Tidal: A Case Study Of Discounted Rates In Lieu Of Apple Music

When I was in middle school, the biggest way to get music for free was a website named Limewire. Nothing was more exciting than to be able to hear a song on the radio then go home and download it to our desktops. Also cool, was the fact that if one of us didn’t have a song, our friend could simply “burn” it onto a c.d. for us. That was the only way we knew how to get music, aside from going out and buying the whole album. Apple’s iTunes was just starting out and iPods were just being created. Limewire was the way to go. Little did we know that Limewire was illegal and costing singers, songwriters, labels, and everyone associated with just one song, huge amounts of money.

This case study about the Spotify business model allows a broader vision of what the digital music industry is. In a short time, many companies have developed and managed marked their territory in a highly competitive industry. The start-up Spotify has undergone a remarkable evolution in a financial point of view but also in terms of its popularity. Its various competitive benefits regarding the market leader and its respect for music labels have enabled the company to be renowned and to have a reputation in the real business. Today, five years after its creation, Spotify is certainly criticized in some aspects of

Starting in the year 1999, a company called Napster opened up a whole new world to the Internet where every song ever made was instantly available to you on your computer for free. It was created by an 18-year-old Northeastern University student named Shawn Fanning. Napster transformed personal computers into servers that shared mp3 files all across the Internet (Mayer, 2008). It became popular very quickly because exchanging mp3 files freely and having any music desired right at your fingertips had never been possible before. However, this program that provided the privilege of having free instant music to download did not last long, it was shut down after just two years by

Along with the development of a file format (MP3) to store digital audio recordings, came one of the new millennium’s most continuous debates – peer-to-peer piracy – file sharing. Internet companies such as Napster and Grokster became involved in notable legal cases in regards to copyright laws in cyberspace. These two cases are similar in nature, yet decidedly different. In order to understand the differences and similarities, one should have an understanding of each case as well as the court’s ruling.

Tidal, a place where you could legally listen to Kanye's new album, is making huge news in the internet. In its first year anniversary, the music streaming service claims to passed a whopping three million paid subscribers globally, adding about 2.5 million subs to the approximately 540,000 it had when it launched in the U.S.

In the music industry, there are several methods of sharing content. Between playing live shows, producing physical records, and now, streaming over music streaming services, artists and musicians from around the world contribute to the entertainment industry each day; however, in light of today’s technological age, more and more content is being shared and consumed through the later. In 2015, music streaming services grew to 317 billion streams, doubling the record amount of streams from the year prior—a figure that is only projected to grow in the years to come (“Nielsen: Music Streams”, 2016). Any consumer with an Internet connection can access these services’ content with

The issues that will be slugged out in federal district court in San Francisco sound a little too pop culture to be all that serious. How many music CDs are people buying these days in record stores throughout the nation because of Napster? Is the technology that Napster uses legal? Napster is, of course, the wildly popular file-sharing service whose 20 million users have downloaded some half a billion songs--most copyrighted for free. The technology that Napster has brought to music listeners across the globe has allowed the freedom of obtaining music for free and should not be shut down by the entertainment industry's argument in federal court.

“Before the days of YouTube and the Internet, a band 's chances of striking it big depended on record companies. If a band was lucky enough to get a record deal, it gained access to a label 's vast resources and connections. The company paid for the band 's studio time, … and got its music played on the radio, reaching millions of record buying Americans” (Majerol, 1). Now, anyone with talent can post a video of themselves and become an internet sensation, only to then receive a deal with a label to continue growing their career. The issue is, with the Internet came digital downloading, and with the growing popularity of digital downloading came illegal downloading, known as Digital Piracy, which has affected the music industry greatly. This issue affects everyone involved in the Music Industry. From the small CD store owner to the Artist on stage, everyone has and continues to be affected by the growing popularity of digital downloading services. Artists, producers, and songwriters lose an estimated 12.5 Billion USD every year to illegal digital music services. Further, the economic impact from [digital downloading] is an estimated loss of 2+ Billion USD (Storrs, 1). This money affects the “little guys” in the industry and the average worker within the industry.

The Tidal article displays the rivalry between companies like Spotify and Apple music exposing 1 out of 5 of Porters Five Forces of Competition. Before Jay-Z purchased Tidal the company was started by Kjarten Slette and Thomas Walle hoping to be a part of the change in the evolution of how you receive music. The start-up company confessed the things they struggled with due to not being aware of the market they entered. Tidal received more attention than after the purchase from rap superstar Jay-Z. One of the first fails the former owners discussed was the brand’s name. The company strived to be comparable to Spotify with over 100 million users but the new company was only popular in the Asian, Europe, and Scandinavian markets. Slettle and Walle

Introduction: Setting the trend for the future, the distribution and consumption of recorded music transformed dramatically with the launching of Apple’s iTunes in 2001. The proliferation of online music subscription services and other music sharing services exerted a great pressure on the conventional music distribution business model. Combined with this transformation, piracy of digital music had a profound impact on the whole industry. These worsening conditions in the market place for recorded music forced both established and upcoming new artists to experiment with new ways of selling their music.

When speaking economically, the digital music sector of the international music industry is undoubtably the most important sector in the industry. Within the last decade, music has seen cardinal changes in the way both major and independent labels distribute their products. An industry that once relied on Payola 's and mass distribution of physical records and CD 's now relies heavily on the power of the internet. The first instance of mass distribution of music through the internet was by the service Ritmoteca.com in 1998 [1]. Ritmoteca had a library of over 300,000 songs, offering individual songs for 99 cents each and albums for $9.99. After signing distribution deals with many major music labels such as Warner

Spotify is an online commercial music streaming platform that, despite earning a massive sum of Euros in 2012, has never recorded any profit ever since its launch in 2008. Royalty costs and increases in licensing costs cover most of Spotify’s expenses, and these fees continue to be a problem as it prevents Spotify from making a profit.

In the midst of the United States’ “dot com bubble” (years 1997-2000), there was a surge in technology that brought about file sharing and digital downloads. Threatening the survival of the music industry and introducing a unique set of challenges for the industry to overcome. To remain relevant in the new global market of digital music online, the music industry would have to evolve and change with the introduction of each new facet technology had to offer. The introduction of digitally compressed music files, so easily attainable for a small fee or downloaded legally (pirated) for free, made the music industry reevaluate how to make a profit and protect copyrights. Social media created a visible opportunity for both consumers and artists to maintain digital relationships while providing a platform for consumers to follow and discover new musicians and bands, naturally, making the internet a promotional medium for artists. As the corner record shops closed to make way for virtual storefronts and instant downloads; the internet, digital downloading, and social media made an enormous impact on the music industry that has changed the way consumers purchase, source, listen to, and produce music today.

Costs $ 0.99, Buymusic.com offers a lower rate. This can be more attractive to the (12 – 24 year olds) customer target.

Downloaded an average of 12 tunes per month, housing libraries between 25 to more than 300,000 songs from the internet