Sprint Purchases 33 Percent Stake in Tidal For $200 Million (billboard.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sprint Purchases 33 Percent Stake in Tidal For $200 Million (billboard.com)

Posted by msmash on Monday January 23, 2017 @02:40AM from the big-shark,-small-shark dept.

Sprint has acquired a 33 percent stake in Jay Z's music streaming service Tidal, the two companies announced today. From a report: A source familiar with the matter tells Billboard that the purchase was for $200 million and that Jay and each of the company's two dozen artist-owners will remain part owners. As part of the deal, Tidal will become available to Sprint's 45 million retail customers, while the companies will partner for exclusives from its artists, according to a press release.

63 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

It's not gonna happen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 02:43 · Score: 0

just accept that Spotify has won... and let's do what we can to make Spotify even better from here on. Nobody wins on all this in-fighting in the streaming music business. Bet everything on the biggest horse - Spotify, that's how us customers get the best deal.
1. Re:It's not gonna happen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, because a lack of competition is always such a great thing for consumers.
2. Re:It's not gonna happen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  YouTube won. Every song is available on YouTube, and can easily be downloaded off YouTube for personal use. Why would anyone bother with Spotify?
3. Re:It's not gonna happen by ClickOnThis · 2017-01-23 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  YouTube won. Every song is available on YouTube, and can easily be downloaded off YouTube for personal use. Why would anyone bother with Spotify?
  Better sound quality? Spotify Premium offers 320 kbps Ogg Vorbis. Youtube streams at 126 kbps AAC to 165 kbps Ogg Vorbis, depending on the AV container.
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
4. Re:It's not gonna happen by alvinrod · 2017-01-23 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Probably because they don't want to take the effort to download and covert the songs and have to manage syncing them to a device. Sure Spotify or any other streaming service costs money, but at a certain point your time becomes more valuable to you fork over the subscription fee instead of downloading the YouTube video and stripping out the audio. It's the same reason that there are plenty of auto shops that mainly specialize in oil changes. Sure, we could all do it ourselves for a lot less money, but most people prefer paying someone else to do all of that work for them.
5. Re:It's not gonna happen by MightyYar · 2017-01-23 03:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I used to listen to cassette tapes on a Walkman, so I'll take "free, way better quality than tape" over "expensive, and maybe you can hear the difference in a quiet room with expensive headphones".
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
6. Re:It's not gonna happen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry but free isn't always the best. It may be the cheapest but it's not the best. I pay 9.99 a month for a Google Play family plan, and it has way more music than Spotify. Sure free is great, but "you can't always get what you want" when it's free. For example you won't find: Prince, Tool, Bob Seger, or Thom Yorke on Spotify. None of those may matter to you but I guarantee that you will at some point go looking for a song or artist that you want to hear to find that he/she/they are not there. I have personally experienced this, and that is why I quit using free streaming.
7. Re:It's not gonna happen by AvitarX · 2017-01-23 04:02 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I'm pretty happy with Google Play music, except for the fact that tidal (I assume) is taking artists away (my selection of Jay-Z has significantly reduced).
  I'd like to see competition, but not in the form of exclusivity.
  I left spotify because it sucked (no streaming to chromecast, no side loading, worse recommendations, no personal "library"), I suspect they fixed many of the issues, but that's why competition is good.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
8. Re:It's not gonna happen by AvitarX · 2017-01-23 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's music recommendations on YouTube are terrible too.
  It's not much of a substitute for a streaming service.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
9. Re: It's not gonna happen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  Nope. Google Play has a much better radio feature. Why listen to songs you don't like?
10. Re:It's not gonna happen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  There's no maybe about it. 126kbps is just awful. It basically is tape quality. You can hear the difference on $3 Apple ear buds. This isn't like trying to tell the difference between 256kbps and lossless FLAC. Youtube is just BAD. But where you are right is that most people will still be content with it just like their content with the down spec 1080 signal they get from cable cos.
11. Re:It's not gonna happen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  If last man standing did not use illegal or hostile tactics to get there, but rather doing it simply by being best, then yes, that sort of lack of competition is to prefer. Spotify has not actively tried to harm competition. Apple and Google Play f.ex. have. Clearly, Spotify is the better choice.
12. Re:It's not gonna happen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  Ummm, Spotify has by far the largest library at over 30 million songs. Google Play is at like 20 something million. They are all missing something but Spotify has by far the largest library. Amazon is the cheapest. Spotify has the most songs. Google is somewhere in the middle in terms of library size and has no gimmick like lossless streaming the way Tidal does. I'm not sure why anyone would go with Google given this dynamic....
13. Re:It's not gonna happen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  LULZ
  Just when it has been revealed that Tidal has been blatantly lying about its subscriber numbers, Sprint decides to flush $200 Million down the toilet. A music service run by and catering to dumbass nigggars. What could possibly go wrong.
14. Re:It's not gonna happen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry but 1. "way more" does not really apply when comparing to something the size of Spotify, and 2. the are artists missing from any streaming service you choose. None of them have everyone, and what you're saying is nonsensical, that Google Play is better for everyone, because they happen to have the few artists YOU like.
  And the guy with the YouTube comment? Wow.. does he actually just start YouTube and let it play random videos, hopefully some of them will be music? Is that his way of listening to music?
15. Re:It's not gonna happen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  I pay for the playlists. Too much awesome music out there and I cant be expected to know what to listen to. The catered playlists are awesome and have introduced me to musicians I would have never known existed otherwise. That alone makes subscription services worth it. Plus, you get comedy albums and podcasts too.
16. Re:It's not gonna happen by FatAlb3rt · 2017-01-23 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  I can honestly say that I've never heard 126kbps, so I'll take your word that it's crappy.
17. Re:It's not gonna happen by MightyYar · 2017-01-23 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  I completely disagree. 126kbps AAC would be pretty much transparent even in good listening conditions. 126kbps MP3 would probably be pretty bad. Depending on the source and encoder, it could be as annoying to listen to as tape (but with different flaws). Tape mostly had hiss, wow/flutter, and poor dynamic range. The hiss was not usually a big deal except in fancy-pants music with quiet components... this was not a problem for my rock/pop listening. The poor dynamic range was something that my brain seemed to adapt to fairly quickly. The wow/flutter was really annoying, and a stretched tape or low batteries really made for a poor listening experience. MP3 does not suffer from any of those things, but it does have really nasty artifacts - especially on things like cymbals. I have to admit that these are so terrible what I will usually take the time to find another source. With that said, AAC does not have this problem (though it still has other artifacts), especially at anything over 100kbps+.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
18. Re: It's not gonna happen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 11:33 · Score: 0
  
  Obama could join their board of directors?
Available to sprint users... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 02:43 · Score: 0

...for free? Otherwise, NO SALE.
Net Neutrailty by goombah99 · 2017-01-23 02:44 · Score: 0

Conveniently, Net Neutrality is going to die since il Cheeto appointed the man from Verizon to regulate it. SO Sprint can make their service the priory one and not use any data charges.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
So... by ChodaBoyUSA · 2017-01-23 02:46 · Score: 2

A failing cell network purchased (part of) a failing streaming company...so they can fail together?
1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe this will lead to them both going away for good.
2. Re:So... by AvitarX · 2017-01-23 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Sprint is going to by TMO first, then once it fails, there will be essentially no cellphone competition.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
3. Re:So... by Desler · 2017-01-23 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  What competition? AT&T and Verizon raise prices in lockstep and T-Mobile is too insignificant and impotent to stop it. Sprint is simply just a joke of a company.
4. Re:So... by tim620 · 2017-01-23 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  LOL. I did Sprint once. Never again. Horrible service. Still no 4G coverage in my area (in 2016). Dropped calls and even no service at times, while driving in rural areas. Unless they buy AT&T or Verizon, I'm never going back. Having phone and data service is worth the extra money.
5. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 13:22 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe Sprint is trying to become "too big to fail".
6. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 16:20 · Score: 0
  
  LOL. I did Sprint once. Never again. Horrible service. Still no 4G coverage in my area (in 2016). Dropped calls and even no service at times, while driving in rural areas.
  My Sprint experience was on par with this or worse. At times I couldn't even place calls in a major metropolitan area. I switched to Verizon which seems to work almost everywhere. Sprint's customer service was also horrible. I hope they go out of business.
I cannot fathom that kind of money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 02:46 · Score: 0

Sure, when it comes to business deals, $200 MILLION ain't even that much these days, but damn! I sweat whenever I put $1000 on a blue-chip stock.
Another bad investment by BarbaraHudson · 2017-01-23 02:48 · Score: 2

This is the same Jay Z whose Tidal streaming music company is now accused of grossly inflated subscriber counts - using their own numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a proviso for either refunding the majority of the "investment" in one form or another, or for clawback terms. In other words, buy it for $200 million, get rebated $175 million. Even Sprint can't be that stupid ... or can they?

