Tidal Streaming!!

[goledensilence]

Dunno what all the fuss is and arguments are, but I do know I definitely scooped that 3 months of premium for $1 from Spotify last week...

That's exactly what I did. I don't care what color owns what streaming app. All I care about is saving money. $1 for 3 months is way too good to pass up.

 

[goledensilence]

 
Man y'all heard this ish Marina Abramovic was trying to pull?

there is a million people that don't want to see this Tidal thing to succeed sadly 2/3 of them are black people. Tidal has a 3 month free trial subscription and im taking advantage of that and when is over i would decide if i want to keep using it or not. I recently started streaming music and i rather support Tidal because i find my genre of music (Hip Hop, Afro-music, Raggea) on Tidal at this point I'm sure spotify is ahead of them

I think Tidal is doing the same thing, i signed up for Tidal and is a free 3 month trial, so far im liking it.

I don't know about 3 months for free, but I do know they have a $10 for 3 months deal going on. Was going to sign up for that, but then I saw the $1 for 3 months deal Spotify had and chose them.

 

[lokid300s]

Hit me up if you're looking for Beats Music accounts.  Regular is like $9 a/month.....I can do $10.00 for a year.  PM Me.

 

[trynafeelmink]

Also after reading up on the streaming industry just a bit.. Spotify is surely gonna be in some trouble if they don't change their format to better suit working with artist & the companies that own these artist catalogs. Spotify makes a majority of their money from add revenue since they offer a free tier which 80% of their base uses. Due to that add revenue they are able to have lower prices compared to Tidal/Beats, however the head of UMG has been pushing for MONTHS for Spotify to get rid of that free tier while spotify has refused.

Problem is UMG & Spotify licensing agreement ends this up coming summer... If UMG feels the need they could pull ALL of their music off spotify and exclusively stream with Tidal/Beats which are both more valuable to the Labels because they pay out more money.

So while Spotify may be cheaper for now i wouldn't be surprised if they are forced too switch there business model to something in the realm of their other direct competitors.

 

[tekthemaestro]

This is literally what Tidal is to an extent. Except they don't have Physicals and based on the information coming that is more & more of a dying breed. Streaming Is where the music Business is headed & Major artist grouping together and owning actual equity in a company is exactly why you've seen such a"heightened" push in the media to try and tear this business model down.

Essentially if you can now be independent and still grab a distribution deal while keeping a large portion of your royalties... These conglomerates literally are offering you no incentive to sign under them.

Because if streaming grows at the rate their expecting these artist are due to make BIG money that they don't have to share with the likes of WB/Universal.

..... did i just see you say that if streaming grows at the rate they're expecting... artists will make big money? wtf? do u understand how much artists make from radio? streaming AT ITS BEST pays a fraction of that, which already relatively isn't that much. i thought we went over this already. big money? from .000067 cents per stream? lol. you are literally a groupie for this.

Also after reading up on the streaming industry just a bit.. Spotify is surely gonna be in some trouble if they don't change their format to better suit working with artist & the companies that own these artist catalogs. Spotify makes a majority of their money from add revenue since they offer a free tier which 80% of their base uses. Due to that add revenue they are able to have lower prices compared to Tidal/Beats, however the head of UMG has been pushing for MONTHS for Spotify to get rid of that free tier while spotify has refused.

Problem is UMG & Spotify licensing agreement ends this up coming summer... If UMG feels the need they could pull ALL of their music off spotify and exclusively stream with Tidal/Beats which are both more valuable to the Labels because they pay out more money.

So while Spotify may be cheaper for now i wouldn't be surprised if they are forced too switch there business model to something in the realm of their other direct competitors.

and then u spew more nonsense. almost every single aspect of entertainment makes more off ads than anything else. the purpose of radio IS advertising. the purpose of streaming is advertising. tv? advertising. movies are probably the only thing that dont make more off ads than the actual finished product... except movies are usually funded by their advertising anyways.

with that being said.... u think that umg would leave spotify.. who have the lion's share of the market... for beats and tidal? ...THINK about what you're saying. would you rather have 50% of a dollar? or 100% of 25 cents? im pretty sure umg will stay with the big fish

 
That's exactly what I did. I don't care what color owns what streaming app. All I care about is saving money. $1 for 3 months is way too good to pass up.

theyre bringing color into this to try to have some sort of ground to stand on. ignore it. cuz by the way they talk, they sound like they think jay z really owns tidal.

They've ran that deal before tidal

My mans getting life trying to slander this black man

yup this is totally about race. im just tryna keep a brother down. i hate to see the black man win. everything-but-black power! anything else?

 

[trynafeelmink]

..... did i just see you say that if streaming grows at the rate they're expecting... artists will make big money? wtf? do u understand how much artists make from radio? streaming AT ITS BEST pays a fraction of that, which already relatively isn't that much. i thought we went over this already. big money? from .000067 cents per stream? lol. you are literally a groupie for this.




and then u spew more nonsense. almost every single aspect of entertainment makes more off ads than anything else. the purpose of radio IS advertising. the purpose of streaming is advertising. tv? advertising. movies are probably the only thing that dont make more off ads than the actual finished product... except movies are usually funded by their advertising anyways.

with that being said.... u think that umg would leave spotify.. who have the lion's share of the market... for beats and tidal? ...THINK about what you're saying. would you rather have 50% of a dollar? or 100% of 25 cents? im pretty sure umg will stay with the big fish


theyre bringing color into this to try to have some sort of ground to stand on. ignore it. cuz by the way they talk, they sound like they think jay z really owns tidal.

yup this is totally about race. im just tryna keep a brother down. i hate to see the black man win. everything-but-black power! anything else?

1) First off you've proclaimed how you shouldn't have a conversation with me several times in this thread yet you keep hopping on my joint.
2) I clearly stated the artist on Tidal (Who Own equity you moron) stand to make a huge amount of money based off the way the industry is projected to grow over the next few years.
3) Ive already specifically threw these numbers out here before Directly for You to see but let's do it again. You say artist get paid .000067

Pandora Says : .0013
Spotify Says: .006-.008
Tidal is said to have a larger payout then both.. for the sake of argument lets say .009

So lets say an Artist has a song streamed 5,000,000 on each platform

Pandora = a payout of 6'500
Spotify = a payout of 30,000 to 40,000
Tidal = a payout of 45'000

After this depending on how your deal is split you will see a percentage so if you can't determine just how large of a difference .009 is financially from .000067 then maybe the music biz shouldn't be your thing.

4) Why the **** would UMG care about how much Spotify is making off of Advertisements when they aren't getting cut in on the money.. They get their pay off royalties.. By free streaming of a UMG artist... you now give the consumer an option to forego the digital purchase (which UMG would see the majority of) & you give them the option to forego the subscription money (which now gives UMG a much smaller pot to collect their royalties from) but if that is enough common sense for you how about you listen to the Head of UMG Lucian Grainge speaking on Spotify & Tidal respectively..

- ON Spotify/ Add Based companies

“We want to accelerate paid subscriptions and raise income and compensation for everyone…Ad-funded on demand will not sustain us or the entire ecosystem.”

- On Tidal

“As a strong supporter of innovation and entrepreneurship in the streaming and subscription space, we welcome the new launch of Tidal. Led by the incomparable Jay Z, one of the most accomplished artists and music entrepreneurs of our generation, Tidal embodies the ascendance of artists’ voice in these services. Tidal seeks to make itself a destination for music fans by offering an holistic approach – providing a broader range of artist-related information and content. The entry of a new player in this space with a business model that will help to spur innovation and better experiences for fans – in turn, grows the ecosystem, nurturing talent and building repertoire.”

So yeahhhh tell me again how Free Ad based revenue benefits the artist or the Labels.. It helps SPOTIFY and spotify only..

5) And now to diffuse your last poorly articulated and childish argument. Yo do realize that UMG controls 40% of the music marketshare right?....If they decide that they are withholding the catalogs of their music... Who the **** is gonna pay a monthly premium to have a service that is missing 40% of all music (Especially considering UMG has many of the biggest Superstars of today).Spotify needs UMG not the other way around they pull their deal Spotify sinks.

So with that said live up to your repeated attempts in this post.. dont engage me in anything anymore and stop talkin out your ***.

 

[mr marcus]

They've ran that deal before tidal

My mans getting life trying to slander this black man

yup this is totally about race. im just tryna keep a brother down. i hate to see the black man win. everything-but-black power! anything else?

aight...not gonna work ya blood pressure up big boy

Gotta be sensitive with my words when I address obese brothers. It's not all social issues because I'm about health awareness also 

 

[victor page]

 

[superblytrife]

 

They've ran that deal before tidal

My mans getting life trying to slander this black man

yup this is totally about race. im just tryna keep a brother down. i hate to see the black man win. everything-but-black power! anything else?

aight...not gonna work ya blood pressure up big boy

Gotta be sensitive with my words when I address obese brothers. It's not all social issues because I'm about health awareness also 

When all else fails, bust out the personal attacks.  Good job.  

 

[rillo561]

I hear Dame always talking about making movies in all these videos, but where are these movies?

 

[mr marcus]

Call it what you want but when someone bashing a ***** just to bash him then I'm not wasting my time with discussion. If Macklemore dropped tidal that **** wouldn't be worked up as much.

Have no energy for *****

 

[str8drop]

4) Why the **** would UMG care about how much Spotify is making off of Advertisements when they aren't getting cut in on the money.. They get their pay off royalties.. By free streaming of a UMG artist... you now give the consumer an option to forego the digital purchase (which UMG would see the majority of) & you give them the option to forego the subscription money (which now gives UMG a much smaller pot to collect their royalties from) but if that is enough common sense for you how about you listen to the Head of UMG Lucian Grainge speaking on Spotify & Tidal respectively..

 

At this point you just in here talking with nothing to back what you're saying and you are wrong as hell 

 

The Verge got ahold of a contract Spotify had with Sony, these labels care about the ad sales because they ARE being cut in on the money as those are included in their generated revenue calculations. You really think these labels aren't out to get as much of the pie as they can?

They care so much that there's clauses in the contract delegating how much Spotify could keep "off the top" from the ad rev generated without it counting against revenue

One of the murkiest clauses in the contract is hidden under the contractual definition of gross revenues in section 1(vi)(bb). The clause states that gross revenue includes "actual out-of-pocket costs paid to unaffiliated third parties for ad sales commissions (subject to a maximum overall deduction of 15 percent "off the top" of such advertising revenues)." In English, that means that Spotify can keep up to 15 percent of all advertising revenues generated by the ad sales that are handled by third parties hired by the streaming service.

They had to give Sony $9 million worth of ad space for free during the 3 year deal

In addition to the advance Spotify must pay Sony Music, it is also required to give the music label free ad space on its service. The "credit for advertising inventory" clause mentioned in section 14(a) grants Sony Music a total of $9 million in ad space ($2.5 million in the first year, and $3 million and $3.5 million in the subsequent years). And the free ads don’t come at market rates either — they must be given to Sony Music at a heavily discounted rate.

Then they had to set aside $15 million in ad space at a discounted rate for Sony to buy, if they wanted to

  Section 14(a) also requires Spotify to make an additional $15 million of ads at a discounted rate available for purchase by Sony Music. Sony Music could in effect sell the free ads it has been given for millions, and turn around to buy more ads at a reduced price.

On top of that Spotify had to come off of some of their unsold ad space for free to give to Sony

 But that’s not all — in section 14(p), the contract states Spotify must offer a portion of its available unsold ad inventory to Sony Music for free to allow the label to promote its own artists.

So let me ask this again, if we're going at corporations, why are the labels immune when its clear that's who all the money going to?  

On top of the advances up front ($42.5 million to Sony over 3 years in this case, $0 of which goes to the artist), they get 60% of the royalties and free/substantially discounted ad space +  a share of the ad rev.

Jay got _'s throwing majority of the blame at the wrong people, IMO it should be **** all these corporations but I think we know why that's not realistic in this scenario 

 

The actual royalty payout structure is very complex, it's detailed in the article:

http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/19/8621581/sony-music-spotify-contract

 

[trynafeelmink]

Okay so i was misinformed on the labels getting a piece of the advertising money, However it still remains that the portion of money they get from paid purchases and royalties from subscriptions>>>>>>>> There small cut of Advertisement money.

Also This is Sony's deal which under no circumstance means that UMG is getting the same kind of cuts or specifics. However lets say they do have similar contract specifics... 45 Million over 3 years isn't nearly the amount that they are losing due to Spotify & their free add service.

If that wasn't the case i highly doubt you would have the CEO of UMG rallying to cut down add based revenue in Favor of subscription based revenue.

Who in here has argued that that Labels aren't ridiculously greedy and aren't raping artist too. That was never in question. However many of these artist have been signed to deals from years ago that have them locked in to long contracts or bad publishing deals. That old generation of artist can't really do much to change that at this point, so they are trying to maximize the payouts from The streaming companies to lighten the hit they are going to take from the Major labels.

Now this new influx of artist, growing up in a digital age where a major isn't really needed... This is where Tidal helps from the small scale... and why i think they have a chance to really grow into a power in the future.

If you are an indie artist and haven't signed to a major label Tidal gives you a chance for Digital distribution and promotion without having to give up nearly as much as these majors have been forcing artist to give up for decades. Before you literally had no choice but to take these deals from major distributors because an independent artist wouldn't have the capital to print up cases, CD's, distribute copies to storefronts etc etc.

Now because of Digital releases and social media a song could literally be put on sale/streamed in the matter of minutes Aka vastly cutting the importance of signing with Majors.

So "reportedly" Tidal is giving out a higher payout, As of now it's great for the labels because they still have most artist locked into deals where they take the Majority. Now i'm assuming those Higher payouts would remain even if an artist is truly 100% Independent. Through Tidal they would have an opportunity to distribute their music Directly through this platform and keep a much more significant piece of their royalties as opposed to the artist who came up in the Era's before them. Surely Tidal will be taking a cut but i highly doubt it will be to the extent that Majors take from artist these days.

 

[superblytrife]

Call it what you want but when someone bashing a ***** just to bash him then I'm not wasting my time with discussion. If Macklemore dropped tidal that **** wouldn't be worked up as much.

Have no energy for *****

Flawless sidestep. No surprise there.

 

[slicknick951]

Yall type too much

I doubt the other person is even reading half of what your saying

 

[tekthemaestro]

 
aight...not gonna work ya blood pressure up big boy

Gotta be sensitive with my words when I address obese brothers. It's not all social issues because I'm about health awareness also 

*gasp* no you didnt! you called me obese? present hands immediately. fisticuffs at high noon 

 you're too lame. you using those 10th grade insults. *euro-steps that weak *** comeback* good try good effort..

 
At this point you just in here talking with nothing to back what you're saying and you are wrong as hell 

 

The Verge got ahold of a contract Spotify had with Sony, these labels care about the ad sales because they ARE  being cut in on the money as those are included in their generated revenue calculations. You really think these labels aren't out to get as much of the pie as they can?

They care so much that there's clauses in the contract delegating how much Spotify could keep "off the top" from the ad rev generated without it counting against revenue

They had to give Sony $9 million worth of ad space for free during the 3 year deal

[.......]

http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/19/8621581/sony-music-spotify-contract

THANK YOU. i was just about to type up back to this fool ty but u nailed it already. dude just talk to talk with no facts. talking bout spotify don't pay out a percentage of ad revenue to the labels. 

Okay so i was misinformed on the labels getting a piece of the advertising money, However it still remains that the portion of money they get from paid purchases and royalties from subscriptions>>>>>>>> There small cut of Advertisement money.

Also This is Sony's deal which under no circumstance means that UMG is getting the same kind of cuts or specifics. However lets say they do have similar contract specifics... 45 Million over 3 years isn't nearly the amount that they are losing due to Spotify & their free add service.

If that wasn't the case i highly doubt you would have the CEO of UMG rallying to cut down add based revenue in Favor of subscription based revenue.

Who in here has argued that that Labels aren't ridiculously greedy and aren't raping artist too. That was never in question. However many of these artist have been signed to deals from years ago that have them locked in to long contracts or bad publishing deals. That old generation of artist can't really do much to change that at this point, so they are trying to maximize the payouts from The streaming companies to lighten the hit they are going to take from the Major labels.

Now this new influx of artist, growing up in a digital age where a major isn't really needed... This is where Tidal helps from the small scale... and why i think they have a chance to really grow into a power in the future.

If you are an indie artist and haven't signed to a major label Tidal gives you a chance for Digital distribution and promotion without having to give up nearly as much as these majors have been forcing artist to give up for decades. Before you literally had no choice but to take these deals from major distributors because an independent artist wouldn't have the capital to print up cases, CD's, distribute copies to storefronts etc etc.

Now because of Digital releases and social media a song could literally be put on sale/streamed in the matter of minutes Aka vastly cutting the importance of signing with Majors.

So "reportedly" Tidal is giving out a higher payout, As of now it's great for the labels because they still have most artist locked into deals where they take the Majority. Now i'm assuming those Higher payouts would remain even if an artist is truly 100% Independent. Through Tidal they would have an opportunity to distribute their music Directly through this platform and keep a much more significant piece of their royalties as opposed to the artist who came up in the Era's before them. Surely Tidal will be taking a cut but i highly doubt it will be to the extent that Majors take from artist these days.

NAH dont move the goal posts. you JUST tried to turn up on me and you were wrong the entire way. and when i threw out a random number to represent just how small a payout each stream is getting u tried to puff out your chest and googled some reported numbers. then str8drop came in and caved your chest in and you talking bout "ok so i was misinformed" NAH! you've been wrong EVERYWHERE in this thread. theres even wrong in this very post. you go off what you think things should be, not wht they really are. bottom line, you a groupie for tidal. you somehow geeked up on online streaming thinking artists seeing big money from it. even with the numbers you quoted, 45,000? Thats 2-5 shows for ANY mainstream artist! if you're A-list (which is who we've been talking about here) then thats anywhere from half a show to 2 shows. tops. versus 5 MILLION streams? cmonnnnnnnnn

"If you are an indie artist and haven't signed to a major label Tidal gives you a chance for Digital distribution" followed by "Now because of Digital releases and social media a song could literally be put on sale/streamed in the matter of minutes "

like... you're contradicting yourself here too. tidal gives u a chance for digital distribution, but at the ame time cuz of the digital outlets and social media u can drop a song in seconds. so what do i need tidal for? a "chance" at distributing my music online? tidal gonna advertise my new online single for me for free or something? Cuz im pretty sure artists dont say "hey support my new single...go stream it on spotify/tidal/pandora" its "go support me on itunes" like u said, digital releases and social media mean a song goes up in a matter of minutes, and its directly from the artist. 

 

[trynafeelmink]

U just used someone posting an article, proclaimed my chest was caved in and celebrated with wild !!! Points like your team won a championship but I'm a groupie [emoji]128514[/emoji]

Also we are gonna ignore the FACT that the president of UMG clearly stated that add based Revenue isn't a sustainable model & that both Artist & Labels will clearly make more money off of subscription based services.. Instead of listening to that you would rather listen to an article from a third party website... Okay

The only thing that was wrong in my post was thinking the record labels didn't get a percentage of the add money..

Your claiming I'm making assumptions & in the same sentence assume that artist don't care about a couple thousand of dollars because they can make that from shows.. Tell me how many shows writers book per month? How many T-shirts composers are selling to their "fans"

What kind of fool do u have to be to assume artist willingly give up revenue because they can make it from touring... Why wouldn't you do both ?

Because you can make money off ITunes you can't also want to make the money off of streaming? WTF are u talkin about b

As Far as promoting new artist Tidal has a section specifically for this... but that's besides the point.

Artist are literally blowing up from a few people with social media accounts reposting their songs... These artist then get attention, build a following, sell the Single on ITunes & get the single to streaming services

All of this can be done without the help of any Major... Which is why digital distribution has grown so large

So once again do what u cried about post after post & leave the thread and stop engaging me

 

[delete]

Jay-Z& Nicki Minaj got a track called F*** You Pitchin dropping in 3days

View media item 1544786

 

[rillo561]

Who they dissin' now?

 

[tekthemaestro]

track about pitching things? very interested. nicki? never interested. jay z going hard at other corps and businesses now tho. im sure it has nothin to do with tidal like yall said about him mentioning the black culture issues at the concert. but let me stop lol.

U just used someone posting an article, proclaimed my chest was caved in and celebrated with wild !!! Points like your team won a championship but I'm a groupie [emoji]128514[/emoji]

Also we are gonna ignore the FACT that the president of UMG clearly stated that add based Revenue isn't a sustainable model & that both Artist & Labels will clearly make more money off of subscription based services.. Instead of listening to that you would rather listen to an article from a third party website... Okay

The only thing that was wrong in my post was thinking the record labels didn't get a percentage of the add money..

Your claiming I'm making assumptions & in the same sentence assume that artist don't care about a couple thousand of dollars because they can make that from shows.. Tell me how many shows writers book per month? How many T-shirts composers are selling to their "fans"

What kind of fool do u have to be to assume artist willingly give up revenue because they can make it from touring... Why wouldn't you do both ?

Because you can make money off ITunes you can't also want to make the money off of streaming? WTF are u talkin about b

As Far as promoting new artist Tidal has a section specifically for this... but that's besides the point.

Artist are literally blowing up from a few people with social media accounts reposting their songs... These artist then get attention, build a following, sell the Single on ITunes & get the single to streaming services

All of this can be done without the help of any Major... Which is why digital distribution has grown so large

So once again do what u cried about post after post & leave the thread and stop engaging me

2 exclamation points. two. and thats wild to you huh. i NEVER said artists don't care about that money. I said YOU are wrong thinking artists see big money from it, which you are. so....putting an artist in the new artist section counts as advertisin for them? digital distribution =/= streaming. so it is IRRELEVANT to the convo. unless artists start selling their albums on tidal and jay is ante'ing up the majority of the proceeds to them... what are you talking about? you dont even have goal posts anymore. you straight up switched and started playing a new sport. ya rambling. and ur constant "stop engaging me" makes it sound like i hurt your feelings for real. did i? if so im sorry man i didn't mean to. need a hug? wanna be e-bros? 

 

[trynafeelmink]

From one of Tidal's shareholders directly to you

 

[tekthemaestro]

From one of Tidal's shareholders directly to you

oh. ive met him a couple times and been in the studio with him for his first album. very cool dude. love that song. me and you are e-bros now tho. you dont have to hurt anymore.

 

[georgescorewell]

 

NC...

 

[dmvisrnb]

How much do yall even listen to Jay? He's been talking black empowerment since the interview at the end of 22 Twos on Reasonable Doubt. He's been through every progression in his career. When you are an artist/writer, you have to pick a new platform EVERY time you drop. You have to release material that reflects where you are at that moment, to stay fresh. Artists who can't do that quickly fizzle out and they lose relevance. Clearly, as a black entrepreneur that is turning 45, THESE are the issues that are affecting him, and this is his new platform at his new advanced age. At one point it was Cristal and copping the 4.6 and your ish don't even got leathers. In 2015, he's a father and a business man, and attempting to become the first rapper to really be able to tour the world at 50+ and sell out stadiums on their own and be a rock star as far as hip hop is concerned. It's truly baffling how he is being criticized for his artistry when none of your favorite artists are doing ANYTHING noteworthy for anyone.

I was irritated as hell by the TIDAL press conference and I was annoyed by them having Madonna and Nicki try and sell me on "bringing it back to being all about the music" which is insulting to my intelligence. I also hated the price and as a result, I refused to purchase the product. I was against it.

Now, they are making some cool additions to the service and showcasing some of its potential for the future. Doesn't mean I'm going to purchase it, but it also doesn't mean I should sit here hating and doom it to failure for no reason.

Bottom line...there is an inordinate amount of hate thrown toward this endeavor, and it's clearly because Jay is in the driver's seat. When you always win, people are programmed to hate you. No one really wants someone successful to have more success. I see the majority of human beings for what they are, and this is just what it boils down to

 

[tekthemaestro]

How much do yall even listen to Jay?

He's been talking black empowerment since the interview at the end of 22 Twos on Reasonable Doubt. He's been through every progression in his career. When you are an artist/writer, you have to pick a new platform EVERY time you drop. You have to release material that reflects where you are at that moment, to stay fresh. Artists who can't do that quickly fizzle out and they lose relevance. Clearly, as a black entrepreneur that is turning 45, THESE are the issues that are affecting him, and this is his new platform at his new advanced age. At one point it was Cristal and copping the 4.6 and your ish don't even got leathers. In 2015, he's a father and a business man, and attempting to become the first rapper to really be able to tour the world at 50+ and sell out stadiums on their own and be a rock star as far as hip hop is concerned. It's truly baffling how he is being criticized for his artistry when none of your favorite artists are doing ANYTHING noteworthy for anyone.

I was irritated as hell by the TIDAL press conference and I was annoyed by them having Madonna and Nicki try and sell me on "bringing it back to being all about the music" which is insulting to my intelligence. I also hated the price and as a result, I refused to purchase the product. I was against it.

Now, they are making some cool additions to the service and showcasing some of its potential for the future. Doesn't mean I'm going to purchase it, but it also doesn't mean I should sit here hating and doom it to failure for no reason.

Bottom line...there is an inordinate amount of hate thrown toward this endeavor, and it's clearly because Jay is in the driver's seat. When you always win, people are programmed to hate you. No one really wants someone successful to have more success. I see the majority of human beings for what they are, and this is just what it boils down to