We want TIDAL!

+1

I'm not interested in Tidal whatsoever.  To me it looks like a short sighted adventure from some greedy individuals.  They're short sighted because all they see is the small fee for playing their songs on normal streaming stations.  What they don't take into account is the sales of their albums and merchandise on the back of the vast user base these streaming sites offer.

Tidal being far more expensive will not attract anything like the user base and therefore I believe there's a risk to the artists that many people will miss out hearing their tracks and perhaps buying their CD's.

Surely the idea is to get examples of your art out to as many people as possible in order to maximise the exposure to people who may actually like what you do, become fans and buy the stuff.

OK, I'm an old fart but I don't let that dictate what music I like but I have to hear music before I know if I'll like it and I don't listen to radio 1 or stations like that so couldn't name a Jay Z, Alicia Keys or Rhianna track.  I may actually like some of these artists if I heard them but I'm not going to go searching for them.  Like many people I just sit listening to streaming radio, free or donation funded, and artists wouldn't believe how many bands/artists I've 'discovered' that I've gone on to buy their entire catalogue.

We're talking hundreds of CD's in under two years.

So, Tidal, short sighted in my opinion.

These 'greedy' artists did not set the pricing for Tidal. They have simply kept the model that was already in place before the takeover.

Whilst initially exicted at the Spotify integration in the last Naim streamer update, the sound quality wasn't really up there, with Spotify feeds sounding, well, compressed really, as they are.  As soon as I hooked up my Macbook Pro via optical out to my Uniti 2 with Tidal, the sonic differences were clear as crystal to my ears.

In an effort to ditch the permanently tethered Macbook into the Uniti, for Tidal streaming duties, I took the plunge and ordered a Sonos Connect, also giving me option of Qobuz and Deezer Elite too. A tad extravagant admittedly for purely internet streaming. 

The connect arrived at the weekend is hooked up to the Uniti via digital coax. It took all of 2 minutes to set up, and it's been absolutely faultless since. The integration of Tidal in the Sonos iOS and Android app is absolutely superb, and the SQ is as expected.

The setup procedure was all done via the Android app, and it even did an immediate auto over-the-air software update (how hard can it be Naim?), once it was connected via ethernet. Am hugely impressed with the Sonos software, and without turning this into a rant, puts the naim software to shame in a hearbeat. I know others have voiced similar opinions in other threads.

The lack of gapless playback as of yet hasn't affected my listening, but I fully appreciate why it may bother others.

A big +1 here!

Phil,

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. There is nothing in an NDA preventing you from saying that you are working on it.  You can announce that you are "working on a Tidal player and that if things go well you hope to get it out by X time frame. You are not saying "how" or with whom you are doing it or even if there is a partnership involved and you are not giving a firm date, just that if things go well.

But let's say what you are saying is true.

From the Partner perspective, why would I tell you not to advertise that Tidal support is coming?  Is it in their best interests not to have this partnership succeed? Do they not want you to sell more equipment, perhaps convince that Meridian buyer to go with Naim (especially since they have announced support)? Do they not want to list Naim on their list of satisfied clients and use you as a reference?  Even if you needed their "approval" for such a message - why wouldn't they approve?

So what if that partner did not work out?  Nothing in the statement prevents you from changing partners - you just release an update saying development has been delayed and the new date is now Y.  It happens all the time.  Take a look at a website called kickstarter - their whole premise is to announce products ahead of time in order to get community support.

Now I can think of only one instance where a partner would want to "gag" their client and that is if your tech partner is also a competitor and they simply want to keep Naim out of the game and if that is the case, the joke is on you.

In my opinion, the only people you hurt by not announcing such plans is us - your customers.  This is not a new feature that will give you a competitive advantage over your competition - you are the last in line here.

Ooh err, just registered on the TIDAL website for the free 30 day trial and within 5 minutes am playing uncompressed music from the posh, HIFI version of TIDAL.

It seems to work flawlessly via Chrome on my mac mini - Naim DAC-V1 - NAP140 - PMC DB1i office system.

This make a change from paying £15-30 a pop for vinyl albums.  A completely different revenue model I suppose for the artists, but that is really not my concern.  

If the attraction wanes, I'll go back to Grooveshark instead.  In the meantime,

Likey Likely Likey 

Best regards from your Fenland Luddite, FT

I can think of a good reason, commercial negotiations. I am sure that Naim seek to reduce their costs, by announcing that they will be, or are even considering, including named services they reduce their ability to negotiate.

M

Hi,

I'm sorry that 'you're not buying it' - an NDA can cover many areas and can very easily include disclosure that you're even working on something.

I've tried to answer your concerns and I'm sorry that you're not happy with the answer I have given you ... 

Best Regards

Phil Harris

Actually, the reason the artists took over Tidal was in the hopes that they could make more money from their art than they were getting from "technology" companies.  Do I frown on that, no - however, the problem is that they are doomed to failure by keeping that model and thinking they can make more money by charging more:

The problem is that Jay-Z is trying to promote "quality" to a main stream market that has said that quality doesn't matter - they want convenience. If that were true, SACD or DVD-A would as common as Blue-ray is in the video market. In the war of: Quality vs Convenience - convenience won a long time ago.

They want to take back their art from the technology companies who only see them as a product!  Unfortunately, it is not the technology company dictating terms as they think, it is the customer. This is their disconnect which could ultimately prove fatal.

The Internet was born free - meaning that the great expectation is that products and services online are free and supported by ads. Spotify's free tier exists because that is what customers want. Spotify knows that if they turned it off, then people would simply go elsewhere. Spotify gets this! And no matter how much Taylor Swift doesn't like the free tier, it ain't going to change.

For Tidal to be successful, they need to woo the masses away from Spotify.

Anyone think that their current business model can do that? 

I sure don't. And while I may pay more money for less convenience - and everyone else here too - we are in the minority.

Anyone think Spotify is scared?

No, they are not. If Tidal proves that a significant part of the market is willing to pay for quality, then all they have to do is to raise their quality on their paid plan and the capture the market. If this will convert more free to paid - you bet they are looking at it!

So where does that leave Tidal?  Anyone think they can win on name recognition and exclusive content?  - I don't either.  If Spotify ups their quality Tidal = Sunk.

- Roger

I believe they've moved their music over to Tidal or what's the point?

I agree with this.  The problem Tidal have is they're saying "hey, Rhianna and Madonna fans, we've got Rhianna and Madonna - for a price".  There's a danger they're missing untapped markets that way and in my view this could well turn out to be short sighted.  The Rhianna and Madonna fans are already buying their CD's, concert tickets and merchandise.  What they need is to tap into the people who aren't and they'll get that through Spotify and other services that have massive user numbers.

The market for CD quality and above streaming is small. The market for inexpensive/free/user supported streaming is huge and that's where you get massive exposure.  Don't think of it as small fee's for you music, think of it as massive advertising potential.  People may buy your music/gear/concert tickets on the back of it.

Phil,

I have 20-years experience in software development - on both sides (as a partner and as a licensee). In fact, I work now for a 75k person company that signs such NDA's on an almost daily basis. Much of my work is covered by NDA so I do understand the complexities.

This is to protect 3 things:

1. Competitive - We don't want our competition to know what new features, pricing we are working on and with such information the could adjust their strategy to counter before we hit the market.

2. Partnerships - We are working on a feature with a partner (vs vendor or white label) and we don't want the nature of the relationship being released.

3. Customers - We can't release information about products or features due to the potential sensitive impact it would have on our customers. (B2B space, not B2C)

#1 - You are the slow pony, so no competitive advantage lost there.

#3 - You are a B2C so customer privacy is not really applicable. We lose nothing if you say your are doing it.

Out of the 3, maybe #2 applies - but that assumes you are going to partner with a name brand company to produce your solution and not simply hire a company or a person to "code" your product.

In the past, yes, everyone employed the Apple model - complete secrecy about everything - and nothing got out - ever. However, the world is changing and people are touting features and products that don't exist yet - Microsoft Win 10, Anything on Kickstarter, Game makers, etc.  They have too to remain competitive.

What I do on a daily basis is to work with the marketing teams to try and figure out how we can let our customers know our direction vs our competition.  In our B2B market, customers buy 3 to 5 years in advance so not only do they are where we are, but they care where we are going.  It is a difficult balancing act, but it is a necessity in today's market to convey direction. 

Your market is like that too.  People by Naim for today and tomorrow as not many of us can afford to update our components like we do our cell phones.

So this leaves me with:

1. Either you are working in partnership with a larger company, who could perhaps bring Tidal and maybe a few other streaming sources in house - which would be cool.

2. You are stuck in the old model Apple model - where everything is secret until launch - Which btw is very British. Unfortunately, what most companies adopting that market fail to realize is that Apple is the market leader and everything they do is innovative so they can get away with it. It is a failing strategy for those companies playing catch-up. In the end, you only hurt your customers and your business.

Very interesting and informative of your field.

Thanks.

G

Their last selling point - exclusivity. Will it work? 

Similar battle: Amazon vs Netflix vs ________  - has it worked there? 

Discovery vs Exclusivity -Will I spend $20 to stream music from artists I already know and like?  Unlikely, I'll probably just buy their CD, rip the music myself and be done with it.  Cheaper that way too.

The biggest selling point of Spotify or Pandora or similar service is not the artists you know, but they artists you don't know. Its the ability to listen to new, related music to find things you didn't before.In the old days - discovery was over the radio - which is why they had so much power and young artists would go from station to station trying to get air time.  Today, discovery is better served online as you can drive your interactivity.

Does anyone think that Tidal wins this battle by convincing enough artists to defect and join their platform exclusively to force the public to pay for their service?  That this becomes the only channel by which their content is available?  Is this a winning strategy?

