Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Quashes Rumors of Potential Tidal Acquisition
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Quite possibly not, but they make money on every iPhone sold.Isn't it great?!? I wonder how much longer VC's are going to throw money at tech startups with the same business plan:
"COOL" IDEA --> PFM --> $$$
So Tidal's losing cash. Spotify loses money on each customer so the more subscribers they amass, the more they lose (and the RIAA's after them for an even bigger percentage soon.) I wonder if Apple's service is breaking even.
But hasn't Tidal got a deal with all the major record labels in place.?
Apple had the potential customers anyway.
Thats all apple needed- to rebrand Tidal as apple music and not have some silly overpriced headphone company and saved a fortune.
I believe Warren would agree with me - or said no buy last summer even better.
Last edited:
Actually, he has a point though. Kanye has a small stake with Tidal yet look at how much press he got when threatening "Yo Apple, buy Tidal already" comment.
That isn't the kind of self-centered brand representation or negative publicity Jay Z would even want. So imagine how Apple would feel about having Kanye try speaking for them as a company?
Apple doesn't mind making money off Kanye and Kardashian products. But I highly doubt Apple wants to have media whores like them use the Apple name for their own selfish reasons.
Kanyes big mouth could be a big reason why Apple said No.
Last edited:
I think you're confused. What I think you might be referencing is Tidal's relationship with major artists, as mentioned in the OP. The deals Tidal has with labels would have nothing to do with Apple. The acquiring company would have to negotiate new deals.
Saved a fortune? Your logic is shortsighted. Tidal acquisition would be a deal for a naive businessperson who makes deals based on emotion. Silly overpriced headphone company... that makes more money and profit than any other headphone company; silly or otherwise. It's a business decision, not an "I don't like Beats blah, blah, blah" decision.
I think it would make financial sense for Apple to offer lossless audio at least for download. There really wouldn't even be much of a cost increase for them with a lossless download only option. The bandwidth use would be minor compared to what they see through the App Store or Apple Music streaming. They should already have the files to do this at least with the music that has been released in the last 5-10 years. I think they could make some money charge an extra $0.50-1.00 a song with a discount for albums. Charge money per song or album to upgrade your previously purchased songs. Heck they could probably charge $60 or more a year for a lossless version of iTunes Match.
I hope this is not just media hype before a buy out. Hopefully apple never buys them. Apple Music will dominate in time, too much resources behind it
I'm sure if Kanye West believes hard enough, Apple will change its mind and buy Tidal. Just like he believes people will buy his $2400 sweaters that look like absolute ****.
That's been Tidal's biggest miscalculation though, this idea that people who stream music are concerned about audio quality. The vast majority aren't.
Last edited:
There's an old axiom in business - why buy out a struggling competitor when it's cheaper to just let them die on their own. Tidal lost $28M USD last year.
Smart move. Tidal will be bought on the cheap when they file for bankruptcy protection in a year or two.
Yep. Beats for $3BN, less than a year after Beats paid $15 million for MOG.
MOG was renamed to Beats Music and Beats ruined it by removing the radio option.... Then Apple came along and paid the $3BN. And Tim got a big bonus.
I guess there is a lot of dumb money out there.
Lossless? That is such a niche market. Even if – IF – people can hear a difference from 256k AAC, the vast majority do not give a damn. If I want to hear a song and it's on the radio, I listen to it. Little minor frequency hiccups don't keep me from enjoying the song any less. Why pay more to Apple, and to my cell phone company for a 0.5% crisper sound?
Still waiting for Apple to improve audio quality for music to HD Music especially for Apple Music service but I guess Apple is too busy with cars to even bother with Apple TV, iMac or a iPhone with real improvements they rather spend their time on a car. Next they will be releasing a laundry machine or a Dishwasher, Tim Cook seriously take your head out of your ass the high priced iPhone+ is not cool for such a phone with no difference from the previous version.
Wish someone could just clone Steve Jobs or it least his head like in Futurama.
Wish someone could just clone Steve Jobs or it least his head like in Futurama.
You're not taken into account that that it the where the inevitable development of technology will take us. Yes, lossless may be a niche market, and yes, people can't adequately recognize the difference between 256kpbs and 1411kpbs. However, with technologically getting cheaper, LTE getting faster with cell companies offering more and more Gigs, and with the production of better headsets there comes a point when AM and Spotify can't afford to keep offering lossy 256kpbs music.
Now, maybe, you won't want to pay more for a ".5%" increase in sound quality, but a few years down the line it'll be just as cheap to stream lossless as it is to stream lossy AAC.
Apple is, surprisingly, sacrificing quality for $$$. However, they won't be able to afford that sacrifice for much longer.
That is not an edge, anyone of them can turn on the switch and offer lossless. The only real age in subscription music service is how much it costs for customer acquisition, plan revenue and total paying subscribers.
[doublepost=1473964874][/doublepost]
nah no car, all the big money goes for R&D of new watchbands and digital stickers/other digital nonsense.
"Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz? / My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends..."
They've still got the Apple Lossless originals of all the tracks. They'll likely offer it when data caps on cellphone plans get to the point where it's feasible for a noticeable portion of their audience - it isn't currently. Same reason why the AppleTV doesn't support 4K - though those who want it really want it, that isn't a sizable enough portion of their customers, and it would entail substantially more streaming capacity (and in the case of video likely not all the source material is available in 4K at this point). When there is a large market for it (not just a very vocal small market), they'll support it.
[doublepost=1473966336][/doublepost]
Steve could have chosen anyone to replace him as head of Apple - it's not like Tim did some sort of palace coup after Steve died - and with basically infinite resources available to him, he chose (and groomed) Tim for the position, knowing full well who he was and his outlook on things. Yes, sure, Steve would probably do some things differently, but it really feels like a lot of people in the Cult of Steve don't get that Tim Cook is effectively one of Steve's most beloved creations.
I don't think it's that they don't care, it's just that most millennials have probably never even heard a lossless song. They grew up on low bitrate mp3s downloaded from free sites.
There's a reason that vinyl has made a comeback, and it's not just the novelty. Younger people are discovering that music can actually sound really good, given the right format and system.
Easy-G, Do-Pee-Dope, 57 cent, and Kanye West and all the other Tidal "executives" are feelin' a bit down today.
I just need to respond to this, since it's absolutely inaccurate and just perpetuates mythology.
There is no objective, double-blind test that I have seen, which shows that anyone can reliably differentiate between lossless and a well mastered 320k audio. Even 256k is up there for most people.
As to vinyl, it's absolute nonsense. Vinyl introduces distortion, just like most tube amps. While it may sound warm and nice to you, it is because of the distortion and it does not represent the sound as it was recorded. You can achieve the same effect with digital processing.
There is a lot of unsubstantiated BS in "high end" audio, and ironically, it is especially older guys, whose hearing is already diminished (basically, most guys over 30), who spend the most on it. Spend away, since often high end pieces are better designed, but don't fool yourself that you are getting better quality sound.
"Lossless" is simply lost on human ears, although its effects are not lost on marketing departments.