Slashdot Mirror
Satellite Radio - XM vs. Sirius?
"So far I have gathered that XM seems to have better audio quality, and a larger selection of music channels. Sirius has less music channels, but more "commercial free" music channels and more talk channels. Also, it scares me that Clear Channel has a stake in XM -- does this mean XM will eventually turn to utter crap like every Clear Channel station seems to have? Does Clear Channel have enough ownership to have a say in programming?
I'm looking for more strengths and weaknesses from people who have used one (or better yet, both!) of the services. I'm leaning towards XM right now, with the Clear Channel issue being my main fright. Sirius streams their stations online, giving me a good sample. So far I have been fairly impressed. But, I like the fact that XM carries Art Bell, more than one 80's station, and VH1 content. It's a toss up, so I'm looking forward to some info from the Slashdot community."
That's good if all you care about is music. If you also want news, an MP3 player won't help much.
The problem with that is that not everyone wants to select all their music. Satelite radio lets you pick a genre you like and plays a good variety. Who wants to spend hours downloading and sorting through MP3s or spend all kinds of money on CDs then rip them? What happens when new artists/music comes out that I've never heard of? There's also the point that XM and Sirius have access to a lot of music we don't. I like old country music. That's not exactly the most popular music floating around on P2P networks. What about the comedy, talk, and news channels?
I am not in the market for one of these right now, but if I were, it would be a hard decision. Based on the business models and actions of the two companies, I would prefer to be giving my monthly usage fee to Sirius. I don't like the XM's idea of almost no, if any commercial free stations. They seem too money hungry. For example, they only have two satalites up there. Sirius has three, which offers them some redundancy if one craps out on them.
Sirius to me seems to be the more professional of the two, where XM seem to be the "Clear Channels version" of the two. That is how I have always thought of them, which is interesting since this is my first finding out Clear Channels is a part owner.
I wouldn't give my money to XM if I have a viable choice. Remember, XM has had a head start as well, give Sirius a little time to get underway, then we can do a more fair comparison.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
This is like VHS vs. Betamax -- there's probably only room for one company in the market. Like the aforementioned VCR competition, this also probably won't be won on technical merits.
Consider the following: Which does more advertising? Who has more unit production? Basically, which has greater (cringe) mindshare? Of course, if you're willing to deal with a failing company and face buying a new head unit in a couple of years, be my guest.
Also, don't forget the rest of your sound system. Decide what you need and buy accordingly -- you almost certainly need a decent pair of componant speakers for the front and probably new, high-quality speakers in the back, not to mentioned the amps to drive them. You should also seriously consider a sub if you listen to hard rock, heavy metal or rap (among others). I have a pair of 10" subs in my trunk (largest that will easily fit in a tiny Mustang trunk) that are set up to be easily removed -- unplug the power and signal and pull 'em out if you need space for luggage or cargo.
Anyhow, don't just upgrade the head unit and go with your crappy stock sound system.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
It seems to me that before you take the plunge and get one of these things, your first priority should be figuring out, not the feature set, but if either company is likely to survive. Both XM and Sirius are gushing money (both lost over five bucks per share last quarter.)
What a drag it would be to spend 500+ dollars to install a system into your car's dashboard, and then have to rip it out in a couple years if the company goes belly up. At their current burn rate, I'd be willing to bet that at least one of the two companies will fail.
Plus, keep in mind that once you install one of these systems, you are going to be held hostage to any rate increases down the road (pun not intended.)
I personally think these companies took off during the go-go optimism of two years ago. For the money you'd spend on one of these things, you could get one of those hundred-CD units that goes into your trunk, and never worry about the company going belly-up.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
Rather than looking at the technology or costs, why not look into the business health of each company. I think if you are going to be making an investment, youwant to be picking the one that is going to have staying power.
The Motly Fool recently shorted sirius believing their company to be overvalued. (That is not to say that their company will fail, stock price doesn't necessarily equate business health) The fool has quite a bit of discussion on each company.
It's a an important perspective.
-pos
The truth is more important than the facts.
-Frank Lloyd Wright
Then I got bored.
With your own music (or MP3s), you tend to listen to everything ever released by the bands you know and then little else. You see, the point of radio, for a lot of people, is that it exposes you to new music. Granted, with the Clear Channel monopoly, that's happening less and less, but the concept is still there.
My work hard drive died about two months ago, wiping out everything I'd gone to the trouble of ripping. Since then I've installed Spinner and ripped maybe two or three albums. I now choose a genre I like so I don't have to listen to a load of junk that I'll never enjoy, yet I also get exposed to a lot of new music.
NPR is only available on Sirius as far as I know (I could be wrong... check the XM listing!). I would rather go for XM since the $3/mo. /is/ significant to me, and I work for Boeing, which built the XM sats (or at least acquired them from Hughes), and I live near DC where the XM studios are. But I really don't think I would be able to get by without Car Talk and Prarie Home Companion and My Word and even the annoying Peter Chichle (sp!) is endearing.
If all you want is news, local channels ae good enough. Use the MP3 player for music, local channels for news and talk. After all--I hate to break it to you--but I'd be willing to bet this whole satellite radio thing is a fad that will go belly-up, bankrupt the same way Iridium did. Iridium was a quality, but more expensive and more expensive to maintain, alternative to other mobile communications. Satellite radio is a quality, but more expensive and more expensive to maintain, alternative to other radio sources.
Satellite radio is a fad because, bet you dollars to donuts, it's relying on growth to keep the bills paid. However, it will reach a ceiling within a year, and all the people interested in paying for a commercial-free version of the radio they can get for free, will have purchased their equipment and inked their subscription contracts. After that, adoption will slow to a crawl, money will become increasingly tight, royalty payments will go unmade, channels will start dropping, and XM and Sirius satellite radio will die, gone the way of all fads.
Anyone care to take that bet? Satellite radio is going to fail, plain and simple. The vast majority of people will never pay for it, and the relatively small number of adopters will not be enough to support the whole network with its tech upkeep, royalty payments, and all.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus