http://www.audiostream.com/content/qobuz-enters-equivalent-chapter-11-protection
It looks like they need a big cash injection from somewhere.
.
It looks like they need a big cash injection from somewhere.
.
Are Qobuz in difficulties?
- Thread starter gowiththeflow
- Start date
nopiano
Well-known member
That is troubling news as I find it most aligned to my taste both in content and layout. I even like the slightly eccentric ?French content, and although pricy it is the best service I've heard.
Sad that Spotify and others offer so much 'free'.
Sad that Spotify and others offer so much 'free'.
MrReaper182
Well-known member
That's is sad news. The trouble is that most young people think music should be free and paying anything (even money to stream music) is a rip off. Even What hi-fi said 20 quid was a lot to pay for this service but I don't think it was when you consider all the music you were geting in high-res.
If that is true it would just further underline what a niche market quality hifi/playback is. The majority of people are happy with MP3.
I include myself in that somewhat as Spotify Premium fullfills most of my needs for browsing (and enjoying). What I want in lossless I usually buy and rip but I quite happily listen to Spotify's Ogg Vorbis 320kbps for extended periods.
Would I pay £20 if they (Spotify) would offer lossless? Maybe but my guess is that the vast majority of people would subscribe to the cheapest (or free) service.
regards
I include myself in that somewhat as Spotify Premium fullfills most of my needs for browsing (and enjoying). What I want in lossless I usually buy and rip but I quite happily listen to Spotify's Ogg Vorbis 320kbps for extended periods.
Would I pay £20 if they (Spotify) would offer lossless? Maybe but my guess is that the vast majority of people would subscribe to the cheapest (or free) service.
regards
matt49
Well-known member
MrReaper182 said:
I think you're absolutely right.
I’d be interested to know how much of a loss Qobuz is currently making. I suspect it’s no less unprofitable than Spotify. Its immediate problem isn’t so much unprofitability as the lack of big investment.
No-one expected Qobuz to be profitable yet. Unprofitability just comes with the territory. Not one company has yet managed to make a viable business model out of music streaming. Spotify’s been at it for six years now, and its losses just grow year on year. Spotify’s problem is that advertising and subscription revenues don’t cover rights payments to labels. There’s no obvious solution to this: advertisers don’t see sufficient value in Spotify, and subscriptions can’t increase without driving subscribers back to free streaming or piracy.
It’s hard to see how Qobuz will never make money: it’s bedevilled by the same problem as Spotify, namely the attitude of many people who’ve grown up in the internet age: “why should I pay for this, when I get find it for free on the web?” The music industry still hasn’t recovered from the advent of internet music piracy.
A friends two daughters, one at uni, just laugh at the suggestion of paying for music through spotify or any other, similar subscription services ...
regards
regards
It's only the "free service" that's holding Spotify up at the moment, as that's the only place advertising revenue is being attracted to.
Not enough people will make the move to a subscription to make it a viable service either, so Spotify are caught between a rock and a hard place and it's very difficult to see how they can ever be viable in the long run. When the investors lose patience and accept this, i guess several outcomes are possible, including closure.
Not enough people will make the move to a subscription to make it a viable service either, so Spotify are caught between a rock and a hard place and it's very difficult to see how they can ever be viable in the long run. When the investors lose patience and accept this, i guess several outcomes are possible, including closure.
chebby
Well-known member
I've never heard it mentioned (nor read about it) outside of this website.
I have heard iPlayer, iTunes, YouTube, Spotify all being mentioned by people in real life (family, friends, colleagues and even strangers).
The thing about being a high quality, niche product (or service) is that it needs to be expensive to make up for not being well-known / widespread. Maybe it simply wasn't expensive enough for it's target market of audiophiles. (We all know what they will pay even for a humble mains plug or a 200g limited edition LP or a cable.)
I have heard iPlayer, iTunes, YouTube, Spotify all being mentioned by people in real life (family, friends, colleagues and even strangers).
