We don’t all pay US$19.99. At today’s exchange rates I pay the equivalent of US$6.90 in Brazil. Tidal prices vary greatly around the world.
I think the price we pay is still to less. Although Tidal apparently pays the musicians the most compared to other streaming services, I think it is cheap compared to the 150$ I used to spend on music per week.
I now only buy what I like; in the past I bought much more unheard to get to know new bands.
I got a Best Buy renewal notice for $119 today, so it would seem they are still renewing at the same price.
Excellent. You are on the HiFi Plus plan, correct?
Yes. Hi-fi plus.
Easy, sounds much better than the competition. Tidal also had more of the music I like (jazz, blues, prog rock, rock, others) than it’s competition
Excellent! I was running out of music to listen to 
This thread has presented me with a conundrum.
As a working artist myself, I’m acutely aware of the fact streaming is terrible for musicians, in terms of the money they receive for their work.
I had thought that with Tidal I was, at least, subscribing to the one which paid the most.
Now apparently it’s Qobuz, but that is still poor.
Since Tidal has now moved on from MQA, which was a big draw for me, I’m considering a new approach.
I wonder whether to move to Quobuz, or simply to go for standard Tidal (not Master) and each month just buy one of my favourite recordings.
I find Tidal very useful to narrow down the records/recordings I really like, but then tend to listen over and over to only a few of the ones I try. These would be the ones I buy, and then those artists are getting as full a revenue as I can send their way…
Stick, don’t twist. None of the criteria that made you choose Tidal has changed. And of the two Tidal has a future. Qobuz is niche.
That is certainly what I do (and I think a lot of people on here) - I mainly use streaming services (Tidal and more recently Qobuz also) to listen to new stuff (or old stuff I haven’t heard) and if I like it, I’ll buy it - a download from Bandcamp as a preference if available. A quick scan of my library shows I’ve bought about 300 albums this year - not all are newly released obviously, but a lot are. This is obviously a way of supporting artists, but also there is no guarantee that albums will be available via these streaming services in perpetuity (and indeed albums appear and disappear regularly), so if I like it I want to own it.
I have carried on buying physical media (in preference to downloads). Either CDs or preferably DVD-Audio, SACD or Blu-Ray audio (I have a nice multichannel system).
I think it might be time to do more of this and down the level of subscription. I was an MQA fan, and most of this wasn’t available to purchase separately, hence Tidal.
Now that’s changed, seemingly, so…
The world is becoming more polarised on all topics including MQA v.s hiRes FLAC, with both sides increasingly uninterested in listening to the opposing view. I guess Tidal feel that they are caught up in the middle and feel that by supporting the MQA side only is a limiting their market, so now want to appeal to both sides. They have chosen to do this by saying that they will provide the best quality “MAX” available from the Lables but will no longer disclose the format provided, i.e they are making the Lables decide what the best is, and will market themselves as the provider of best quality available. Those subscibers without the ability to identify the format will be unaware that it might be MQA, but those that can but who bias is hiRes FLAC will be told that according to the Lable its the best available. So to answer to question - how will they justify the price? By claiming that they are providing the best possible quality available according to the Lable. So for 2L that will be MQA because that’s what the 2L believe (that’s on public record). It will be interesting to see if the Lable’s i.e. Sony etc play ball.
Or maybe it’s just because MQA is bankrupt and it’s unlikely anyone will keep it alive.
Tidal and Qobuz have a combined market share of less than 1%. To the major players, they are both round-off errors.
I have no other choices of high resolution streaming music than Tidal, there’s no Qobuz available yet in my country. Luckily my Tidal High Res subscription (individual) is less than USD 7 per month. Now with KKBox added into ROON, I have more choices , but KKBOX is mostly of AAC format which is lossy, and there are quite many albums are not “playable” and skip from first to end song of an album.
As for USD 19.99/month, it is like buying 2 or three physical CD prices per month which is fair.
Tidal is a platform for me to choose music I like. For my favorite and good quality recording album, I will purchase online eg. HDtracks etc.
Same here 
But with Qobuz and other sources.
Torben
An excellent point that is well worth remembering. This will also apply to the market share of high end and expensive audio equipment. The owners of such should have no difficulty paying Tidal’s top subscription fees. In reality MQA provides the most audio improvement benefit to mid range audiophiles. Those who believe in HiRes FLAC superiority representing only 4% of top end audio market (assuming that these mostly Qobuz subscribers given that Tidal has always historically been a MQA supporter). The question therefor is why is Tidal now chasing 4% fraction of only a 1% of the total Streaming Market?
Once again, I don’t think it has anything to do with the perceived benefits of MQA.
Isn’t it more abut the fate of MQA as a company , they seem to be in financial difficulties and should they “POP” it would leave Tidal without Hi Res , not a good market position . So Hi Res FLAC is their fall back which may become their norm
Until the MQA situation becomes more clear its good insurance.
Yes Qobuz is an alternative but don’t forget that Qobuz coverage is not anywhere as global as Tidal. I live in South Africa - no Qobuz , not even aware of plans for this coverage