I've 25 years in the software industry and work for a company with 105K employees

You've missed a reason: revenue recognition.  If customers buy your product based on the assumption of the implementation of a feature then from an accounting perspective you can not recognise that revenue until you have delivered the feature.  Otherwise (at least in the US) you can be in hot water with the SEC.  For that reason, legal teams are often very wary about pre-announcing features.

The easiest way to ensure you don't break an NDA with a third party is to not talk about it at all.  Again, legal teams are typically conservative in this regard and recommend silence.

Roger,

Is that 20 years experience or 1 years experience 20 times. Which 75K person company? If you deal with NDAs almost daily how do you not know that they differ vastly? |Sounds like you are simply presuming that your (possibly) standard NDA with partners is universal.

If you read this forum regularly you will know that some Naim buyers buy with 3 to 5 months advance planning, some with 3 to 5 decades. You are out of touch with the realities of a very diverse market for small scale manufacturing.

But if you think you have something to offer Naim drop them a CV.  I'm sure they'll be fascinated by your insight into the future of streaming. Any investment tips?

Andy

Buy low - sell high.

Commercial Negotiations - in what way?

From the perspective that Naim would get financial considerations from Tidal if they supported their platform? Really, is that on the table?  This is not the typical app model for any platform and if it were, certainly a name like Sonus is more valuable to Tidal due to their larger install base.

Or perhaps you mean with the vendor.  By telling people they are working on it, they lose negotiation power?  Is that true?  I would think the opposite could be true, by announcing support, they could have more vendors in the mix which would mean lower costs.  After all, what vendor wouldn't want to add Naim's name to their customer list? Competition is good and the more RFP's you get, the better.

I'm all for secret negotiations, don't get me wrong. Hell, my company has probably just bought another company that I don't know about in the time that it took me to write this.  However, I'm struggling with the strategic market value in withholding information that everyone else has released.

1. 25-years - cool someone else who probably knows the difference between PC-DOS and MS-DOS!

2. Revenue Recognition - ah, yes and no and if you know this, then you know the gray area is larger than the black and white areas. Does every company that named support for Tidal support it today? No. There are countless examples of companies announcing support for features and products today that don't exist so you as well as I know that if a company wants to get around it, they can.

3. NDA - Absolutely True.  I'm just trying to fathom why there would be an NDA in place that prevents Naim from talking about it.  That is why I am puzzled. 

I am speculating here:

If I have hired an outside vendor to produce the product for me - then the NDA would prevent them from talking about it.  100%, Period. No questions.  However, that NDA wouldn't prevent me from talking about it. 

If not that, then?

So what type of NDA would bind Naim from talking about it?  The only one I can think of is if a Partner (bigger fish) has bound Naim from talking about it.  In such case Naim is the vendor (little fish).

So under what circumstances could that be true?  True, Naim carries prestige, but not a large customer base, compared to a Sonus for example. So what's the attraction here?  I am curious and hopeful.

And I brought my experience into this because I deal with the Marketing dilemma everyday.  What can we say vs what can't we say legally vs. what our customers need to know in order to buy our product vs a competitor. 

I come from an online dog eat dog competitive world and I think the disconnect here is with me.  Naim is a prestigious name building quality components.  They don't really care about sales in the traditional sense as their market is not Honda vs Toyota it is Bentley vs Rolls Royce - a much smaller market where name and quality matter more. Sales more or less just happen or they move on.With the market for Vinyl and CD's pretty much set - no problem. 5-years very little will happen.

Bringing old-world values into the new world of online streaming?  Is that the right way to go? 

Can you sell a high end streamer to a high end market and not support high ends sources?  Can you be successful when all of your competitors are announcing support for high end sources and you are not? (Co-marketing agreements!)  Will Naim support Tidal - probably and perhaps others as well.

However, my worry is that Naim is also creating another name for themselves in the online world. That as being the last out of the gate.  The slow old company that built in a solid media world. Can you teach a old dog new tricks?  I don't think they can be successful long term with that type of reputation in the new media world.

And I say this out of Love.  I love my Naim Unity 2 as I just got it a week ago.  I want Naim to be successful!  Of course, in the mean time, I am looking for a way to stream online music to my online music streaming device.

I realize the complexities of these things, I really do. My point here is that this speaks directly to company name and company image. Where slow, methodical, no wine before its time works well in the solid media space and we are better for it.  But put on your marketing hat.  You are Naim, building online streamers. You want to attract the younger affluent to your product as your existing market segment is shrinking (dying off). 

My point is, why structure a deal in the first place that ties your hands and paints your company image in a negative light to the market segment you are trying to attract?  There are plenty of examples out there of companies who are not so restricted.

Roger, welcome to Naim and the forum!  Maybe a private communication to Naim's management?  Phil Harris is wonderful at tech support but is not the right person to put on the spot to defend the corporate business development strategy.  He was only trying to be helpful.

TIDAL: Artist owned music streaming service..until someone comes along with a big pile of cash! I doubt we'll see Madonna sign the contract of sale.