Apple In Talks To Buy Jay Z-Owned Tidal Streaming Service (9to5mac.com) 61
An anonymous reader writes: The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Apple is in talks to acquire the Jay Z owned streaming service, Tidal. 9to5Mac reports: "While specific details are unclear at this point, Apple acquiring Tidal would give it an incredible leg up when it comes to negotiating for exclusive streaming rights. Tidal is currently owned by Jay Z and a variety of other artists, including Kanye West, Beyonce, Chris Martin, Jack White, and many more. Negotiations between Apple and Jay Z are reportedly still early and 'may not result in a deal,' according to the report. Apple is interested in Tidal because of its strong ties to artists, many of which are owners. Tidal has secured the exclusive streaming rights to a handful of notable albums in recent months, including Beyonce's Lemonade and Kanye West's The Life of Pablo." Earlier this year, a report claimed that Samsung, Google and Spotify had all considered buying the streaming service.
Or.... (Score:2, Informative)
Tidal, desparate for a sale, release rumours that its in talks to be bought with someone with deep pockets, in order to motivate someone with deeper pockets and poor impulse control.
Re: Or.... (Score:3, Funny)
Someone alert Bachmanity Capital!
4 easy steps (Score:4, Interesting)
This seems like a perfect strategy for a group of musicians mad that apple / spotify / etc are all not making them enough money.
1. Start a streaming service
2. Release exclusive albums
3. Wait to be bought
4. PROFIT!
Re:4 easy steps (Score:4, Interesting)
Correction:
2. Have the exclusive streaming rights to Prince's catalog in the year that he dies
#notanaccident (Score:1)
#richniggaonniggacrime #scroogemcbucks #donthatetheplayershatethegame
Re: (Score:2)
CHA CHING!
Re: (Score:1)
and nothing of any value (Score:3, Insightful)
would be bought.
Re:and nothing of any value (Score:5, Funny)
Pretty sure Windows Phone has a larger user base than Tidal.
Re: and nothing of any value (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Crap like this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The country did pretty well when the top income tax rate was 90%.
To be fair it was never 90% (Score:3)
Re:To be fair it was never 90% (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, I agree with you. We need to have a 90% marginal rate on income over $17million. We can agree that's a good starting point.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm game, too: $17,000,000.00/yr seems like a good starting point to me as well, since that's certainly plenty for most of the most-exuberant lifestyles imaginable.
But won't we need a lot of torches to make this? And what about pitchforks?
Re: (Score:2)
Ridiculous. How will I be able to afford my own aircraft carrier if you're taking 90% of my billions?
I have the right to keep and bear armed naval fighters.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I agree with you. We need to have a 90% marginal rate on income over $17million. We can agree that's a good starting point.
Talk of taxation on the rich is stupid and utterly pointless until you shut DOWN the loopholes surrounding offshore tax havens.
If you're looking for a starting point, start with the obvious problem we have TODAY.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. See here. [taxfoundation.org] It presents the bare facts of marginal rates adjusted to 2013 dollar values for direct comparisons. Notice the swift decline in the highest marginal tax leading up to the the stock market crash in 1929, and only in 1932 returned from the disastrous 25% to the 40-50%+ normal before the crash era, roughly when the US economy was brought to recovery with the New Deal. Since then fluctuations have held up roughly the same pattern - wealth interest lowering the highest marginal rate only for
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt we have a correlation either. For example, the New Deal tax increases correlate with the second US recession of the
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, wasn't Tidal another one of those services started _because_ of the crappy deals Apple gave artists?
I thought it was a service started because a self-obsessed douche-bag was overly self-obsessed, thought he was the worlds greatest producer, and worlds greatest businessman, and then couldn't figure out why people pirated his stuff when he released his self-obsessed album on an obscure platform no one uses.
It would be a real bad outcome for Apple to buy this. Not for Apple, but because self-important shits who have an epic failure of an idea don't deserve the windfall success of another company buying out a
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was a service started because a self-obsessed douche-bag was overly self-obsessed,
Jay-Z actually bought the service from Norwegians/Swedes who wanted lossless music streaming.
Re: (Score:2)
"self-obsessed douche-bag"
Well put, I couldn't agree more. It's also one reason I refuse to even listen or read anything bearing his name or any of the associated "reality" "talent" the douche-bag is associated with.
Re: (Score:2)
So very much this. It is beyond and past time for the entire Kanye / Kardashian / Beyonce / J-Z / Jenner pantheon to just go the hell away and fade away into obscurity.
It's not even as though I seek out their vainglorious tommyrot. In fact I actively avoid it. But it keeps intruding into the spheres that I do care about. I know bad news sells more papers than good. And people mostly goto hockey games to see the fights and NASCAR to see the crashes. But hell... I feel like a dumber and all-around worse
Re: (Score:2)
is why I'd like to see a return to the old tax rates from the 50s,60s and 70s before "Reganomics" took hold. When you've got as much cash as Apple why _not_ just buy every single possible competitor... I mean, wasn't Tidal another one of those services started _because_ of the crappy deals Apple gave artists?
.
Re: (Score:2)
is why I'd like to see a return to the old tax rates from the 50s,60s and 70s before "Reganomics" took hold.
This is a classic case of cargo cult economics. There are several deep problems with this outlook. First, the prosperity of the past had nothing to do with the tax rate. Second, the problems of today have nothing to do with the tax rate. Third, most of the rich never had to pay that tax rate. And fourth, this is a brazen case of envy which completely disregards the harm it would cause and should have no place in economic policies that affect hundreds of millions of people.
So let's start with the first po
Re: (Score:2)
And yet you have no data,
Why is my lack of "data" relevant? I notice the posters jumping on the tax-the-rich bandwagon just made up a lot of shit. Meanwhile we have these facts. First, I presented data indicating that the wealthiest 0.01% haven't seen a significant change in their tax burden over the past 37 years.
Second, I presented the fact that the US is experiencing labor competition from the developing world. Rudimentary economics indicates this would explain most phenomena alleged to be the result of an overly low rate on
Re: (Score:2)
Data is the only objective decision support. I make around 150K per year as a PhD statistician workin in industrial quality control, and I also have significant savings in retirement accounts as well as investments in the stock market.
And I'm a time traveling Caribbean pirate from the year 2304, arrrrrr. Emphasizing an imaginary "data" over objective reasoning indicates to me that if you really are credentialed as you say, you didn't learn so much from those credentials.
. I am in favor of higher income taxes and higher capital gains taxes to improve the financial stability of the US economy over the recent brinkmanship and posturing adopted by the House of Representatives.
Why would that improve the financial stability of the US economy? We ignore also the obvious problem that financial stability is not all that advantageous. For example, short term thinking, such as the phenomenon of businesses not looking past the next quarter, is due to
Re: (Score:2)
Let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me get this straight: they like that it's owned by artists, so they're going to buy it from those artists? Amazing how they can't see the problem with this.
Re: (Score:1)
Zero (Score:4, Insightful)
That is the amount of fucks given about the prospect of Apple gobbling up the most hyped music streaming service that no individual actually knows a subscriber of.
Re: (Score:2)
I give a fuck. Self-obsessed douche-bags powered exclusively by marketing hype shouldn't get rich by creating a huge failure.
Re: (Score:3)
That is the amount of fucks given about the prospect of Apple gobbling up the most hyped music streaming service that no individual actually knows a subscriber of.
I subscribe to it, and have done so for many years - I started way before Jay Z bought it. Back in the day, it had nice curated playlists - which spotify did not have. It also added lossless streaming, which I wanted.
These days, the playlists in Apple Music are far more numerous and fits me better - the increased focus on music I don't like in Tidal (hip hop) makes a exit more likely. If only Apple Music had lossless....
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Zero (Score:1)
Exclusive streaming rights? (Score:2)
Didn't those "exclusives" last all of a week or two before they also became available on Apple Music?
(It's a serious question. I'm a Pandora One user; plus I don't really care whether or not I ever hear either album)
A relevant quote (Score:2)
"There's a sucker born every minute." -P. T. Barnum
Oh crap (Score:1)
Now they'll be bungling that crap with beats headphones and other crap Tim Cook buys because his people are so totally out of ideas.
He should step down, join Meg Whitman and the others like him.
Re: (Score:2)
I require higher quality sound than Apple's 250 (Score:2)
aac, and apple music won't even run on my phone.
I've lost Mog and Beats Music - if I lose Tidal Music I'm going to start pirating.