lol at the idea of "artists" plugging a platform that lauds lossless compression to retain quality, with acts like Usher and Kanye. Perhaps actual quality artists would help rather than ones like Coldplay.
-
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
Dénouement
Banned
She's one of the shareholders of Tidal, just like Jay-Z, Kanye, etc.
PurpleMoustache
Member
I like owning music/things rather than generally having them in a cloud somewhere where if I cancel payments its all gone.
I'll stick to bandcamp and vinyl thank you.
Reading this thread, I realized something. Why the hell are they called "Music Labels"? Shouldn't it be "Music Publishers"?
I'll stick to bandcamp and vinyl thank you.
Reading this thread, I realized something. Why the hell are they called "Music Labels"? Shouldn't it be "Music Publishers"?
Kibbles
Member
You guys talking about Taylor? She's not a shareholder and thankfully didn't participate in the blue shit. Also, her new album is not on the service, probably won't be since it's still selling like hot-cakes. Her views on Spotify were based off the fact it was free and that artists got too little money. She's not contradicting herself by putting her old stuff here because it's not a free service and it pays the artists more. I still hate how against Spotify she is though and it's just dumb.Dénouement;158337724 said:
I hope Spotify sues for stealing their design. If Apple can do it, Spotify can.
What amazes me at this point is that Jay Z hasn't fired the marketing team in charge of this thing and ordered all these artists to take down those "Turn the tide!" tweets and change their profile pictures back.
This has been such a catastrophic failure of messaging. Everyone from the denizens of Twitter/Tumblr to legit music industry opinion writers have been dragging this through the mud. The backlash has been immense and universal. It really can't be overstated.
They've basically doomed Tidal to be a complete failure right out the gate.
This has been such a catastrophic failure of messaging. Everyone from the denizens of Twitter/Tumblr to legit music industry opinion writers have been dragging this through the mud. The backlash has been immense and universal. It really can't be overstated.
They've basically doomed Tidal to be a complete failure right out the gate.
Miss.Selfdestruct
Member
The misconception stems deeper than marketing. Marketing team just helps you push the product into popular social channels. They were given the idea and the name of the app.
What things are associated with the word "tidal"?... I was also a sucker that thought this was some real tsunami relief effort or charity event for people in poverty without water. If it were associated with those types of actual movements, then obviously this would be good marketing.
stufte
Member
I also have Beats Studios and I couldn't tell a fucking difference. Not enough to warrant the price of the service.
Anything less than the Pros or Mixrs is an L.
The Studios and the Solos might as well should be the same damn thing.
The service being called Tidal didn't force it into this misconception. Telling all the celebrities to use completely blank profile pics and cover photos and a vague hashtag without explaining anything is what leads to that.
If they had instructed everyone to make sure to at least use the word "Music" in their tweet to slightly explain what this was, and had a logo or something on the profile pics and cover photos, maybe with something like "Now featured on Tidal" this mess wouldn't have happened at all. It's most definitely his marketing team.
If they wanted to play up the whole "this is better for the artists" thing, I think they could have recruited some smaller names and indie bands/artists and got them to join up rather than having the richest people in the industry try and sell that idea...
LyleLanley
Banned
I can't think of a worse way they could've marketed this. How could any of them not realize that they'd come off looking like tone deaf rich assholes?
We are talking about the guy who tried to profit off Occupy with overpriced tshirts and called his presence charity. I think he doesn't notice anymore.
They don't have anything else? I feel like Im so off the music only sub stuff. I pay 7.99 for Play Music and I get access to all music at 320 and I also get to store all of the music I own on the service for free. These new services need to realize that if you have a monthly cost, just offering music isn't enough anymore. I think Amazon also gives you access to all the music streaming on top of music storage.
You need to offer a combo of things to turn my head these days, I dont even pay attention if you want a monthly fee for JUST music and no extras.
You need to offer a combo of things to turn my head these days, I dont even pay attention if you want a monthly fee for JUST music and no extras.
Chance Hale
Member
Tidal has been around for years in Europe as Wimp, it's unlikely to die. New in terms of having recently expanded I suppose.
sometimes i game
Member
Literally is, the campaign is awful. "JOIN THE MOVEMENT, MAKE HISTORY WITH US!"...what?? Tell me again what consumers should like about this.
It launched first in UK, US and Canada in October 2014. It then launched in Ireland, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg in January 2015.
Do you mean Wimp?
Edit:
Ah, you edited it again. Yes, it has a chance. It was niche and the big wigs can make it bigger or, like it does currently, turn people off.
LyleLanley
Banned
They don't even really explain what artists, that aren't as gigantic as Beyonce or Daft Punk, should like about this.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Hell even those gigantic artists puzzle me. Jay Z is the only one who owns his masters and could pull his music from other streaming sites if he wanted to. The rest are merely at the table because their label allowed them to. Not to mention that a few are actually on Jay's label...
An actual music coup would be if all those artists moved their music to Tidal exclusively. But that's not going to happen for obvious reasons, namely money.
I wouldn't say this is a success or a failure, it's too early. Sub numbers are impressive so far but what will it be like in a few months or a year?
PaulExcellent
Member
disagree with this post as it shows how the music industry is shifting towards a consumer-friendly perspective by allowing users to listen to truly perfect sound
yeah it costs a tiny bit more but the quality is what matters and the movement towards good-quality music deserves whatever the price maybe
supernormal
Member
All this did was show me I need to upgrade my speakers. I got 4/5 on headphones really easy (That first just one was just mix/mastered with no dynamic range at all, so they both sounded bad to me). I tried with the speakers and got 1/5. On topic, this is really great. I like the ease of having my library on the cloud, but I honestly still buy most my music in CD format because of the quality.
O_O
O_O
I don't think it ever even hit 15% of what Spotify has in terms of paid subscribers globally, and it never brought in nearly as much money as the branded headphones. But it will be a big area of focus for Apple, because they realize that locally stored music files binding people to iOS are on the way out. They contributed to it somewhat by keeping 16GB models of expensive devices alive for so long. I don't know anyone who actually keeps music, movies, or TV shows stored on their phones anymore. Music labels have been bemoaning the decline of something that a lot of people will not even allocate space to anymore. It is like nothing has changed since the Napster days in terms of how out of touch they are with technology. Dr. Dre and Jimmy Iovine made the smartest play.
As for this service... I don't see it having a major impact. Spotify will remain popular internationally and among people who want a cross platform service. Whatever Apple revamps Beats streaming into will be dominant on iOS. This whole endeavor is very late to the party.
Vicetrailia
Member
They can fix this, but action should have occurred yesterday.
DOWN
Banned
Except the best quality humans can hear is already available cheaper
TyrantGuardian
Member
Haha, I hope people really enjoy their placebo. Spotify's free streaming uses 160kbps which is audibly lossy, but the premium service runs at 320kbps. There is literally nothing relevant being lost whatsoever at that point. But I guess some people just don't understand how digital audio works, so whatever - have fun with the snake oil as always.
On another note, I find it hilarious that these major label artists who actually do make some money off of Spotify (unlike 99% of the content on Spotify) are the ones complaining to the point of creating their self-owned service. I'd much rather support this by principle if it were a thing started up by less well-known artists/bands. The Spotify payment model is completely abhorrent.
On another note, I find it hilarious that these major label artists who actually do make some money off of Spotify (unlike 99% of the content on Spotify) are the ones complaining to the point of creating their self-owned service. I'd much rather support this by principle if it were a thing started up by less well-known artists/bands. The Spotify payment model is completely abhorrent.
PaulExcellent
Member
that doesnt make sense since their posts say that their music is in the best quality
this is the purest audio style we'll be getting from streaming for a long time and is better than anything before, which makes this so interesting to many people
You can have the best quality in the world, but if the human ear can only register up to what the second-best offers, why would you step up? Just to say "hur hur I have better quality sound. You can't actually hear it, of course, but it's way better because numbers matter!" It's like buying a supercar because of it's top-speed, and only drive it for your daily commute.
DOWN
Banned
You are really lusting for their marketing like they want you to. 320kbps has been the highest tier on most streaming services specifically because there's no reason to go higher for streaming. You aren't using it for archives, it's only for listening, and for listening, 320kbps covers the best qualities you can hear. Just because the file is technically higher quality and is a good marketing line, doesn't make it audibly higher quality.
Fury Sense
Member
It says I got 5/5 but I really don't know if I could tell the difference. It kept cutting in and out, it was hard to focus
edit: wow. I just downloaded the app and signed in -- it sounds MUCH better than the old ipod shuffle I've been using. $20/month though?!
not sure if cancelling now will end my subscription or if i get to go the whole two weeks. url of cancel page: https://my.tidalhifi.com/us/account/subscription
edit: wow. I just downloaded the app and signed in -- it sounds MUCH better than the old ipod shuffle I've been using. $20/month though?!
not sure if cancelling now will end my subscription or if i get to go the whole two weeks. url of cancel page: https://my.tidalhifi.com/us/account/subscription
Ben Morales
Member
Just a heads up... Looks like if you just install the app and sign up, you are offered a 30 day trial instead of just 14 days for passing that busted test.
Also, damn... It sounds a lot better on the actual app. But jeez... $25.99... Thankfully, you can cancel immediately after you sign up and still enjoy th full month.
Also, damn... It sounds a lot better on the actual app. But jeez... $25.99... Thankfully, you can cancel immediately after you sign up and still enjoy th full month.
Necromanti
Member
The combination of a completely tone deaf marketing campaign and a service that doesn't seem to offer anything practical or compelling for the average consumer is interesting to say the least.
I was just thinking about this. Why the hell would you go for the 7-day trial (if you don't pass the test) or 14-day trial (if you di pass the test), while they are offering a 30-day trial if you sign up directly?!
hobblygobbly
Member
Actually it's not even perceptible. So you're literally paying more for nothing.
I honestly can't tell if you're joking, I really hope you are.
Reasons I won't switch from Spotify
-It's too expensive
-On my desktop there is a barely (if any) audible difference between looseless and Spotify's ogg 320
-On my phone there is no difference
-Bandwidth on my phone is limited and even if it has offline storage, I can store a shitload more songs on Spotify
So basically it is pointless.
-It's too expensive
-On my desktop there is a barely (if any) audible difference between looseless and Spotify's ogg 320
-On my phone there is no difference
-Bandwidth on my phone is limited and even if it has offline storage, I can store a shitload more songs on Spotify
So basically it is pointless.
PaulExcellent
Member
I'm sticking to Spotify and ripping my own stuff to FLAC until the price goes down to an acceptable level. Since my equipment is good enough to run what I listen to already at a really nice level, I'm in no rush to pay more. (That doesn't count headphone purchases >.>)
The advertising for this was really damn stupid and I'm sure everyone is aware that this is nothing but a "make more money" concept.
Plus, the interface is EXACTLY the same. Until they improve where Spotify fails, this service is a waste.
Jzero
Member
I signed up for the trial a few hours ago.
You can barely hear a difference with my Philips X1 and Schiit Stack Uber 2.
Only people with superb hearing will get anything out of paying $20
Arrowgigantic
Member
About to get one loss.
- Status