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
1. Re:Another bad investment by c · 2017-01-23 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  Even Sprint can't be that stupid ... or can they?
  If they're trusting Tidal's subscriber numbers without even looking at their own traffic patterns to get a picture how much Tidal data (and that other streaming services) is moving across their networks, then I wouldn't put any amount of stupidity beyond them.
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
2. Re:Another bad investment by Cytotoxic · 2017-01-23 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Well, once the deal goes through, that analysis will show that 100% of Sprint users are subscribers. So their analysis is gonna look pretty good....
3. Re:Another bad investment by Gilgaron · 2017-01-23 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Good point... if the new administration kills Net Neutrality then they'll also probably give their subscribers usage of Tidal that doesn't count towards their cap and so on, as well.
4. Re:Another bad investment by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  The same Jay Z that said the previous owners inflated it's subscriber numbers when he bought it for 56 million...
5. Re:Another bad investment by c · 2017-01-23 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  once the deal goes through, that analysis will show that 100% of Sprint users are subscribers
  True. But I suspect the data volumes will remain close to zero...
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
Oh Sprint, my sweet summer child by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 02:50 · Score: 0

Why did you do that, especially after Tidal got caught inflating their user numbers from 1 mil to 3 mil?
Exclusives is how they get pirating by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 03:02 · Score: 0

As part of the deal, Tidal will become available to Sprint's 45 million retail customers, while the companies will partner for exclusives from its artists, according to a press release.
Among other issues... trying to do exclusives will just increase pirating of the music since who want's to use Sprint as a cell phone company.
Artists are much better off trying to get as many streaming companies to host their songs rather than relying on just one. I can't think of a single artist on Tidal that I would listen to since I have never even looked at Tidal as a streaming service.
1. Re:Exclusives is how they get pirating by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  But then you'll lose access to Buck Fitty a 50 cent tribute rapper.
Since the CEO probably didn't want a handjob... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 03:04 · Score: 0

Maybe Jay-Z let him have a night with his wife to seal the deal.
Unreliable source by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 03:10 · Score: 0

The information about the supposed sum of money ($ 200 mil.) comes from a Billboard's unnamed "source familiar with the matter". Sorry, Billboard is not Bloomberg or WSJ. It's just an entertainmnent/celebrity tabloid, it's not reliable for financial matters. Not that executives at Sprint are particularly bright, but they aren't mentally handicapped either.
1. Re:Unreliable source by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  Not that executives at Sprint are particularly bright, but they aren't mentally handicapped either.
  That's debatable.
simian president naming conventions by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 03:13 · Score: 0

George W. Bush was nicknamed after chimpanzee. I was under the impression that Donald Trump would be nicknamed after orangutan, instead of the cheeto snack food. Obama is black, and giving a black person a simian nickname is considered racist. I think Kenyan socialist was the closest alternate nickname for Obama.
1. Re:simian president naming conventions by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  Trumpanzee?
2. Re:simian president naming conventions by Opportunist · 2017-01-23 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Only 'cause "Annoying Orange" is already an established character.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
3. Re:simian president naming conventions by Captain+Splendid · 2017-01-23 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Cheeto Mussolini has always worked well for me,.
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
4. Re: simian president naming conventions by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  Cheeto Benito also works, dude.
On the positive side... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 03:37 · Score: 0

It could have been worse. The minority stake could have been acquired by Yahoo...
1. Re:On the positive side... by wjcofkc · 2017-01-23 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Ya.... who?
  
  --
  Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
2. Re:On the positive side... by CrashNBrn · 2017-01-23 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  AliYa baHoo ba ?
Amazon will destroy Tidal and Spotify by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 04:04 · Score: 1

Here is the simple math:
For Amazon Prime members you can now pickup a subscription to Amazon Music Unlimited for $79 per year or $6.58 per month. They have over 20 million songs and the catalog is growing by the day and will catch up to Tidal's 30 million in about a year. Tidal basic is $9.99 per month and is not lossless. Amazon has them beat by $3.41. Since the major cohort of people paying for these services is middle class males over the age of 30 employed in jobs paying over $50k per year basically the entire cohort is already signed up for Amazon Prime (they have over 64 million Prime members). These people are not going to pay $9.99 for a service they can get from Amazon for $6.58. Now Tidal does have a separate lossless service that costs more, but half their members don't pay for lossless. They can kiss half their user base goodbye soon.
Amazon is just too big for these single segment companies to go up against. Sprint aint large enough too. Spotify may last longer due to name recognition but Tidal is doomed.
Jay Z saw the writing on the wall and sold at the perfect time -- right before Amazon obliterated Tidals business.
1. Re:Amazon will destroy Tidal and Spotify by CrashNBrn · 2017-01-23 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  Who cares. Google Music Family for up to 6 people is $15 a month. And gives you legally ad-free YouTube Red.
2. Re:Amazon will destroy Tidal and Spotify by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  People looking to spend $6.58 and not $15 probably care.... I don't think YouTube Red is worth $8.42 a month for me as I watch maybe 20 minutes of youtube content in a given month.
3. Re:Amazon will destroy Tidal and Spotify by CrashNBrn · 2017-01-23 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Amazon doesn't even let you have profiles on their streaming hardware FFS. So if you want more than one profile for streaming you at least need TWO FireSticks, and maybe even two Yearly $125 prime memberships, as all that other "extra-shit" barely works at all for the "guest-spouse" of the Prime Membership Family.
4. Re:Amazon will destroy Tidal and Spotify by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  Here is the simple math:
  For Amazon Prime members you can now pickup a subscription to Amazon Music Unlimited for $79 per year or $6.58 per month. They have over 20 million songs and the catalog is growing by the day and will catch up to Tidal's 30 million in about a year. Tidal basic is $9.99 per month and is not lossless. Amazon has them beat by $3.41. Since the major cohort of people paying for these services is middle class males over the age of 30 employed in jobs paying over $50k per year basically the entire cohort is already signed up for Amazon Prime (they have over 64 million Prime members). These people are not going to pay $9.99 for a service they can get from Amazon for $6.58. Now Tidal does have a separate lossless service that costs more, but half their members don't pay for lossless. They can kiss half their user base goodbye soon.
  Amazon is just too big for these single segment companies to go up against. Sprint aint large enough too. Spotify may last longer due to name recognition but Tidal is doomed.
  Jay Z saw the writing on the wall and sold at the perfect time -- right before Amazon obliterated Tidals business.
  Amazon doesn't have lossless - though I think it wouldn't be too hard for them to put up lossless as well.
5. Re:Amazon will destroy Tidal and Spotify by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 06:31 · Score: 0
  
  If you have an extra female guest-spouse in your home you already have enough to keep you occupied, you don't need streaming videos.
6. Re:Amazon will destroy Tidal and Spotify by CrashNBrn · 2017-01-23 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Aye, but in the whole Prime Membership thing the other person|spouse is referred to as the "guest|leech" of the REAL Prime Membership holder.
  
  Every other streaming service, except for Amazon Prime + FireStuff, lets anyone in your HOUSEHOLD have their own viewing profile.
There's competition now? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 04:32 · Score: 0

You either make enough to subscribe to Verizon, or you try to justify your shitty cheap plans on another provider.
1. Re:There's competition now? by tim620 · 2017-01-23 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Or Sprint has shitty service where you live (like they do here) and you switched back to Verizon or AT&T, because saving money wasn't worth the lack of 4G and dropped calls that Sprint provides.
2. Re:There's competition now? by AvitarX · 2017-01-23 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Depends where you live and travel I suppose
  I have tmobile for $75/month
  It is unlimited enough for me locally (they say they'll throttle me during peak hours if I break 23 GB, but I only use 10-15) with good coverage (about 2/3 the time I am faster than 15/5mbps, and rarely under 5/1). They give me the basics I need in Toronto (slow slow slow, too slow for interactive, but I can pull a map in desperation for free).
  For Verizon last I checked I'd be paying $75/month more (glancing at their page, things may have changed), with Canada being approximately all of the money.
  I know that I'm justifying approx $1000/year for a few days a year traveling where I am limited to wifi calling (another great service that has saved me tons when traveling internationally).
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
3. Re:There's competition now? by tim620 · 2017-01-23 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  I switched to Sprint from Verizon (to save money) a few years ago. I quickly discovered they didn't have 4G coverage where I live. About a year later, I managed to get out of my Sprint contract. I now use AT&T Go (prepaid) service. I'm on their $60 plan ($55 with autopay). I get unlimited talk and text in USA, Mexico and Canada, and 8GB data, that rolls over. I rarely use over 5 GB. Plus I get 4G service almost everywhere I go and no more dropped calls. It works for me.
4. Re:There's competition now? by AvitarX · 2017-01-23 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I actually think AT&T has responded to pressure from T-mobile and is pretty competitive (especially now that T-Mobile is unlimited only).
  That's why I'm concerned about the proposed Sprint buyout of T-Mobile (and the AT&T one when that was on the table).
  Sprint was always garbage in my area (bad coverage, high prices), but T-Mobile has been really upping their game over the last decade, and it's starting to exert downward pressure on AT&T, which is in turn starting to affect Verizon.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Who Cares... by tim620 · 2017-01-23 07:16 · Score: 1

I tried Sprint once (to save money). I would never go back to them. They are horrible in my area. I don't care who they buy. No gimmick or other company will ever get me to use them again. (Unless they buy out AT&T).
Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-23 07:21 · Score: 0

Why does a joke of a wireless company want to buy a stake in a joke of a music streaming company?
Why?