The thing about being a high quality, niche product (or service) is that it needs to be expensive to make up for not being well-known / widespread. Maybe it simply wasn't expensive enough for it's target market of audiophiles. (We all know what they will pay even for a humble mains plug or a 200g limited edition LP or a cable.)
matthewpiano
Well-known member
I like Qobuz and I subscribe to the Hi-Fi option as well as Spotify Premium, but I don't think any of the streaming services are particularly viable long-term. This is one of the reasons I would never rely on any such service for my music needs. To me, they are great for trying things out before buying them, but I want the guarantee that when I want to listen to a particular album or recording of a work it is available to me and the streaming services can't 100% offer this.
As others have mentioned, the problem here is that a large swathe of the audience simply don't value music enough to pay for it. They wrongly have a sense of being entitled to download and share music without paying for it and the Spotify model is as guilty of sustaining this culture with its free service as Napster and the torrenting sites were of breeding the 'free download' culture in the first place. I'm no Apple fan, but at least iTunes encourages people to buy music rather than offering any sort of free lunch.
Quite simply the music industry needs to find ways of changing attitudes. Until it does it will continue to contract. In some ways this will have less of an impact on specialist music than it once would have done. Many bands now have a much more direct relationship to their audience and also, thanks to huge leaps forward in recording technology, are able to release their work themselves. Likewise, orchestras have developed their own labels and smaller more specialist record labels (such as Champs Hill Records) are producing some wonderful recordings which don't need to sell the massive numbers that the majors were looking for in years gone by. However, the niche market will probably become increasingly niche and without the mass input of mainstream tastes nobody will be interested in moving audio quality and technology, or the infrastructure for its delivery, forward. In the end, everybody who loves music will lose out.
As others have mentioned, the problem here is that a large swathe of the audience simply don't value music enough to pay for it. They wrongly have a sense of being entitled to download and share music without paying for it and the Spotify model is as guilty of sustaining this culture with its free service as Napster and the torrenting sites were of breeding the 'free download' culture in the first place. I'm no Apple fan, but at least iTunes encourages people to buy music rather than offering any sort of free lunch.
Quite simply the music industry needs to find ways of changing attitudes. Until it does it will continue to contract. In some ways this will have less of an impact on specialist music than it once would have done. Many bands now have a much more direct relationship to their audience and also, thanks to huge leaps forward in recording technology, are able to release their work themselves. Likewise, orchestras have developed their own labels and smaller more specialist record labels (such as Champs Hill Records) are producing some wonderful recordings which don't need to sell the massive numbers that the majors were looking for in years gone by. However, the niche market will probably become increasingly niche and without the mass input of mainstream tastes nobody will be interested in moving audio quality and technology, or the infrastructure for its delivery, forward. In the end, everybody who loves music will lose out.
matt49
Well-known member
iTunes has been responsible for one of the biggest changes in the (pop) music industry: the move from CD/album sales to downloads of individual tracks. This hit the industry very hard, as it could no longer rely on selling its high-value product. The industry is still locked into the old model though: a belief that demand for music is inelastic and so there's no point in pushing prices right down in order to grow demand.
This explains the music industry's attitude to Spotify, Qobuz et al. The industry makes Spotify charge $120 p.a. for its premium streaming service, which is twice the annual average spend of a US music buyer. In other words, the entry price for premium streaming is way beyond what most consumers would spend in a year. That is a commercial dead-end.
Qobuz's classical and jazz services suffer from a rather different problem: the demographic conveyor belt. The audience for classical music is getting old and shrinking. It won't disappear altogether, of course, but there's quite a big realignment happening in the classical music business. The great age of popular classical music, when concert halls were full of people from a range of social groups and ages, is over. We're returning to an age of patronage, much like the eighteenth century, only this time the patrons are banks.
This explains the music industry's attitude to Spotify, Qobuz et al. The industry makes Spotify charge $120 p.a. for its premium streaming service, which is twice the annual average spend of a US music buyer. In other words, the entry price for premium streaming is way beyond what most consumers would spend in a year. That is a commercial dead-end.
Qobuz's classical and jazz services suffer from a rather different problem: the demographic conveyor belt. The audience for classical music is getting old and shrinking. It won't disappear altogether, of course, but there's quite a big realignment happening in the classical music business. The great age of popular classical music, when concert halls were full of people from a range of social groups and ages, is over. We're returning to an age of patronage, much like the eighteenth century, only this time the patrons are banks.
I pay the £10 for my 14 year old daughter for Spotify, all 3 of my grown up & left home children pay a tenner each for Spotify & they feel it good value & wont consider the 'free' ad version, though they all have hi-fi ranging from Naim to Onkyo, my two sons would pay more for lossles from our conversations.
MrReaper182
Well-known member
matt49 said:
Most young people hear a lot of classical music when playing Role-playing video games, the composer Inon Zur springs to mind. Most of those people find they like the classical music they hear in the role-playing video game they are playing but never dig deeper into the world of classical music which is a huge shame because if they did they would find they would probably like it.
MrReaper182
Well-known member
gowiththeflow said:
Your son would not like it if he was a musician and put in a lot of hard of hard work into making an album then everyone brought it for free. What ever your son does or is planning on doing for a living, the people's music he has stole should be able to hire him for free. I bet he would not like that.
chebby
Well-known member
Clare Newsome said:
Did you get as much 'content' as from £50 of CDs that you could easily rip to the same quality?
Will those downloads remain as playable files if Qobuz goes under and their software becomes unavailable?
I still prefer to buy the CDs, rip them and store them away. As far as I can see Quboz offer 16 bit 44.1kHz CD quality but do they offer the sheer choice available to the CD buyer?
I wasn't buying CD-quality albums, but 24bit downloads - they'lll be transferred to my NAS drive, which is mirrored and regularly backed up. (I'm no high-res zealot: these are all titles that are geniune remasters with great reviews).
They don't need any special software to run - i choose to download them as raw WAV files, which I can then convert to FLAC etc as needed, depending on what system i'm planning to enjoy them on.
With the 50% launch discount code plus Qobuz bundle deals, i've got 13 remastered albums for £48.88 - a nice payday treat!
Otherwise, yes, I buy physical CDs and rip them (then store them in my attic).
They don't need any special software to run - i choose to download them as raw WAV files, which I can then convert to FLAC etc as needed, depending on what system i'm planning to enjoy them on.
With the 50% launch discount code plus Qobuz bundle deals, i've got 13 remastered albums for £48.88 - a nice payday treat!
Otherwise, yes, I buy physical CDs and rip them (then store them in my attic).
drummerman said:
My daughter is using the Spotify Premium service with the 50% student discount (£5 p.m.). She wouldn't consider paying £10 p.m. for it though.
My son (early 20's) has thousands of tracks in both CD quality (rips and downloads) and a mix of mp3/AAC. He's only ever paid for 2 CD's in his life and probably only a couple of dozen downloaded tracks. Everything else he paid nothing for and has no intention of paying for any music if he can help it.
.
My son has no overt (or otherwise) intention to cheat or steal the music. It's the sense of entitlement and having grown up with content, of all sorts, freely coming via the internet for no cost. The mentality is that it's all out there for free, so it seems crazy to pay for it.
As he says, "nobody pays for music". It seems very few, if any, of his friends and peer group pay for much of their music, bar a few CD's or downloads. They just share files and rips of their own CD's, or freely download from the web. No subversive illegal download sites involved either, or so I'm told.
e.g. He goes over to see his mate across the road, hears some new stuff he likes and comes home with a USB stick stuffed with AAC's and FLAC files. His G/friend gets a new CD and he rips a copy (as does her other friends and family, apparently).
Personally I'm happy to pay a subscription for streaming, as I use it a lot and and consider it tremendous value for money for what you get (IMHO). It's going to be very hard to convince a big chunk of the younger element in the general population to think likewise.
As he says, "nobody pays for music". It seems very few, if any, of his friends and peer group pay for much of their music, bar a few CD's or downloads. They just share files and rips of their own CD's, or freely download from the web. No subversive illegal download sites involved either, or so I'm told.
e.g. He goes over to see his mate across the road, hears some new stuff he likes and comes home with a USB stick stuffed with AAC's and FLAC files. His G/friend gets a new CD and he rips a copy (as does her other friends and family, apparently).
Personally I'm happy to pay a subscription for streaming, as I use it a lot and and consider it tremendous value for money for what you get (IMHO). It's going to be very hard to convince a big chunk of the younger element in the general population to think likewise.
matt49
Well-known member
EDITED I was going to say something about ignorance being no defence, "victimless crimes", reduced tax revenues, the NHS and so on, but I can't be arsed.
It's only a hifi forum ...
It's only a hifi forum ...
gowiththeflow said:
He does, you spent the rest of the post explaining how he does it. But the sad fact is he's not alone, in fact he's part of the majority. But don't mistake me for someone who actually gives a damn. Not too long ago we had a chap on here who openly admitted nearly all his music and films were one way or another illegal copies, and he couldn't see any problems with it. When I told him he was a thief, basically most people who commented said I was a self-righteous know it all and to but out. So who am I to tell your son he's wrong.
The bosses at spotify & qobus must go to bed at night praying for that phone call from, apple/Google/microsoft, offering a buy out. as only, as a loss leader arm for an other wise massively profitable company, will any music streaming service be viable.
we should be grateful that we have a back catalogue of 60 years of great popular music to choose from. As we wait for the music industry to recoup their losses & invest in real aritists instead of the stream of corperate cheap sh##e which masquerades as music.
Yep we can winkle out the good stuff with the aid of forum like this one & word of mouth. And although not the be all & end all, music is a deeply intrinsic part of the human condition & as the old song goes 'you never know what you've got till it's gone'
cheers
we should be grateful that we have a back catalogue of 60 years of great popular music to choose from. As we wait for the music industry to recoup their losses & invest in real aritists instead of the stream of corperate cheap sh##e which masquerades as music.
Yep we can winkle out the good stuff with the aid of forum like this one & word of mouth. And although not the be all & end all, music is a deeply intrinsic part of the human condition & as the old song goes 'you never know what you've got till it's gone'
cheers
More details about the Qobuz situation in our news story. Really hope they get through this and find the funding they need.
MrReaper182
Well-known member
I think the problem is they concentrate too much in european countries where the economy is not doing so well at the moment. I just joined Qobuz as well and I live in Indonesia. In order to subscribe to their streaming service, I need to contact Qobuz support and they will make my default country to France. I'm really happy with Qobuz sound quality, but since my default country is now France, then the Qobuz desktop app and Qobuz homepage all will be in French.
IMO they should expand to Asia instead, where Vinyls and CDs are relatively more expensive to buy than in EU or US, and there is huge demand for good quality music. I think only Deezer and Itunes that are already opened proper online shops in south east Asia and both of them don't have high quality streaming services.
IMO they should expand to Asia instead, where Vinyls and CDs are relatively more expensive to buy than in EU or US, and there is huge demand for good quality music. I think only Deezer and Itunes that are already opened proper online shops in south east Asia and both of them don't have high quality streaming services.
nick_p
Well-known member
they need to get their act together with regards making sure their service is available via network steamers from marantz etc and the like and not just leave that to the likes of spotify
should they get their act together then with their top sound quality all should be plain sailing in going forward
its no good starting a business which has not been thought out properly or that leaves the customer unsure of what to do and i sincerely hope that they get in talks with marantz as i have done and move this project forward for the benefit of everyone
should they get their act together then with their top sound quality all should be plain sailing in going forward
its no good starting a business which has not been thought out properly or that leaves the customer unsure of what to do and i sincerely hope that they get in talks with marantz as i have done and move this project forward for the benefit of everyone
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram