This company just embarrassed the whole music industry.
In a bold (and frankly overdue) industry first, French high-resolution streaming service Qobuz has done what no other platform has dared: it revealed exactly how much it pays artists and rights holders per stream.
For artists, rights holders, and even fans who’ve been questioning how streaming dollars actually flow, Qobuz’s move feels like a long-awaited breath of fresh air, and maybe, just maybe, a challenge the rest of the industry can’t ignore for much longer.
Breaking the Industry’s Payment Silence
Streaming payouts have always been something of a black box. Most platforms avoid publishing per-stream rates, citing complex royalty calculations based on market share, geography, subscription tiers, and varied licensing agreements.
Fair enough—but that elusive per-stream figure still serves as a clear, relatable benchmark for artists trying to understand the value of their work on each platform. And that’s exactly what makes Qobuz’s disclosure so noteworthy.
While the company notes that payout structures vary across contracts and regions, it called this disclosure a step toward greater transparency.
So how does that stack up?
According to 2024 data from music investment firm Duetti, average per-stream payouts for master recordings were far lower across the board:
- Amazon Music: $0.0088
- TIDAL: $0.0068
- Apple Music: $0.0062
- YouTube Music: $0.0048
- Spotify: Around $0.003
Factor in publishing—typically 20% of total royalty costs—and Qobuz’s recorded music payout lands at nearly four and a half times the industry average.
Spotify, responding to the Duetti report, defended its approach, saying that per-stream calculations are “out of step with how the industry operates.” The company emphasized that it focuses on maximizing engagement and converting listeners into paid users, noting, “We are proud to be the leader in total payouts.”
The Business Model Behind Higher Payouts
Qobuz’s above-average royalty rate isn’t a fluke—it’s baked into a business model that’s intentionally different from its larger competitors.
For starters, there’s no free tier. Every listener is a paying subscriber, which avoids the diluted royalties typically associated with ad-supported streams. That alone gives Qobuz a higher baseline revenue to work with.
Then there’s pricing. In the U.S., a standard Qobuz subscription costs $12.99 per month or $129.99 annually. In France, users pay €14.99/month (about $16.35)—roughly 34% more than what Spotify charges in that market.
Across all territories, Qobuz reports an average revenue per user (ARPU) of $121.13 annually. That’s more than five times the estimated industry average of $22.38, and nearly double Spotify Premium’s $61.
So, what do listeners get for that higher price tag?
- Uncompressed, high-resolution audio—a standout for audiophiles.
- Curated editorial content with a focus on underrepresented genres like jazz, classical, and world music.
- A product designed to prioritize quality over quantity—not just feeding you more of what you heard last week.
Geography is another key factor. Qobuz operates in 26 countries, including music-centric markets like the U.S., U.K., Germany, and Japan—places where users are more likely to pay for music.
In short: Qobuz knows its audience—and it’s betting that a smaller, more dedicated listener base can fund a more artist-friendly model.
Setting a New Transparency Benchmark
With this disclosure, Qobuz isn’t just raising the bar on payouts—it’s positioning itself as an outlier in a landscape known for opacity. It’s not just about lossless audio or curated playlists; it’s about redefining what ethical streaming could look like.
Sure, Qobuz lacks the subscriber numbers of Spotify or Apple Music. But it’s not trying to be them. Some of its key advantages are exactly what make it different:
- It’s music-only. No podcasts, audiobooks, or video content—just music.
- It’s largely free of AI-generated filler and noise content, which many platforms are now scrambling to manage.
- It builds around curation, not algorithms, and elevates artists and genres that algorithms often overlook.
And while competitors haven’t matched Qobuz’s transparency, they are responding in other ways. Spotify is reportedly developing a higher-priced HiFi tier (after years of speculation), and Deezer has overhauled its royalty model to demote non-musical content and prioritize “professional artists.”
Can Transparency Scale?
Let’s face it, Qobuz is still a niche player amidst the sea of tech giants, even though it may be winning points for artist payouts and ethics. Now, the key question is whether a business model based on high-end sound, complete transparency, and equitable artist compensation can truly expand outside of its audiophile niche.
There is undoubtedly a change taking place. More musicians (and listeners, too) are seeking an alternative to the typical ad-supported, algorithm-heavy experience. Qobuz’s audacious move might be the catalyst that steers the industry in a different direction as discussions of “Streaming 2.0” pick up steam.
Will the Apples and Spotifys of the world, however, do the same? Radio silence so far. The fact that no one else has come forward to disclose their per-stream rates says a lot. Whether Qobuz’s transparency triggers a broader shift—or just remains a standout move—remains to be seen.