Qobuz ethics
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Qobuz presents itself as an “ethical” streaming alternative by publishing an independently examined per‑stream figure (US$0.01873 on average in FY2024) and by leaning into purchases, human curation and no free-ad tier, moves that industry watchdogs and press have treated as meaningful steps toward better artist economics [1] [2] [3]. That said, praise is tempered by structural realities: streamers pay rights holders, not artists directly, Qobuz remains a niche player whose model depends on a smaller, higher‑spend user base, and some concerns about broader industry entanglements (investments, rips, licensing complexity) remain outside what Qobuz controls or has fully resolved [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Qobuz’s headline: transparency and a quantified payout
Qobuz broke with industry opacity by publishing an average payout of roughly 1.8732 cents per stream (about $18.73 per 1,000 plays) for the 12 months ending March 2024, and that figure has been the subject of independent review cited both by the company and multiple outlets that covered the disclosure [1] [2]. Tech press framed the disclosure as a rare act of transparency that lets consumers compare services on artist compensation, and Qobuz has leaned into this as a reputational differentiator [1] [2].
2. Business model choices that underpin Qobuz’s ethical pitch
Qobuz’s model emphasizes paid subscriptions and purchases over a free tier, foregrounds human editorial content and discography work, and integrates options to buy music outright—features Ethical Consumer and others highlight when ranking ethical streaming choices and when awarding marks for artist compensation action [3] [5]. Those choices are strategically coherent: a smaller, committed paying user base can produce higher revenue per user, and Qobuz’s own growth metrics—peaking in app‑store rankings and reporting user increases—suggest the bet is attracting listeners [6] [2].
3. The limits of “per‑stream” numbers and who actually gets paid
Publicizing an average per‑stream payment is important, but it is not a direct line to artist income; streamers pay rights holders (labels and publishers), and what reaches individual performers depends on contracts, advance recoupment and regional deals—points noted even in coverage supportive of Qobuz’s move [1]. Reporting that frames Qobuz as more artist‑friendly is careful to note that higher platform payouts do not automatically translate into higher artist bank accounts without transparency in downstream accounting [1] [2].
4. Critiques, edge cases and downstream threats to the ethical case
Skeptics point out that being a niche, higher‑price service limits Qobuz’s scale and influence in an industry dominated by giants; reviewers also flag UX and discovery tradeoffs versus larger platforms, and some communities discuss “rips” and unauthorized file captures as behaviors that undermine the revenue flows Qobuz claims to protect [7] [8] [4]. Separately, broader industry controversies—chiefly criticism of rival platforms whose executives invest in defence tech—have helped Qobuz’s PR but also show how ethical narratives are often framed against competitor scandals rather than on neutral absolutes [9] [10] [3].
5. Balancing conclusions: credible progress, not a cure‑all
Taken together, Qobuz’s audited payout disclosure, avoidance of a free ad tier, focus on purchases and editorial curation make it a defensible choice for consumers prioritizing higher per‑user revenue and transparency, and advocacy outlets have awarded it marks for those reasons [1] [3] [2]. However, the company’s ethical case depends on the messy realities of music contracts, limits to scale, user behaviour (including piracy or “rips”), and the fact that higher platform payments are a necessary but insufficient condition for improving artist livelihoods—an important caveat that the available reporting consistently notes [1] [4] [2].