Asklemmy

I can't speak much about the money making stuff, but I've read that most music artists make the majority of their income through touring and ticket sales for their live performances at venues, music festivals as well as attending other private events etc - and this goes back to even pre-Spotify days. So Spotify not paying artists well doesn't really make a big difference. In fact, I'd argue that Spotify actually brings artists publicity, much like how mp3 sharing did back in the day, or the radio for that matter. I've discovered many artists via radio back in the day, much like how I discover them today via Spotify's recommendations, and personally, I don't see the issue.

Anyways, as a former audiophile, I've decided to choose convenience over perceived audio quality, so I use Spotify. Mind you, it's not like I don't perceive any difference at all, but the point is, for my day-to-day listening, it makes little difference - especially when most of my listening is in generally noisy environments like at work or during my commute. Also, Spotify streams at 320kbps Ogg Vorbis (on a good connection) - you'd need to have really good ears and gear to actually hear a difference between that and an uncompressed stream. Even then, it's not like it makes a difference if you're say just listening to pop and rock music or something.

It's not like I've completely given up on lossless audio - I do use my audiophile gear when I'm in the mood and want to listen to certain tracks like say some of Pink Floyd atmospheric stuff like in A Momentary Lapse of Reason, or say John Williams, or classical music like Tchaikovsky or Vivaldi, but these are just a small fraction of my listening experience.

So if you are blessed with the ears and gear to actually make out the difference between 320kbps ogg vs FLAC/DSD, AND you listen to the kind of music where it really matters AND you care enough about that difference that it affects your enjoyment - then sure, go for Tidal. Otherwise, there's no point.