Sprint Aquires Minority Share of Tidal

Well, maybe not the fetish you have in mind. A major factor in the continued strength of CD sales in Japan relative to the rest of the world is the phenomenon of idol bands, who offer fans the chance to meet band members in exchange for buying CDs. The most famous/significant of these bands is called AKB48. Some info is available here:

Relevant excerpt:

Definition 1.1 :wink:

Yes, I thought that was the one you had in mind! I think that AKB48 fandom may be driving CD sales as much as or more than fetishization of CDs and other physical media.

Yes, perhaps. But if high res streaming is ever to go mobile, it likely will be MQA ā€“ because MQA is backwards compatible and relatively low bandwidth.

So, there is that angle to consider as well.

AJ

Quote from The Verge: ā€œSprint will use the partnership as an incentive to gain and keep subscribers, who could potentially get access to early tickets or private shows from some of Tidalā€™s artist-owners.ā€

As I live in Norway and have never had access to these features on Tidal anyway, I donā€™t see this as a problemā€¦ Just hope there are still someone left from the days when they were called Wimp and was an audiofile streaming service. To be honest, Iā€™m surprised that they have implemented MQA now after Roc Nation took over. Must be someone still high up with a love for sound quality, because I donā€™t think that was high up on the list for Roc Nation.

A possible silver lining to this announcement is that it encourages Apple and Spotify to counter with their own lossless streaming tier .
I may be a little too optimistic on this :sunglasses:

I donā€™t think that the general perception about Tidal, based on the tech mediaā€™s portrayal, has much to do with lossless streaming or MQAā€¦itā€™s more about the low subscriber numbers, album exclusives (and debacles), Jay Z and his investment, Kanye West and his idiotic rants about the rumors of sale to Apple, etc. Insofar as Apple and Spotify even feel the need to compete, itā€™s more likely to be with exclusives and events. It doesnā€™t help that much of the tech industry is hostile toward the very idea of audio quality, as seen in the attacks on Pono and the many accounts of how nobody can tell mp3 from lossless or hi-rez.

Hopefully weā€™ll be lucky and have what WE value in Tidal remain onboard, and this Sprint deal will keep them afloat, and intact.

itā€™s a complicated reversed take overā€¦http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/01/23/sprint-purchases-33-stake-tidal/ see comments. Tidal est passĆ©. (?)

there are many rigged markets and ā€˜musicā€™ is one. MQA is a minor detail and I hope Roon understands it (gets it).

Lol. If these people can engineer a ā€œreversedā€ takeover by purchasing a 20% stake they have revised the laws of mathematics.

Goldman Sachs can :money_mouth_face:

The growth will also come from the BRICS countries. Donā€™t forget there is a huge potential of Roon / Tidal lovers there too. Donā€™t forget, we are most of the time only focussed on ā€˜West-orientedā€™, mainly English, solutionsā€¦ Check out eg. Chinaā€™s streaming service: https://www.techinasia.com/china-music-streaming-for-free

If Tidal would join them or if Roon would include these services, the pieces of the pie change shape again (maybe better said: the different pies even merge ;))

yes they can. Itā€™s not about mathematics.

ā€œyes they can. Itā€™s not about mathematicsā€

To control a company you must control a majority of its shares, or otherwise own a majority stake. This generally gives majority stakeholders the right to a majority on the board of directors, although not always. A ā€œreversedā€ takeover, as you like to call it, requires control. Sprint bought one-third of the company and left the rest in the hands of existing owners. This in no way constitutes a takeover of any kind because Sprint is not a majority owners. If they increase that stake to 51%, it will be a different matter. However, they have not.

I am in one of those countries (Brasil) and am both a Roon and Tidal subscriber. Itā€™s worth noting that many music services are selling their products at lower prices in emerging countries than in developed countries. Itā€™s not just BRICS; potential exists in the entire ā€œemergingā€ world. I pay the equivalent of less than US$8 for Tidal HiFi in Brasil, which I believe costs $19.99 in the U.S. Spotify is also much cheaper here, along with other streaming services. I subscribe to the Spotify family plan in Brasil for less than the cost of an individual account in the U.S. All of this tells me that these services are aware of the huge market outside of so-called ā€œdevelopedā€ economies, and that they are willing to adjust pricing to capture some of that market.

I thought the whole point of a reverse take over was control without necessarily owning the company on paper, e.g. a share majority. My own company did it to prevent the new merged entity from owing a third party a significant sum. They became senior partner despite the other company parting with the cash. 5/6th of the new board came from the side with the cash, the only director from my company who kept his job did so because there was no equivalent position in the other company. Jay Z will bring in the musical talent. Sprint will run day to day affairs and bankroll new ventures. They almost certainly have first choice on the purchase of any further shares that become available up to 51%.

Usually the term ā€œreverse takeoverā€ refers to the takeover of a publicly traded company by a private company. This is often because the private company wants to become public, and assuming control of a public company is an easier way to do that than making an initial public offering. Clearly this is not the case with Sprint/Tidal. Tidal is not taking over Sprint. In any event, it appears that Sprint will have only one member on the Tidal board, which does not give it much management clout. Plus, Sprint does not control itself. Softbank owns 80% or so of the company. As for ā€œThey almost certainly have first choice on the purchase of any further shares that become available up to 51%ā€, I have seen no evidence of that, although it is possible (or not). Perhaps I missed something?

No, your description meets the normal definition of a reverse takeover. In my case the objective was to go from a broadcast only company to one that had content.

I avoided commenting on your company because the subject being discussed is Tidal and Sprint, and my replies are mainly directed at the person above who has called the Sprint move a ā€œreversed takeoverā€. Of course Iā€™m going to use the normal definition of the term. And taking that into consideration, I see no way whatsoever that the Sprint-Tidal deal can in any way be interpreted as a reverse takeover.