GenEcon

From the 10 Dollar, taxes will be deducted. Afterwards Apple or Google take their share (if you subscribe using the App). Of the remaining money the Music labels take 70 %, and Spotify keeps 30 %. The music labels pay a fraction of the 70 % to the artists, depending on the contract and the artist's share of streams reported by Spotify.

That whole article is BS, they even say it themselves:

Rates are rarely paid at a flat rate per stream

There is no payout per stream. Instead a fixed percentage of the subscription price is shared among each streamed song. So why does Tidal pay more then? Either their subscriber numbers are still incorrect (they have a history of publishing way higher numbers than in reality), their subscriber listen to less music (which is the main reason Apple Music pays more per stream on paper, since its often bundled) or their audience focuses more on a single artist (or a genre).

They pay less than Tidal claims it pays. So far Tidal has a really bad history of publishing correct numbers.

The problem is that Spotify is losing money each year. They aren't profitable. And if they are keep focusing on music, they never will. Their deal with the music labels says that they need to give 70 % of each subscription to the music labels. So by getting more people to signup, they only marginally increase their revenue. Same goes for raising their prices.

Thats why they tried focusing on Podcasts and Audiobooks. Those are a lot more profitable, either by adding ads (Podcasts) or by charging a premium (audiobooks).

How does this work? Spotify has a deal with the music publishers, where they give 70 % of all subscription income to the music companies. The music companies (Sony, Warner, etc) then split the money based on the share of streams.

How can Apple pay out 2.5x70 %, so 175 %? Are thes losing with every subscription?

And still Mercedes is the car company with the highest autonomy level of any car manufacturer. And no one talks about that.

Capitalism also works without growth.

Thats simplifying the problem. You know what helps with getting better with EVs? Subsidies and cheap credits. And China does that. We can now start to race which countries and tax payers give EV manufacturers the most money or we can ban companies who aren't playing fair.

So yes, get better at EVs is a valid damand. But if your competitor gets an unfair advantage, you simply can't reach his level, no matter how hard you are trying.

I did say the exact opposite...

Its not even close. For example, end-to-end encryption is standard in the west. In China its heavily restricted and basically non-existant.

Its actually also a media problem. For example, the largest Tiktok account of a german politician belongs to Maximilian Krah, of the far right party AFD. Just yesterday it was revealed that his personal assistant is actually a Chinese spy. Krah himself voiced a lot of pro-Chinese opinions before, like being pro annexation of Taiwan and denying the genocide on the uigyurs.

This begs the question if his Tiktok popularity is based on a non-biased algorithm or if the CCP made a deal with him, boosting his Tiktok popularity in exchange for being pro-China.

But that is simply the same under democratic communism.