Slashdot Mirror
Satellite Radio in Fiscal Trouble
prostoalex writes "It looks like Sirius Satellite Radio is going through its worse times. From the same article XM Satellite does not seem to be doing well either, even with 200K customers. Will it signify the end of the satellite radio?"
Maybe people are feeling the squeeze on their wallets from all the market problems we've been having, and are unwilling to commit to something that seems to be almost 100% luxury.
I know that if I were concerned about my retirement fund, I'd be cutting back where I could to put more money there.
When this thing came out, many people didn't say "can't" or "shouldn't" when it came to luxury purchases. Now, though, people are keeping their wallets in their pockets a bit more.
You mean satellite radio ever began? I mean, sure, I've seen commercials for it, but I know of no-one who has it, and I know so many tech-geeks who go out and buy the latest and greatest just because it's new (well, okay, not so often in this economy), and yet none of them have it.
I can think of a lot of reasons why it wouldn't be doing so well though... how much does it cost to put a satellite into orbit or "rent" one of the ones already up there? And how much are they charging customers per month for the service?
200,000 customers? In a major metropolitan area, like New York City, one radio station can have that many listeners. It sounds like a lot, but it isn't.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But you're forgetting about the exposure to new music factor... Sure, we can all program what we like to listen to in the car - burn some CD's and we're set...
But, if we stop listening to FM radio because everything on there is commercial-laden crap, then the terrorists have already won! er, then we're not as exposed to new and upcoming music (XM has a *lot* of indie stuff, as well as stuff that'll never get signed) - I've never heard so much Wilco in one place.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
1. I mostly listen to the radio when I'm in my car. Since I live in a big city, I'm rarely in my car.
2. And when I am in my car, I listen to traffic, weather, or my own music collection or local radio.
3. The exception is long distance trips. Perhaps one multi-hour drive a month.
4. At home, I have a big music collection. Stuff I actually bought over the years. (Don't blame MP3s in my case). I also have digital TV, with it's music channels. Plus a collection of reasonable local radio stations (and many more unreasonable ones)
So! Someone has to remind me why I should spend $$$ for this service. I can see why some people would spring for it. Just not me.
Damn, it's snowing... there goes summer...
I am personally kind of surprised that they were even able to get online. Sure there's a market for coast-to-coast single channel coverage, but how much of the market can truck drivers cover?
Most people spend 99%+ of their time driving within 50 miles of home, where one radio station will cover them. Anyone who's all that picky about what they listen to will probably want to listen to CDs anyway. Personally I'm probably going to get a car MP3 player (I was waiting for an OGG player but I'm tired of waiting).
I spend $120 a year but I send it to public radio.
Free? Maybe public broadcasting or community radio, but commercial radio? Nothing like hearing your music interupted by ads for zit creme, Bud, soda, etc. Maybe you've gotten accustomed to it, but man, lemme tell ya, it ain't free!
Now imagine what a piss-poor business model selling people TV over a wire and STILL including commercials and THEN charging for premium channels.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I don't know about anything else, but the attempt to shift everything from a "purchase" to "rental" model bothers me enormously.
s is one thing. Sure, inkjet consumables are a ripoff, but at least the thing doesn't eat money when I'm not using it. But if someone tried to sell me a printer for $150, plus $20 per ink cartridge, PLUS $5.99 PER MONTH, I would behave badly.
I don't mind in the least paying $300 or $400 for a nifty gadget.
I have VERY HIGH SALES RESISTANCE to anything that carries a "monthly" fee for anything. My nifty gadgets OFTEN last for, say, 100 months (a bit over 8 years) and I am quite capable of multiplying a monthly fee by 100.
When I buy a $20,000 car, I'm quite agreeable to considering a $300 or $500 add-on.
But a MONTHLY fee? Forget about it.
Give-away-the-razor-and-make-money-on-the-blade
Perhaps I'm not the only consumer who can multiply by 100 in my head.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I just want to say that if you really like NPR you should consider giving that $10 a month to the public radio station you listen to instead of XM.
$120 a year isn't much to most upwardly mobile middle class Americans, and I believe public radio is worth at least that.
I listen almost exclusively to North Dakota Public Radio. Even here in ND the radio market is saturated with Clear Channel crap. I've found NDPR, to be informative, entertaining, and to have regional content that the now Clear Channel stations no longer carry.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies