Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ryssen]

where you find that MC is weak when compared to competitors.

Tidal integration,thats a week spot,not having it....

[imugli]

Tidal integration,thats a week spot,not having it....

2.  Streaming media services are problematic, since they are often not open to developers and most have weak financial models so they tend to turn over every few years.

[dtc]

imugli - Yes, but note that Audirvana, Kodi, Roon, Sonus and others have managed to integrate Tidal. JRiver ran in to issues doing it, but others have managed to do it, which puts them at a disadvantage compared to other companies, at least in the short term.

[imugli]

The kodi / tidal integration is unofficial, and is free, and is an add-on to open source (and free as in free beer) software. No one can be seen to be profiting from tidal by having it. If tidal wish to, however, they could ask
for it to be taken down.

MC is not open source, and nor is it free as in free beer. If JRiver were to integrate Tidal, and continue to SELL MC, Tidal may have a pretty good case that JRiver WAS profiting off the unauthorised use of the tidal name and its associated properties. It could also open JR's IP (their closed source code) up to investigation, thereby compromising the whole point of it being closed source. Not good for anyone but a bunch of lawyers and probably tidal in the end.

Saying that, the kodi plugin just looks to be a python script, so there may be a way to get *something* into MC for those who know their way around python and willing to make the effort...

[dtc]

The kodi / tidal integration is unofficial, and is free, and is an add-on to open source (and free as in free beer) software. No one can be seen to be profiting from tidal by having it. If tidal wish to, however, they could ask
for it to be taken down.

MC is not open source, and nor is it free as in free beer. If JRiver were to integrate Tidal, and continue to SELL MC, Tidal may have a pretty good case that JRiver WAS profiting off the unauthorised use of the tidal name and its associated properties. It could also open JR's IP (their closed source code) up to investigation, thereby compromising the whole point of it being closed source. Not good for anyone but a bunch of lawyers and probably tidal in the end.

Saying that, the kodi plugin just looks to be a python script, so there may be a way to get *something* into MC for those who know their way around python and willing to make the effort...

How about Audirvana, Roon, Sonus, etc?  The point is that competitors have Tidal and JRiver does not.

[Aircub]

I am happy with my music collection which has over 5000 albums and I do not use streaming services.
I can understand a lot of people would like streaming options.
However I would ask that if they are to be incorporated it is done in a non obtrusive way such that they do not dominate the player and can be disabled.

[CountryBumkin]

Kodi has people developing add-on components/features, why can't JRiver provide an "easy way" for non-JRiver people to do the same?

I'm not a computer guy so I don't know difficulty in this, or the proper terms to describe it - but I guess it would be like JRiver providing their API for others to use.
JRiver would not be liable if someone where to create a Tidal (or other) plugin and install it themselves on their own computer.

[Vocalpoint]

Competitive disadvantage or not - this sums it all up nicely...

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=96774.0

VP

[dtc]

Competitive disadvantage or not - this sums it all up nicely...

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=96774.0

VP

Understood. JRiver made a business decision. Others have made a different decision. That puts JRiver at a competitive disadvantage, which was the topic at hand. Now JRiver says that streaming services are not a viable business going forward. Time will tell.

[JimH]

Here's more about the problem:  Why Streaming Struggles

When the dust settles, we will probably have only Apple, Google, and ...

We have done this type of integration around 20 times.  Each one is expensive.  

If Tidal wanted to write a check, we might do it, but I don't think they are feeling flush with success.

[Vocalpoint]

Now JRiver says that streaming services are not a viable business going forward. Time will tell.

No way that Tidal is a viable business going forward. Way too many serious "business" red flags out there for them already. I give it a year (but most likely less)

VP

[JimH]

... Now JRiver says that streaming services are not a viable business going forward.

I don't believe I said that.  I have said that they struggle to make money.  Most are losing money in the hope that someone will buy them.  Pandora showed a couple of profitable quarters in order to go public, but has lost money the rest of the time.

Apple makes money in other places, so they can afford to offer a service.

JRiver needs to focus on work that builds on certainty, not wishful thinking.  We have plenty to do.

[imugli]

Tidal use 7Digital to supply their catalog (and MQA)

http://developer.7digital.com/

Jim et al, has this avenue been explored? I know you guys use medianet for Performer Media Center, but there seems to be a fairly well held belief that the streaming / file quality isn't competitive i.e no hi-res streaming / file purchase.

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that you strike a deal with 7Digital and use their service for PMC. Then you have a white label streaming service built directly into MC that gives people the hi-res files they want.

[JimH]

If I thought there was any money in it, we might do it.  I think we've talked with or worked with all the backend providers.  

In addition to the software aspect, there is a rights management issue and reporting, etc.  It's a can of worms and there's no money in it.

Making money isn't everything, but not losing money is.

[imugli]

Fair enough. I'm on record on here somewhere as agreeing with you that there'll only be 2 or 3 players in a couple of years (I think Apple, Google and Spotify (Spotify for those who wish to rise up against the machine), so I get where you're coming from. I think there's a market for back-end players like 7Digital as well though. Perhaps a medianet / 7Digital merger given their similar product offerings :-)

In which case, we get back to the idea of some sort of API that we can use to develop legally questionable third party addons :-)

[astromo]

Fair enough. I'm on record on here somewhere as agreeing with you that there'll only be 2 or 3 players in a couple of years (I think Apple, Google and Spotify (Spotify for those who wish to rise up against the machine), so I get where you're coming from.

Spotify doesn't appear to be out of struggle street as far as I can see. Do a search. Here's one that I found that struggles to inspire confidence for me:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/11/spotify-financial-results-streaming-music-profitable

Take a look at the cost breakdown covering royalties/digital rights and staff costs. Hefty.

This is all these guys do, whereas an Apple/Google have plenty of other ventures to spread their risks across. Time will tell.

[imugli]

Agreed. I still think there'll be enough people who don't want to use Apple or Google to warrant a third party player. It may be that a service like 7Digital ends up providing catalogue to Spotify, and spotify's discovery algorithms then become it's IP.