Jay Z Reveals Plans for Tidal, a Streaming Music Service

Post by thezilch » Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 1:00 AM UTC

DigitalSea wrote: post #4

I don't know if the world is ready for this kind of thing. As an audiophile I think it is great that we're going to get access to a trove of lossless music, but I think the majority who is happy listening to music through their iPhone earphones and tinny speakers in their smartphones won't care (especially not enough to pay double the cost of a Spotify subscription). Then there is the kind of internet speed required…

Post by sehr » Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 1:13 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #9

deeviant wrote: post #5

“This is a platform that’s owned by artists,” - Jay Z I think he meant, "This is a platform owned by established, rich, and ageing artists, whose resolve to assist up-and-comers should rightfully be questioned." Not to say this can be any worse then something like Spotify, which already trounces over the independents, but I hardly think this is a likely group to bring democracy and creativity back to the musical scen…

When artists make it big, don't they usually start their own labels anyways? We also have rich artists very active in the music industry, providing capital and such...I mean, it is the industry they known and succeeded in! This is sort of like a programmer who made it big in an IPO becoming a venture capitalist for software tech companies: I'm sure that has happened before.

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 1:17 AM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #10

Here's the problem: I don't want another music service. I want all my favorite artists on one music service. There is literally no reason for them to not be other than various forms of greed. Garth Brooks created his own music streaming service because the people behind the album don't get enough attention. Taylor Swift doesn't put her music on Spotify because she can make more money on iTunes. Jay Z creates a stream…

Post by DigitalSea » Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 1:19 AM UTC

thezilch wrote: post #11

DigitalSea wrote: post #4

I don't know if the world is ready for this kind of thing. As an audiophile I think it is great that we're going to get access to a trove of lossless music, but I think the majority who is happy listening to music through their iPhone earphones and tinny speakers in their smartphones won't care (especially not enough to pay double the cost of a Spotify subscription). Then there is the kind of internet speed required…

Even if FLAC was required for "high-fidelity" -- it's not -- a 20mb track and assuming the track is at a super short length of 60 seconds is going at ~341kbps. YouTube is already pumping bits faster than that at 360p [0], so that really doesn't seem like a hard part of the equation, and surely the market for this is not looking to capture an audience smaller than YouTube's. [0] https://support.google.com/youtube/answ…

Post by 0x0 » Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 1:20 AM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #10

Here's the problem: I don't want another music service. I want all my favorite artists on one music service. There is literally no reason for them to not be other than various forms of greed. Garth Brooks created his own music streaming service because the people behind the album don't get enough attention. Taylor Swift doesn't put her music on Spotify because she can make more money on iTunes. Jay Z creates a stream…