Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Tidal operates at a loss of something like $xx-xxx million a year. Who cares if it pays artists more if its not even successful.

All they are really doing is using VC money to pay artists a lil bit more to seem more enticing.



So did Spotify. It's the usual VC funded startup scam.

At least a new player means artists and users are slightly more screwed over than before, until this batch of VC money runs dry.

Fortunately, unlike with e.g. Uber or Grubhub & similar, the music streaming startups aren't screwing society over by destroying more sustainable local competition, so I think in this case, the best course of action is to make full use of all the freebies and best deals in this space, because the more VC money we burn, the better off we (users) and artists are.

It'll eventually collapse, too, but there won't be a fallout, since all those companies do right now is compete with each other over distribution rights. The songs won't go away.


Well, as long as I’ve got my music, it’ll be a good deal to me.

I mean, respectfully, I really don’t care about their profitability if : 1) I get to pay reasonable price 2) artists are paid a reasonable prices 3) VCs are ok to throw money at it for any reason.

On the current state of affairs, everyone is happy (or at least happier than Spotify).

Is it future proof ? Probably not, but it’s a little more present proof than Spotify.

If someday this equation changes or the company collapses, well, I’ll just go elsewhere.

And if the industry is not capable in itself to handle the use case of paying a monthly fee to be able to listen to music while remunerating artists, given that humanity in general never paid as much money just for music in the whole human history, it would just mean that they are incredibly stupid and that they deserve the piracy.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: