Jay Z asked Apple's Jimmy Iovine to collaborate on revolutionary streaming platform Tidal

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited April 2015
Following Monday's reveal of Jay Z's upcoming music service Tidal, the rap star revealed he was in talks with Beats cofounder and current Apple exec Jimmy Iovine over potentially collaborating on the project.




In an interview with Billboard, Jay Z said he spoke with Iovine, a music recording industry titan, about potentially joining forces to help get Tidal off the ground. The argument, like the goal for Tidal, is that his new service comes to the aid of musicians disenfranchised by current streaming service contracts.

"My thing with Jimmy is, 'Listen, Jimmy; you're Jimmy Iovine, and you're Apple, and truthfully, you're great. You guys are going to do great things with Beats, but ... you know, I don't have to lose in order for you guys to win, and let's just remember that,'" Jay Z told the publication. "Again, I'm not angry. I actually told him, 'Yo, you should be helping me. This is for the artist. These are people that you supported your whole life. You know, this is good.'

Tidal is one of two streaming service arms created by Swedish tech company Aspiro, which was purchased in January by an investment entity backed by Jay Z for a reported $56 million. Set to relaunch later today, Tidal looks to level the playing field for musicians, many of whom are unhappy with streaming music deals arranged by music labels.

Iovine supposedly attempted to lure away A-list artists that have since been announced as first-tier Tidal backers by offering better up front payouts.

Apple is widely expected to launch a redesigned and rebranded Beats Music in the coming months. Much like Tidal, Apple's service will reportedly be subscription based, but is thought to rely on a traditional song royalty model that sees labels get a taste of proceeds on per-play basis. Tidal, on the other hand, gives equity stake to first-tier artists like Kanye West, Daft Punk, Beyonce, Rhianna, Coldplay, Calvin Harris, Madonna and more.

"I think that's just his competitive nature, and I don't know if he's looking at the bigger picture: That it's not about me and it's not about him; it's about the future of the music business," Jay Z said.

The rap idol hopes Tidal's new model will drive more direct compensation from streaming plays, while serving as a catalyst for artist experimentation. Not beholden to record labels, musicians would be free to create almost anything they desire. For example, artists could break conventional format and release 18-minute songs, or meld genres into completely new hybrids, testing for audience response.

In addition to a totally new compensation method, Tidal differentiates from other streaming music providers by offering video and a special pricing tier for audiophiles seeking high-resolution playback.

Tidal is scheduled to relaunch later today priced at $9.99 per month for normal quality streams, while the high-resolution service starts at $19.99 per month.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 40
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,161member
    I don't know if Jay-Z is naive, or whether he's full of it. Possibly some of both. It's hard to believe that he's "only" doing it for the artists. I'm sure he expects to make a fair amount of money from this.

    By the way, I've spoken to the CEO of Tidal several months ago. His idea is/was to get young people to subscribe to this so that they could get their feet in the water of high quality sound. Frankly, I told him that it wouldn't work. They're charging $20, or more, a month for this. I don't know how many young people will be willing, or even able, to pay that much. I don't know if Jay-Z will be lowering the price, but from what they told me, they can't make a profit on a lower price than that.

    The big thing about Tidal is the fact that they stream at 16/44.1 uncompressed. That takes a lot of bandwidth. By the way, the service has been working for a time. I do have a friend who subscribes, but he's 67, not a young person. So for audiophiles, this may be a good thing, and the complaints are that everyone compresses the music. But this is not a major audience.
  • Reply 2 of 40
    chasmchasm Posts: 949member
    "What's that? You want STEREO? Oh well that's $20 a month ..."
  • Reply 3 of 40
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,315member
    melgross wrote: »
    . I don't know if Jay-Z will be lowering the price, but from what they told me, they can't make a profit on a lower price than that.
    .

    From the article:
    "Tidal is scheduled to relaunch later today priced at $9.99 per month for normal quality streams, while a high-resolution service starts at $19.99 per month."

    From another article on this "Alicia Keys revealed that a lineup of artists, including Jay Z, Kanye West, Jack White, Deadmau5, Daft Punk, Usher and many others, are all part owners in the endeavor."
  • Reply 4 of 40
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,161member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    From the article:
    "Tidal is scheduled to relaunch later today priced at $9.99 per month for normal quality streams, while a high-resolution service starts at $19.99 per month."

    From another article on this "Alicia Keys revealed that a lineup of artists, including Jay Z, Kanye West, Jack White, Deadmau5, Daft Punk, Usher and many others, are all part owners in the endeavor."

    Yes, I read that. But what I said is that they're main selling point is the uncompressed stream. Without that, they are nothing more than an unknown streaming service with nothing to offer that's better than any other service, and that the uncompressed service has already been running. I know this for a fact.

    They are offering the cheap service because, as I told the CEO, there is no major market for the service they started out with, they weren't planning to offer a compressed service at lower rates. This is new. What they're doing now, is because they can't make money on a price that's lower than $20 a month serving uncompressed music. The reason they sold out is because they haven't enough money to do what they wanted to do.

    This is a small company.
  • Reply 5 of 40
    9secondko9secondko Posts: 929member
    Lol. Jay z justifying charging more.

    Go away jay.

    Producers and consumers alike both realize you must have a happy medium.

    I'm not supporting an artist who doesn't want to support me.

    Apple saved the music industry with the .99/song model vs. straight theft.

    But then you have jay z who wants to say "thanks" his own way.
  • Reply 6 of 40
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,076member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post



    I don't know if Jay-Z is naive, or whether he's full of it. Possibly some of both. It's hard to believe that he's "only" doing it for the artists. I'm sure he expects to make a fair amount of money from this.



    By the way, I've spoken to the CEO of Tidal several months ago. His idea is/was to get young people to subscribe to this so that they could get their feet in the water of high quality sound. Frankly, I told him that it wouldn't work. They're charging $20, or more, a month for this. I don't know how many young people will be willing, or even able, to pay that much. I don't know if Jay-Z will be lowering the price, but from what they told me, they can't make a profit on a lower price than that.



    The big thing about Tidal is the fact that they stream at 16/44.1 uncompressed. That takes a lot of bandwidth. By the way, the service has been working for a time. I do have a friend who subscribes, but he's 67, not a young person. So for audiophiles, this may be a good thing, and the complaints are that everyone compresses the music. But this is not a major audience.



    For my money, this looks like Jay-Z attempting to create another brand that Apple will want to buy out. Good luck, but I think it's doomed to failure.

  • Reply 7 of 40

    Tidal is not going to be as big as Jay-Z wants.  Remember Sony had its own MP3 service that only works with Sony artists and only on Sony hardware.  iTunes came in with all 5 labels and took off.

  • Reply 8 of 40
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,076member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    From the article:

    "Tidal is scheduled to relaunch later today priced at $9.99 per month for normal quality streams, while a high-resolution service starts at $19.99 per month."



    From another article on this "Alicia Keys revealed that a lineup of artists, including Jay Z, Kanye West, Jack White, Deadmau5, Daft Punk, Usher and many others, are all part owners in the endeavor."



    Once you see Beats getting sold for billions people start getting the idea that Apple will buy anything.

  • Reply 9 of 40
    What good is high resolution audio when most of the audio masters will be brickwalled?
  • Reply 10 of 40

    Apple saved the music industry, I think Iovine's working with the right guys.

  • Reply 11 of 40
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,182moderator
    "My thing with Jimmy is, 'Listen, Jimmy; you're Jimmy Iovine, and you're Apple, and truthfully, you're great. You guys are going to do great things with Beats, but ... you know, I don't have to lose in order for you guys to win, and let's just remember that,'" Jay Z told the publication.

    :lol: You can still suffer though. Sounds like Tidal is a bit washed up before it's even hit the shore.

    New music is for the younger generation and they have no money, which is why they don't pay for it. Some manage to cough up for gaming subscriptions but there's no alternative. Online gaming can't be ripped off very easily. As soon as one person streams audio, it can be captured and then shared.

    One route to go with a subscription is sell a product e.g subsidize Beats like the iPhone and you get a new pair every year or two. If Apple would normally charge $10/month for the service, they can take $15/month and give them a pair of $100 Beats so they get the headphones at discount. If they want more expensive wireless Beats, they have to pay upfront too e.g $150 + $15/m. They'd save money on the headphones but would be subscribing to get the discount. The headphones can have wifi so that someone can walk around the house and stream directly to the headphones without a device nearby.
  • Reply 12 of 40
    pujones1pujones1 Posts: 139member

    Once you see Beats getting sold for billions people start getting the idea that Apple will buy anything.

    I have to agree with you.

    How do you approach someone who works for another company with a competing service and ask them to help you compete against the company that they work for?

    This service is for the artists right? The artists who will benefit the most from this endeavor are Jay Z and the other artists who invested in it. So he's basically trying to replace the labels with himself? And this will save the music industry? The same industry that will be around forever paying questionable auto tune artists loads of money for a beat and a catchy hook? He's full of it.
  • Reply 13 of 40
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    image You can still suffer though. Sounds like Tidal is a bit washed up before it's even hit the shore.



    New music is for the younger generation and they have no money, which is why they don't pay for it. Some manage to cough up for gaming subscriptions but there's no alternative. Online gaming can't be ripped off very easily. As soon as one person streams audio, it can be captured and then shared.



