It's not high-resolution playback. That's considered to be 24-bit/48-96KHz. They or AppleInsider shouldn't be using that term to describe CD quality.
Even using the term high fidelity is offensive to me. It's the equipment that would be responsible for that. I know they acknowledge this in the materials but there's a lot of people who won't get it and be swept up by the hype.
In fact, technologically, TIDAL delivered nothing new yesterday. Just a whole lot of marketing.
I think Apple has got to launch 24-bit in order to differentiate. Combined of course with new Beats headphones with 24-bit DAC's and lightning connector options.
I also hope Spotify has a response in the works, e.g. new tiers which deliver 16-bit or 24-bit and better remunerates the artists.
I can see Jay-Z's ego taking him down the antitrust route. Getting the artists to pull their content from other services in order to 'win' as he puts it. Here's hoping the heavy hand of the law is ready to swipe.
Jay-Z: "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."
It's an interesting play, but I don't think Tidal has the clout to pull it off, even with the big name artists they have backing it. They're up against Spotify and, soon, iTunes. Spotify has the first mover (practically, if not literally) advantage, while Apple comes in with an entrenched user base already - if they stick their own subscription service into the iOS Music App and iTunes for Mac & PC, they're off and running. Tidal has to get people to switch. And some will, but will enough know or care about the service to do so? Hard to say. Certainly the big name artists help, but Apple for sure and probably Spotify will have their own exclusives to brag about.
I notice, for example, that while Taylor Swift's music is on Tidal, she was not among the big name "tier 1" artists promoting the launch. This is notable not only because she is as big as or bigger than anyone in the industry (with album sales most of Tidal's featured artists can only dream of) but also because of the high profile decision late last year to pull her Library from Spotify over their refusal to allow it to be exclusive to the premium tier. 1989, her latest album, was promoted with exclusive early releases of tracks on...Apple's iTunes Music Store. It's therefore far from outside the realm of possibility that Apple already has a Most Favoured Nation deal in place with Swift and her label for the iTunes-branded Beats Music relaunch. And that's just one example - U2 is also very likely to get in bed with Apple on this. Spotify, I imagine, will take a lead in championing new and unsigned artists in particular. To a certain - and vocal - segment of the music audience, that will be the golden ingredient. It's a powerful niche that should protect them.
If Tidal's whole strategy is to go toe-to-toe with Apple on big artist favoured nation deals...Admittedly, they're not off to a terrible start, but it only gets tougher from here. And Apple has been doing this a lot longer.
With the endless terabytes of storage available in the cloud and pretty much universal high-speed internet connections, is it not possible to make a profit on lossless audio streaming below $20 a month?
With the endless terabytes of storage available in the cloud and pretty much universal high-speed internet connections, is it not possible to make a profit on un-compressed audio streaming below $20 a month?
What planet do you live on that has universal high speed internet connections?
Universal as in widely available almost everywhere in the developed world. And you don't actually need too high a speed internet connection to stream just audio, even if it is lossless or high-resolution (24bit/DSD). It takes up less bandwidth than HD video.
On Tidal's hi-fi broadcasting, for those who don't know: if you are an Amazon Prime customer (and I think it's one of 2015's best deals) the Prime Playlist and album streaming sound hi-fi to me. Some sound better than my ripped CDs, even lossless rips. I know there are remastered albums in Amazon's Prime pool, but everything in their streaming service sounds great to me.
Prime is $100 a year I think, for many great benefits.
I'm not affiliated with Amazon, just a very pleased customer.
On Tidal's hi-fi broadcasting, for those who don't know: if you are an Amazon Prime customer (and I think it's one of 2015's best deals) the Prime Playlist and album streaming sound hi-fi to me. Some sound better than my ripped CDs, even lossless rips. I know there are remastered albums in Amazon's Prime pool, but everything in their streaming service sounds great to me.
Prime is $100 a year I think, for many great benefits.
I'm not affiliated with Amazon, just a very pleased customer.
For people who use Amazon frequently for their shopping it is actually a good deal, especially with the quick delivery.
For people who use Amazon frequently for their shopping it is actually a good deal, especially with the quick delivery.
And, of course, there are the free movies, similar to the Netflix streaming library. In my case, I get Netfix DVDs delivered, and watch streaming movies on Amazon via Roku.
It's not high-resolution playback. That's considered to be 24-bit/48-96KHz. They or AppleInsider shouldn't be using that term to describe CD quality.
Even using the term high fidelity is offensive to me. It's the equipment that would be responsible for that. I know they acknowledge this in the materials but there's a lot of people who won't get it and be swept up by the hype.
In fact, technologically, TIDAL delivered nothing new yesterday. Just a whole lot of marketing.
I think Apple has got to launch 24-bit in order to differentiate. Combined of course with new Beats headphones with 24-bit DAC's and lightning connector options.
I also hope Spotify has a response in the works, e.g. new tiers which deliver 16-bit or 24-bit and better remunerates the artists.
I can see Jay-Z's ego taking him down the antitrust route. Getting the artists to pull their content from other services in order to 'win' as he puts it. Here's hoping the heavy hand of the law is ready to swipe.
Now you're treading into deep water. The definition of what high definition is isn't clear. Yes, most audiophiles do consider anything above 16/44.1 to be high definition. But many of us don't think that those higher formats always offer more quality. Often, we will compare them, and find the cd to sound better. Also, I can tell you that there are NO real comparisons being made. Whenever I go to one, the presenter always tells people what format they're listening to before playing it. That's nonsense! I later tell them that they shouldn't do that, and they agree, of course, and give some lame excuse, because they know that people can't tell one from the other.
The concept of uncompressed 16/44.1 streaming is great, except that they charge too much for it. Their customer base, or at least the one they want, is young people, and at a starting point of $20 a month, they aren't going to get it. Most of the time, it's very difficult to tell the difference between VR 256 AAC and uncompressed 16/44.1. That's particularly true for the kind of music most people listen to today, in the noisy venues they listen to it, with low to moderate quality headphones.
My A/V system costs around $80 thousand, so it's more than capable of differentiating between the various quality formats, and so am I, but much of these claims are bogus.
It's an interesting play, but I don't think Tidal has the clout to pull it off, even with the big name artists they have backing it. They're up against Spotify and, soon, iTunes. Spotify has the first mover (practically, if not literally) advantage, while Apple comes in with an entrenched user base already - if they stick their own subscription service into the iOS Music App and iTunes for Mac & PC, they're off and running. Tidal has to get people to switch. And some will, but will enough know or care about the service to do so? Hard to say. Certainly the big name artists help, but Apple for sure and probably Spotify will have their own exclusives to brag about.
I notice, for example, that while Taylor Swift's music is on Tidal, she was not among the big name "tier 1" artists promoting the launch. This is notable not only because she is as big as or bigger than anyone in the industry (with album sales most of Tidal's featured artists can only dream of) but also because of the high profile decision late last year to pull her Library from Spotify over their refusal to allow it to be exclusive to the premium tier. 1989, her latest album, was promoted with exclusive early releases of tracks on...Apple's iTunes Music Store. It's therefore far from outside the realm of possibility that Apple already has a Most Favoured Nation deal in place with Swift and her label for the iTunes-branded Beats Music relaunch. And that's just one example - U2 is also very likely to get in bed with Apple on this. Spotify, I imagine, will take a lead in championing new and unsigned artists in particular. To a certain - and vocal - segment of the music audience, that will be the golden ingredient. It's a powerful niche that should protect them.
If Tidal's whole strategy is to go toe-to-toe with Apple on big artist favoured nation deals...Admittedly, they're not off to a terrible start, but it only gets tougher from here. And Apple has been doing this a lot longer.
The problem is that there has never been a single streaming music company that has made money. Not a single one. Spotify and Pandora are losing hundreds of millions a year. The problem is that people won't pay more than $10 a month for music. That's a problem because between royalty costs and the costs of running the business, their expenses are higher than that.
Most streaming companies have gone out of business. I strongly believe that the only way one will survive is to be part of a much larger company that's making a good deal of profit.
So, Apple, Amazon, Google and Microsoft come to mind. Yes, Amazon averages no profit, but sales are up to $90 billion a year, and Bezos is happy that way, so far, at least.
So what Tidal is now attempting to do, is odd. As no company has survived, long term, at $10 a month, and they now will offer that service, it says that they have no confidence that their higher quality offering, which was the entire purpose to Tidal, is going to make enough money, or have enough customers. Tidal, in Europe, has been around for a while, in Denmark, possibly, I forget. I have their brochures, and I'd have to find them. But the USA is a vastly different country. Europeans are used to paying a lot more than we do, for the same thing.
I just don't see hip hop and grunge listeners, which constitute most of the artists who have decided to invest in this thing, being interested in higher quality, or prices.
Comments
Even using the term high fidelity is offensive to me. It's the equipment that would be responsible for that. I know they acknowledge this in the materials but there's a lot of people who won't get it and be swept up by the hype.
TIDAL only offers CD quality 16-bit/44.1KHz. https://tidalsupport.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/202400502-What-is-the-Difference-Between-Normal-High-and-HiFI-
In fact, technologically, TIDAL delivered nothing new yesterday. Just a whole lot of marketing.
I think Apple has got to launch 24-bit in order to differentiate. Combined of course with new Beats headphones with 24-bit DAC's and lightning connector options.
I also hope Spotify has a response in the works, e.g. new tiers which deliver 16-bit or 24-bit and better remunerates the artists.
I can see Jay-Z's ego taking him down the antitrust route. Getting the artists to pull their content from other services in order to 'win' as he puts it. Here's hoping the heavy hand of the law is ready to swipe.
There's a free month trial. The sound quality is definitely better than Spotify and it's pleasing to see Sonos support.
How's that Pono service going?
Not so well.
In three months...
How's that Tidal service going?...
All of this will be moot when Beats Music is relaunched, Apple Branded.
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.
I agree. I haven't seen Iovine's Apple contract, but I'm going to bet that there is a clause that says he can't work with a competing business.
I would love to have listened in on that convo.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Kanye West, Daft Punk, Beyonce, Rhianna, Coldplay, Calvin Harris, Madonna and more.
...a special pricing tier for audiophiles seeking high-resolution playback.
16bit CD quality is "audiophile" is it?
Most of the names on that list won't sound any better in high resolution playback anyway, in fact, a much lower bit rate might actually help.
Jay-Z: "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."
Jimmy: "No problem, that will be 30% please."
I notice, for example, that while Taylor Swift's music is on Tidal, she was not among the big name "tier 1" artists promoting the launch. This is notable not only because she is as big as or bigger than anyone in the industry (with album sales most of Tidal's featured artists can only dream of) but also because of the high profile decision late last year to pull her Library from Spotify over their refusal to allow it to be exclusive to the premium tier. 1989, her latest album, was promoted with exclusive early releases of tracks on...Apple's iTunes Music Store. It's therefore far from outside the realm of possibility that Apple already has a Most Favoured Nation deal in place with Swift and her label for the iTunes-branded Beats Music relaunch. And that's just one example - U2 is also very likely to get in bed with Apple on this. Spotify, I imagine, will take a lead in championing new and unsigned artists in particular. To a certain - and vocal - segment of the music audience, that will be the golden ingredient. It's a powerful niche that should protect them.
If Tidal's whole strategy is to go toe-to-toe with Apple on big artist favoured nation deals...Admittedly, they're not off to a terrible start, but it only gets tougher from here. And Apple has been doing this a lot longer.
What planet do you live on that has universal high speed internet connections?
Having signed NDAs for Apple and NeXT I guarantee there is a litany of no-compete clauses.
Universal as in widely available almost everywhere in the developed world. And you don't actually need too high a speed internet connection to stream just audio, even if it is lossless or high-resolution (24bit/DSD). It takes up less bandwidth than HD video.
South Korea? Lol
Hell, even my rinky-dink company made me sign one.
Someone will get butthurt and then the guns start popping.
Prime is $100 a year I think, for many great benefits.
I'm not affiliated with Amazon, just a very pleased customer.
On Tidal's hi-fi broadcasting, for those who don't know: if you are an Amazon Prime customer (and I think it's one of 2015's best deals) the Prime Playlist and album streaming sound hi-fi to me. Some sound better than my ripped CDs, even lossless rips. I know there are remastered albums in Amazon's Prime pool, but everything in their streaming service sounds great to me.
Prime is $100 a year I think, for many great benefits.
I'm not affiliated with Amazon, just a very pleased customer.
For people who use Amazon frequently for their shopping it is actually a good deal, especially with the quick delivery.
For people who use Amazon frequently for their shopping it is actually a good deal, especially with the quick delivery.
And, of course, there are the free movies, similar to the Netflix streaming library. In my case, I get Netfix DVDs delivered, and watch streaming movies on Amazon via Roku.Now you're treading into deep water. The definition of what high definition is isn't clear. Yes, most audiophiles do consider anything above 16/44.1 to be high definition. But many of us don't think that those higher formats always offer more quality. Often, we will compare them, and find the cd to sound better. Also, I can tell you that there are NO real comparisons being made. Whenever I go to one, the presenter always tells people what format they're listening to before playing it. That's nonsense! I later tell them that they shouldn't do that, and they agree, of course, and give some lame excuse, because they know that people can't tell one from the other.
The concept of uncompressed 16/44.1 streaming is great, except that they charge too much for it. Their customer base, or at least the one they want, is young people, and at a starting point of $20 a month, they aren't going to get it. Most of the time, it's very difficult to tell the difference between VR 256 AAC and uncompressed 16/44.1. That's particularly true for the kind of music most people listen to today, in the noisy venues they listen to it, with low to moderate quality headphones.
My A/V system costs around $80 thousand, so it's more than capable of differentiating between the various quality formats, and so am I, but much of these claims are bogus.
The problem is that there has never been a single streaming music company that has made money. Not a single one. Spotify and Pandora are losing hundreds of millions a year. The problem is that people won't pay more than $10 a month for music. That's a problem because between royalty costs and the costs of running the business, their expenses are higher than that.
Most streaming companies have gone out of business. I strongly believe that the only way one will survive is to be part of a much larger company that's making a good deal of profit.
So, Apple, Amazon, Google and Microsoft come to mind. Yes, Amazon averages no profit, but sales are up to $90 billion a year, and Bezos is happy that way, so far, at least.
So what Tidal is now attempting to do, is odd. As no company has survived, long term, at $10 a month, and they now will offer that service, it says that they have no confidence that their higher quality offering, which was the entire purpose to Tidal, is going to make enough money, or have enough customers. Tidal, in Europe, has been around for a while, in Denmark, possibly, I forget. I have their brochures, and I'd have to find them. But the USA is a vastly different country. Europeans are used to paying a lot more than we do, for the same thing.
I just don't see hip hop and grunge listeners, which constitute most of the artists who have decided to invest in this thing, being interested in higher quality, or prices.