TIDAL
High fidelity music streaming
Start new thread

TIDAL - Lossless music streaming service, backed by Jay Z

by
•

Add a comment

Replies

Best
Very interesting to see them livestream their launch: To be honest, and I don't mean to sound like a hater, but the announcement feels like they're trying too hard. Last week and I did a live AMA with , , and (see 's ). We're considering doing more of these with high profile launches and makers. Shoot me your thoughts on Twitter or email (ryan at producthunt.com).
Agreed. The press conference felt very overdone, and honestly, a bit cringey.
a bit cringey? Look at this video they made. It's horrible:
A massive potential, and quite a big start with this whole blue profile pictures campaign on social media. But I feel like while the value prop to artists is rather clear, the one for end users isn't.
Hunter
Well said.
Maybe, Jay-z Should pay more Designers than marketing campaign ?
It solves the wrong problem. Period. And it continues to disappoint me that major artists are so blind to where their money is actually going. Spotify isn't the villain, it's your record label. It's the way music is being owned and distributed. So, instead of jumping on stage with a bunch of other high-profile artists to celebrate charging $20/month, how about you take the ownership of your music back, and embrace a distribution platform built for the 21st century. /rant.
I agree Taylor. Labels should be the real target.
I can't find a ton of info on their site, besides that this looks like a streaming service that also provides high quality music videos and editorial content. I'm mainly interested in streaming - can anyone tell me why I should stop paying for Spotify and start paying for this?
given the intensely personal nature of music, I think only time will tell whether Tidal's exclusive content and partnerships with artists will win out over Spotify at the $10 band. At the $20 band, I've been streaming Tidal for the past half hour and can tell you Tidal is the clear winner for people who can hear the difference. tl;dr some people will choose Tidal because of Taylor Swift.
Fair enough. Tidal definitely has a strong marketing front with all of the artists on board, but personally I'm so comfortable with Spotify, its selection and its playlist curation that I don't think I'll be making the switch.
That makes total sense. I think the interesting thing is that from a product perspective Spotify has a decisively better user interface while Tidal has a decisively better audio experience (from a fidelity standpoint). Which of these constitutes a better UX is totally dependent on an individual's priorities. I actually don't think there will be that many "swing" users that have a hard time deciding between Spotify or Tidal (at least while Tidal is relatively new, they've only been in the US since last fall), as your priorities will pretty clearly put you in either one camp or the other.
exclusive clauses of any sort are bad for any industry. Its not like Taylor Swift, Rihanna, Jay Z are living paycheck to paycheck. Sorry for the rant but this all seems rather contrived and ridiculous Regarding sound quality, for most people , with the kind of internet connections that they have, the kind of listening equipment they have, its hard to tell the difference in sound quality. Yes, they are going to make it all really good for the first few albums. What happens when Jay Z decides this is boring and wants to do his own Meerkat/Periscope(which will of course have Taylor Swift and Madonna exclusively)
Can you really hear the difference between 320kbps and 1411kbps with $50-100 dollar in-ear headphones? Tidal at this moment is nothing more than JayZ's new investment baby that he's promoting heavily that he will eventually abandoned once the hype is over.
So this is Vevo, but with a monthly fee? Not seeing the value prop here. Do we even notice music-quality anymore? What's to stop someone from creating a music video curation service that simply uses YouTube/Vevo? I hope I'm missing something here. Nice design though.
The bigger, more addressable market, is the hardcore fans of these artists who will pay for exclusives. Not just exclusive tracks, but early access windowing into albums, videos that are hosted nowhere else, maybe interactive experiences moving forward. To win, Tidal needs to capture the core audience of these artists. Then, they release some cross-promotional tracks or collaborations, and begin to build content entrenchment like HBO has done. It's a bold move by Jay and co, and we'll see how well they can execute on it.
They really need to allow users to do this 30 day trial without giving a CC, then require it once the trials over. It's an annoying barrier to entry otherwise.
That's the only reason why I didn't try it. Seems like some funky business choices were made.
Is their ownership/equity for smaller artists? I honestly couldn't care less if the people on that stage took back ownership of their music, but I would like to know if the platform is going to help up and comers more than spotify does
The most interesting parts to me are: giving artists 2x royalties on the hifi version, and offering each key artist "a 3 percent stake in the company in order to secure exclusives".
To me this looks like it's not so much about music, but about these artists being pissed at Apple, Spotify et al. for taking too big of a slice of their pie. Sort of like "Tech ppl and labels are making money, but we want that instead". And we're supposed to care enough to pay more. Also the "free trial" demanding credit card? How's that free :D
123
Next