    One route to go with a subscription is sell a product e.g subsidize Beats like the iPhone and you get a new pair every year or two. If Apple would normally charge $10/month for the service, they can take $15/month and give them a pair of $100 Beats so they get the headphones at discount. If they want more expensive wireless Beats, they have to pay upfront too e.g $150 + $15/m. They'd save money on the headphones but would be subscribing to get the discount. The headphones can have wifi so that someone can walk around the house and stream directly to the headphones without a device nearby.



    Not to mention he's ripping off Jobs when he says that.

  • Reply 14 of 40
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    Jay Z, screwed the guy who made him famous and talks down on other artists.

    I wouldn't work with kanye's BFF either..
  • Reply 15 of 40
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,161member

    For my money, this looks like Jay-Z attempting to create another brand that Apple will want to buy out. Good luck, but I think it's doomed to failure.

    I think that it's just a bit much to try to get Iovine to help a competing company. Iovine isn't known in the industry as a shrewd manager for nothing. It's one reason why Apple bought the company.
  • Reply 16 of 40

    "My thing with Jimmy is, 'Listen, Jimmy; you're Jimmy Iovine, and you're Apple, and truthfully, you're great. You guys are going to do great things with Beats, but ... you know, I don't have to lose in order for you guys to win, and let's just remember that,'" Jay Z told the publication. "Again, I'm not angry. I actually told him, 'Yo, you should be helping me. This is for the artist. These are people that you supported your whole life. You know, this is good.'

     

    So, which part of these sentences does Jay Z feel Jimmy Iovine will not be trying to do at Apple? Apple bought Beats for the SAME reasons Jay Z wants Jimmy Iovine.

     

    In my opinion, IF Jay Z REALLY wanted to work with Jimmy Iovine for the sake of the artists, Jay Z would have approached Tim Cook through Jimmy and Dre to join the team. Instead, Jay decides to buy a competitor company for $56 million then tries to entice Jimmy away from a company that paid $3 billion for his company. The $3 billion is over 100 times what Jay Z paid for Tidal's parent!

     

    Jay Z has my respect as a man who pursued dreams and has been very successful at accomplishing extraordinary things. In this case, I suggest Jay STFU and pursue his dream with Tidal. Apple has a plan, which may not work out as well as planned, but it has a plan. Jay Z has to work on his plan if he truly has one.

     

    So, I say to Jay Z, "put on your big boy pants and pursue your dream!". Jimmy is most likely sticking with Apple to attempt to deliver something completely different or much better than Tidal.

     

    Beyonce had her greatest release of all time exclusively on iTunes and has been rumored to have been working on another release. She has more than enough money to walk a different path with Tidal, but I sincerely doubt that will happen.

     

    ColdPlay has been with Apple for many years. Like Bono leaving Apple to work with Palm and spewing stupidity about doing it for the musicians before return to Apple, ColdPlay will be back with Apple.  Anything exclusive to Tidal being released by ColdPlay will not negatively impact Apple. Future ColdPlay works will be released on iTunes.

     

    Madonna is beyond being over. That is coming from someone who listened to the "Madonna" CD while in college and watched all of the Madonna videos on MTV in the '80s!

     

    I appreciate Alicia Keyes, but come on, Blackberry? Really? I trust her music, but not her vision of business. If I cannot buy her next recording on iTunes the day it is released, will be the day I stop buying her music. Thankfully, I am not someone who writes or says this without really meaning it. Yes, I know she will not miss my $11.99, but it means something to me to not give it to her.

     

     

    Everybody else being announced on the Jay Z bandwagon, I wish you well (as Mariah Carey sang).

     

    As I commented in a previous article, I respect Jay Z for what he has accomplished. Moving forward with Tidal, I ask (not expecting a response) him to stop talking about Apple. You chose to spend a lot of money on an Apple competitor, but Apple was willing and able to buy what was considered the best. Attempting to get Apple employees on your team is going to take much more than, "doing it for the artists."

  • Reply 17 of 40
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,154member
    Does this guy not realize the contract Iovine signed anchors his ass to Apple to make that $3 Billion pay out?

    That article reads like the guy is a complete moron.
  • Reply 18 of 40
    b9botb9bot Posts: 238member
    Normal and high quality. So for $10 you get a piss poor stream and for $20 you get a clear stream.
    Why bother paying for either and just go for iTunes Radio. I don't want to pay double so I can get a clear stream that others provide for $10 or just use iTunes radio for free.
    High quality, yea right. Like you are going to be able to tell any difference except that the $10 stream will just be crappy.
    I see a tidal wave of nobody is going for that service. I predict it will be dead within 6 months.
  • Reply 19 of 40

    Thus far only posts from people who have used Tidal zero times.  I downloaded it tonight and it absolutely blows Spotify out of the water.  It blows Beats away too, but that's not a fair fight yet, since I consider Beats to still be an early beta.  I hope Beats turns into something, but it's not ready for the prime time yet and Tidal is.

  • Reply 20 of 40
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,506member
    Why should he be angry? This makes no sense.
Sign In or Register to comment.