Streaming loses money. That makes the possible partners unreliable.
Please read this:
https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=101545.0
If it ever settles down and becomes a real business, we'll probably do something.
If I may be an old fogey: The funny thing is that music streaming is nothing new; just the technology of it. When we Baby Boomers were teenagers, the streaming service was called "AM radio." The big difference was that back then there was a relatively clear path to making money: If you could get airplay, you would most likely be able to sell singles. And if you had enough talent or popularity to do an album, you could sell that. And you collected money on each step of the process: airplay fees, single sales, album sales. In other words, it was "a real business."
Today with music digital and the preferred vehicle being online, labels and artists essentially are down to just the royalty fees. When they can actually collect them. Additionally, the biggest artists often refuse to agree to streaming deals. Or, e.g. Taylor Swift, negotiate a fee that eats into the service's profit margins.
Plus there is just plain stupidity in the business. Which brings me back to Tidal. I asked about them in the first place only because they have one of the few lossless streaming options.
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,96774.0.html tells me that they are unable to get their mind around the idea that there are customers who don't like their fussy interface and would prefer to use it with software that they do like.
Idiotic.
