world where music is available free or cheap anywhere at anytime, there is simply less value attributed to music.
Instant access to essentially all the world's recorded music for $10 a month? Such a rip.
This makes me think about back in the mid nineties, when I guess I was 13-15 years old. My weekly allowance was $20, and every week I had to decide exactly how I was going to spend that money. I was either able to play Q-Zar or buy a CD. I did not play a lot of Q-Zar, I instead spent a lot of time obsessing over every CD at my local record store. I could easily spend 2-3 hours in the store, listening to used CDs and just talking with other people about music.
I just remember how much thought and research went into those somewhat weekly CD purchases, how I would typically try to buy different CDs than my friends had because we could always swap CDs for a couple weeks, or just go over to each others houses and hear the CDs you didn't own there.
So I could estimate I was spending anywhere from $30-45 a month on music, the majority of my "disposable income" (which was all my income because I was a kid).
So when I'm paying $10 a month for a streaming service now it still blows my mind. I don't want to pick on younger people, but maybe if someone never had that experience of music scarcity, and have pretty much always lived in a world where music is available free or cheap anywhere at anytime, there is simply less value attributed to music.
The average person, across all demographics, still listens to AM/FM radio more than any other music source. even today. (well, as of 2013). when it comes to music, the top 3 sources are AM/FM radio, Youtube, and Streaming services, in that order. "streaming services" includes spotify, google play, Rdio, grooveshark, etc. But by far the largest streaming service is Pandora, more than 3 times the second place (spotify). People don't pay for the music they listen to; their listening habits show this. They are even able to get a more customized listening experience than standard FM radio, and they don't have to pay for it. From the popularity of curated music sources (namely FM radio and pandora stations) you could infer that the average person doesn't even need (or want) direct control over what they are listening to, they just want to digest something that is similar enough to what they like. Why would they pay for it? Radio just went digital, and radio is sufficient for most people's listening.
and from the number of people who listen to their music on shizty iphone earbuds, they don't give a shiz about sound quality either.
Instant access to essentially all the world's recorded music for $10 a month? Such a rip.
This makes me think about back in the mid nineties, when I guess I was 13-15 years old. My weekly allowance was $20, and every week I had to decide exactly how I was going to spend that money. I was either able to play Q-Zar or buy a CD. I did not play a lot of Q-Zar, I instead spent a lot of time obsessing over every CD at my local record store. I could easily spend 2-3 hours in the store, listening to used CDs and just talking with other people about music.
I just remember how much thought and research went into those somewhat weekly CD purchases, how I would typically try to buy different CDs than my friends had because we could always swap CDs for a couple weeks, or just go over to each others houses and hear the CDs you didn't own there.
So I could estimate I was spending anywhere from $30-45 a month on music, the majority of my "disposable income" (which was all my income because I was a kid).
So when I'm paying $10 a month for a streaming service now it still blows my mind. I don't want to pick on younger people, but maybe if someone never had that experience of music scarcity, and have pretty much always lived in a world where music is available free or cheap anywhere at anytime, there is simply less value attributed to music.
I think the loss of value applies only to the recordings themselves. Maybe the dynamic needs to change from the song being the final product to the song being an advertisement for the final product, such as the live performace. For example: we are still willing to pay more money to see fewer acts at Bonnaroo this year.
This makes me think about back in the mid nineties, when I guess I was 13-15 years old. My weekly allowance was $20, and every week I had to decide exactly how I was going to spend that money. I was either able to play Q-Zar or buy a CD. I did not play a lot of Q-Zar, I instead spent a lot of time obsessing over every CD at my local record store. I could easily spend 2-3 hours in the store, listening to used CDs and just talking with other people about music.
I just remember how much thought and research went into those somewhat weekly CD purchases, how I would typically try to buy different CDs than my friends had because we could always swap CDs for a couple weeks, or just go over to each others houses and hear the CDs you didn't own there.
So I could estimate I was spending anywhere from $30-45 a month on music, the majority of my "disposable income" (which was all my income because I was a kid).
So when I'm paying $10 a month for a streaming service now it still blows my mind. I don't want to pick on younger people, but maybe if someone never had that experience of music scarcity, and have pretty much always lived in a world where music is available free or cheap anywhere at anytime, there is simply less value attributed to music.
The average person, across all demographics, still listens to AM/FM radio more than any other music source. even today. (well, as of 2013). when it comes to music, the top 3 sources are AM/FM radio, Youtube, and Streaming services, in that order. "streaming services" includes spotify, google play, Rdio, grooveshark, etc. But by far the largest streaming service is Pandora, more than 3 times the second place (spotify). People don't pay for the music they listen to; they're listening habits show this. They are even able to get a more customized listening experience than standard FM radio, and they don't have to pay for it. From the popularity of curated music sources (namely FM radio and pandora stations) you could infer that the average person doesn't even need (or want) direct control over what they are listening to, they just want to digest something that is similar enough to what they like. Why would they pay for it? Radio just went digital, and radio is sufficient for most people's listening.
and from the number of people who listen to their music on shizty iphone earbuds, they don't give a shiz about sound quality either.
There's a lot of data in that report that you're not mentioning. Yes, lots of people listen to FM, but lots of people ALSO use streaming services, and buy CDs, and download MP3s. It's also worth noting this conclusion that was right in the executive summary:
Streaming services can increase prices and ad exposure incrementally without fear of significant losses in audience. Price and exposure to advertising exert the least influence on the choice of a streaming service. This is likely a function of the current marketplace in which most streaming services are roughly comparable along these dimensions. But unless service configurations change dramatically, incremental increases in price and ad exposure would be tolerated by most users
The average person, across all demographics, still listens to AM/FM radio more than any other music source. even today. (well, as of 2013). when it comes to music, the top 3 sources are AM/FM radio, Youtube, and Streaming services, in that order. "streaming services" includes spotify, google play, Rdio, grooveshark, etc. But by far the largest streaming service is Pandora, more than 3 times the second place (spotify). People don't pay for the music they listen to; they're listening habits show this. They are even able to get a more customized listening experience than standard FM radio, and they don't have to pay for it. From the popularity of curated music sources (namely FM radio and pandora stations) you could infer that the average person doesn't even need (or want) direct control over what they are listening to, they just want to digest something that is similar enough to what they like. Why would they pay for it? Radio just went digital, and radio is sufficient for most people's listening.
and from the number of people who listen to their music on shizty iphone earbuds, they don't give a shiz about sound quality either.
There's a lot of data in that report that you're not mentioning. Yes, lots of people listen to FM, but lots of people ALSO use streaming services, and buy CDs, and download MP3s. It's also worth noting this conclusion that was right in the executive summary:
Streaming services can increase prices and ad exposure incrementally without fear of significant losses in audience. Price and exposure to advertising exert the least influence on the choice of a streaming service. This is likely a function of the current marketplace in which most streaming services are roughly comparable along these dimensions. But unless service configurations change dramatically, incremental increases in price and ad exposure would be tolerated by most users
ugh, I had a nice response to this, and then I accidentally hit the back button and it all got lost.
yeah, I left a lot of stuff out of that report, its like 50 pages long. I was mainly speaking to postjack point that $10 a month isn't a lot to people who actively seek music, but for most people music has always been "free" via AM/FM radio; newer streaming platforms are just a digital expansion of this. I was honestly surprised that AM/FM still had such a high listener base. the people who would drop $45-50 a month in a record store are jumping up and down (or should be) at only paying $10-$20 a month for streaming. the people who would listen to the radio and buy 1-2 cds a year are gonna balk at $10 a month, regardless of how much of a bargain it actually is. if you look at the weekly top plays on spotify, it's practically a mirror of the top 40. as far as cd's, those have seen decreasing sales every year for over a decade now. and digital downloads decreased for the first time last year as well. either way, AM/FM, youtube, and streaming services accounted for 74% of music listening. and pandora was the overwhelming favorite streaming service. people are accustomed to getting their music for free.
I didn't mention the executive summary because it wasn't really pertinent to that point, and I don't think it will hold true in the case of Tidal: This is likely a function of the current marketplace in which most streaming services are roughly comparable along these dimensions.
Tidal doesn't have a free option or ads, so it isn't roughly comparable. And for someone accustomed to getting their music free via FM/spotify/pandora/youtube, $0 to $10 isn't an incremental increase, it's infinite.
I'm not trying to knock Tidal, or any other streaming service here. my whole point was that I think that people who generally follow music and look to diversify what they listen to understand that $10 a month is a fucking bargain. but for the average person who consumes the music they are "provided" via some radio service, $10 a month seems ludicrous.
Is Tidal's library as vast as Spotify's? Are most new albums available the day of release like they are on Spotify? How is Tidal's mobile app? Does it have an offline mode?
I'll switch over to allow for artists to get paid more if I am offered the same services that I already receive.
Is Tidal's library as vast as Spotify's? Are most new albums available the day of release like they are on Spotify? How is Tidal's mobile app? Does it have an offline mode?
I'll switch over to allow for artists to get paid more if I am offered the same services that I already receive.
I don't know the statistics for total songs, but I've found just about everything I've wanted on Tidal.
New albums are definitely available day of release, just as fast as other streaming services.
The mobile app is pretty good, it was a bit wonky a few months back but it's been really smooth for a while now. Yes it has an offline mode, which is how I use it exclusively.
Just started the free trial of the $20/month service. I am not keen enough to notice the distinct difference in sound, but I still like to know that I'm getting better quality audio, so why not. Besides all the music you get is still a steal at that price. I've converted all my spotify playlists over from the last 3 years (15,14,13). Here is what Tidal does not have so far, and these are just albums I've listened to this year, but I'm sure there's more that I never got around to hearing that is also not available.
2014 Stephen Malkmus and the Jicks Bombay Bicycle Club Pontiak Jungle FKA Twigs Ty Segall* Thom Yorke*
2013 Local Natives Elliphant Atoms for Peace* Mimosa The London Suede The Black Angels Chance The Rapper* Blondes* After Dark 2* Ka Laura Marling Edward Sharpe Forest Swords
*Was unavailable on Spotify as well
Pretty obscure albums from the most part, especially for this year, so they seem to be just as competitive as spotify in the quanity they offer. I like that for my laptop, I do not have to download a program to run Tidal. I can just do it from my browser and that's nice. A couple things it seems like you are unable to do on the laptop version is
1. Add multiple tracks to a playlist at once. I can highlight multiple tracks, and even drag them, but nothing happens when I hover over the playlist bar, and I am unable to choose a specfic playlist to add them to. It seems like I have to click the options for each track and add them individually.
2. Import audio files that I already have on my computer into my Tidal playlists. I can do this on Spotify, and even sync my device to the playlists, so those tracks are added to my phones. Keeping everything in one central spot is a nice convenience.
I'll ride out the month with the free trial, and then decide what to do after that. I'll Keep one or possibly both.
2. Import audio files that I already have on my computer into my Tidal playlists. I can do this on Spotify, and even sync my device to the playlists, so those tracks are added to my phones. Keeping everything in one central spot is a nice convenience.
I was wondering about this. I've been underwhelmed by this feature on Spotify, songs I upload seem to constantly disappear and reappear. If Tidal can get it right that would be big for me.
2. Import audio files that I already have on my computer into my Tidal playlists. I can do this on Spotify, and even sync my device to the playlists, so those tracks are added to my phones. Keeping everything in one central spot is a nice convenience.
I was wondering about this. I've been underwhelmed by this feature on Spotify, songs I upload seem to constantly disappear and reappear. If Tidal can get it right that would be big for me.
Hmm . . . the only issue I've had with it is getting my phone to download the files when I am on my home network. For some reason it always starts to download and then freezes, but when I am at school and connected to their network, it works fine. So I assume it's just my shitty internet service. Google Fiber, come to Chicago! Please!
Post by itrainmonkeys on Apr 29, 2015 9:00:36 GMT -5
In his recent defense on Twitter of his newly-acquired streaming service Tidal, Jay Z wrote, "We made Tidal for fans. We have more than just music. We have video, exclusive concerts, tickets for events early, live sports!" They've already done some big video exclusives (Beyonce, Rihanna), and now Jay Z has announced he'll play a free "intimate" NYC show on May 13 for Tidal subscribers only.
Subscribers can try to get in to the show by curating a Tidal playlist and tweeting it with the hashtag #TIDALXJAYZ. The concert will also stream live on Tidal. Jay is also saying the show will include old songs and deeper cuts, some of which haven't been performed in a decade, or at all. This all seems cool, as long as you're down with signing up for Tidal, which is $9.99 a month.
In his recent defense on Twitter of his newly-acquired streaming service Tidal, Jay Z wrote, "We made Tidal for fans. We have more than just music. We have video, exclusive concerts, tickets for events early, live sports!" They've already done some big video exclusives (Beyonce, Rihanna), and now Jay Z has announced he'll play a free "intimate" NYC show on May 13 for Tidal subscribers only.
Subscribers can try to get in to the show by curating a Tidal playlist and tweeting it with the hashtag #TIDALXJAYZ. The concert will also stream live on Tidal. Jay is also saying the show will include old songs and deeper cuts, some of which haven't been performed in a decade, or at all. This all seems cool, as long as you're down with signing up for Tidal, which is $9.99 a month.
If they start streaming live sports, I'd jump on the bandwagon. I don't have cable, and sports are really the only thing I'd want it for. I'm not sure how this will work, though, as most leagues have exclusivity contracts with major networks and are also subject to blackouts.
TIDAL's star studded launch was followed by a storm of criticism. Most of the chatter, rightly or wrongly, centered around music's richest 1% enriching themselves further; and the wisdom of launching any music service with $19.99 premium pricing and no free tier. Now, TIDAL has raised its monthly price 30%.
With none of the fanfare of its star laden launch or the bravado of the several Jay Z tweetstorms that followed, Tidal raised the price of its monthly subscriptions 30%. The TIDAL Premium ad free service went from $9.99 per month to $12.99; and TIDAL HiFi lossless service rose from $19,99 to $25.99.
The price increase was delivered quietly on Monday along with an iOS app upgrade that included moving video front and center, addition of the music streamer's emerging artist program TIDAL Rising to the front page and several bug fixes.
TIDAL's star studded launch was followed by a storm of criticism. Most of the chatter, rightly or wrongly, centered around music's richest 1% enriching themselves further; and the wisdom of launching any music service with $19.99 premium pricing and no free tier. Now, TIDAL has raised its monthly price 30%.
With none of the fanfare of its star laden launch or the bravado of the several Jay Z tweetstorms that followed, Tidal raised the price of its monthly subscriptions 30%. The TIDAL Premium ad free service went from $9.99 per month to $12.99; and TIDAL HiFi lossless service rose from $19,99 to $25.99.
The price increase was delivered quietly on Monday along with an iOS app upgrade that included moving video front and center, addition of the music streamer's emerging artist program TIDAL Rising to the front page and several bug fixes.
TIDAL's star studded launch was followed by a storm of criticism. Most of the chatter, rightly or wrongly, centered around music's richest 1% enriching themselves further; and the wisdom of launching any music service with $19.99 premium pricing and no free tier. Now, TIDAL has raised its monthly price 30%.
With none of the fanfare of its star laden launch or the bravado of the several Jay Z tweetstorms that followed, Tidal raised the price of its monthly subscriptions 30%. The TIDAL Premium ad free service went from $9.99 per month to $12.99; and TIDAL HiFi lossless service rose from $19,99 to $25.99.
The price increase was delivered quietly on Monday along with an iOS app upgrade that included moving video front and center, addition of the music streamer's emerging artist program TIDAL Rising to the front page and several bug fixes.
UPDATE 4/29/15 4:38 p.m.: Confused? We are too, but a rep has provided further explanation: "Apple's policy is to charge TIDAL subscribers a 30% fee on your monthly subscription, for the life of your subscription, if you activate your subscription through the TIDAL app on your iPhone that you have just downloaded. You can easily get the $9.99 or $19.99 pricing by first creating your TIDAL account through TIDAL.com, then go to the App Store to download the TIDAL app. Once it's downloaded you simply hit "Login" instead of "Sign Up" and you will be in the correct pricing plan."
Post by itrainmonkeys on Apr 29, 2015 16:24:56 GMT -5
It seemed really strange that they would raise prices so soon. That makes way more sense. Jumping to conclusions is just way more fun (and profitable) for news sites though.
third man records announced if you are a member of the their vault program you can get HIFI Tidal for $5 extra a month. so it would be $75 every 3 months for the record package and Tidal.
The average person, across all demographics, still listens to AM/FM radio more than any other music source. even today. (well, as of 2013). when it comes to music, the top 3 sources are AM/FM radio, Youtube, and Streaming services, in that order. "streaming services" includes spotify, google play, Rdio, grooveshark, etc. But by far the largest streaming service is Pandora, more than 3 times the second place (spotify). People don't pay for the music they listen to; they're listening habits show this. They are even able to get a more customized listening experience than standard FM radio, and they don't have to pay for it. From the popularity of curated music sources (namely FM radio and pandora stations) you could infer that the average person doesn't even need (or want) direct control over what they are listening to, they just want to digest something that is similar enough to what they like. Why would they pay for it? Radio just went digital, and radio is sufficient for most people's listening.
and from the number of people who listen to their music on shizty iphone earbuds, they don't give a shiz about sound quality either.
There's a lot of data in that report that you're not mentioning. Yes, lots of people listen to FM, but lots of people ALSO use streaming services, and buy CDs, and download MP3s. It's also worth noting this conclusion that was right in the executive summary:
Streaming services can increase prices and ad exposure incrementally without fear of significant losses in audience. Price and exposure to advertising exert the least influence on the choice of a streaming service. This is likely a function of the current marketplace in which most streaming services are roughly comparable along these dimensions. But unless service configurations change dramatically, incremental increases in price and ad exposure would be tolerated by most users