In the current day and age, many people choose to consume music via streaming services, Apple Music and Spotify being the leading two in the business. Tidal exists too, but has far less yearly subscribers and tends to get more negative feedback than the other two. This being said, the respective services tend to constantly sign deals with big artists so that their new album can be exclusive to their platform, at least for a while. And I get it. you’ll have a large influx of new users for a month or however long the album is exclusive, but after that, they’re most likely going to cancel their subscription. So is it really worth it to deny users of your competition music from their favorite artists? It would be hard to justify this. in February of 2016, Kanye West released his then Tidal exclusive album, The Life of Pablo. It was met with fairly positive reception, but was only available on Tidal for a painful four months. I used my free trial to listen to the album, so I didn’t lose anything, but what about users who had already used their trial? They couldn’t purchase the album digitally or physically, so their only option was to pay a premium for Tidal or download it illegally, which obviously isn’t the best idea. Most recently, Jay-Z has done the same thing with his Grammy-nominated album, 4:44. This one is permanently exclusive though, so I have no way of ever hearing it, since I use Spotify. Overall, I find this to be a negative business model and only makes me less likely to subscribe to said services as a protest to such actions. I doubt a change will be made, but a guy can hope, right?