Slashdot Mirror
iPhones, FStream and the Death of Satellite Radio
Statesman writes "Only a little over a year ago, the
FCC approved the merger of XM and Sirius
satellite radio companies and the combined stock was trading at $4 a share. Despite being a monopoly — or perhaps because of it — the company is failing. They are losing subscribers, the stock is now trading around 22 cents a share (a 97% decline), and they have written off $4.8 billion dollars in stock value. So, what happened? The CEO is blaming pretty much everyone except himself and his business model. But is pay-for-bandwidth even a viable business plan anymore? With millions of iPhone and gPhone users out there, free streaming audio applications like FStream, and thousands of Internet radio stations to access, the question is: why would anyone want to pay for proprietary hardware and a limited selection of a few hundred stations all controlled by one company?"
Read on for the rest of Statesman's thoughts.
Statesman continues:
"It seems like the pay-for-broadcast business model is fundamentally flawed. First, satellite radio is a misnomer; if you are listening inside a big building, chances are you're really using WiFi radio, not satellite, which requires line-of-sight to the sky. In this mode, XM/Sirius offers less selection and higher cost than an iPhone and streaming audio client. Second, a monopoly is a monopoly. Sure, you can get dozens of ClearChannel stations in some markets, but after a while it does not matter whether they are country, top 40 or easy listening. They all have the same format of hypercharged 'personalities' and lots of ads. By contrast, the iPhone and streaming client can access thousands of stations from thousands of providers worldwide. Finally, you may say that an iPhone and service agreement are expensive compared to a satellite radio subscription, but if you already have the iPhone, the cost of adding a stream audio application is zero. And the iPhone is cheap compared to a cell phone plus an MP3 player plus a laptop plus internet access. Bottom line: a year after being granted monopoly status, Sirius is all but bankrupt and the satellite radio business model is dead. Time for the FCC to think seriously about making better use of this bandwidth."
"It seems like the pay-for-broadcast business model is fundamentally flawed. First, satellite radio is a misnomer; if you are listening inside a big building, chances are you're really using WiFi radio, not satellite, which requires line-of-sight to the sky. In this mode, XM/Sirius offers less selection and higher cost than an iPhone and streaming audio client. Second, a monopoly is a monopoly. Sure, you can get dozens of ClearChannel stations in some markets, but after a while it does not matter whether they are country, top 40 or easy listening. They all have the same format of hypercharged 'personalities' and lots of ads. By contrast, the iPhone and streaming client can access thousands of stations from thousands of providers worldwide. Finally, you may say that an iPhone and service agreement are expensive compared to a satellite radio subscription, but if you already have the iPhone, the cost of adding a stream audio application is zero. And the iPhone is cheap compared to a cell phone plus an MP3 player plus a laptop plus internet access. Bottom line: a year after being granted monopoly status, Sirius is all but bankrupt and the satellite radio business model is dead. Time for the FCC to think seriously about making better use of this bandwidth."
That "lots of ads" thing? Nope, no ads. That's one benefit of paying for the service. The jocks do push things they think are of general interest, like football scores and who is playing who and where, so it isn't entirely noise-free, but it is close.
Another benefit of radio over the iPod is that you're connected to the real world; if something happens, you hear about it. There are situations where that might be important, and there are situations where it certainly is at least desirable.
Satellite radio is, on some channels, uncensored. That's something I treasure. Important for listening? No, not really. But it is very nice to hear people speaking and performing without the government muzzling them. Particularly in the case of rock, where profanity keeps a very large number of tunes from ever getting on standard radio (if they ever deviated from their playlists, as if that'll ever happen.)
There are very large areas of the country where there is no service you can use to receive radio. You can't use an iPhone within hundreds of miles of where I live (they locked it to AT&T, and AT&T isn't very interested in Montana); and road trips are eight, ten, even twelve hours, during which we are almost pitifully grateful to have XM/Sirius. There's no digital service you can use to connect to the Internet barring a satellite connection on the roof of your vehicle. Which, of course, is what the XM/Sirius widget is in the first place. It just connects to them instead of the Internet, that's all.
We do have one (yes, that's *1*) FM station we can hear, as long as we're within 30 miles of town or so. We get the farm report, some country, some top 40, "auctions" of local goods and services, and the one thing I am grateful for, the lost pets report. Someone found my cat once. One of the charity things I was involved with brought PBS radio here; I contributed a few grand, they put up a translator, and if you're within, oh, five miles of it in the right direction, you can listen to PBS via FM. Having put money into it, you'd think I'd listen, but I'm somewhat conservative on many issues and frankly, they drive me a little nuts.
At night, we can hear quite a bit of the broadcast AM band, but that's really deteriorated into far left and far right and wackos, with a sprinkling of country (which you may enjoy, but no one in my family does.)
Now, I certainly recognize that if they can't make a viable business out of satellite radio, it is going to go away, but when urban dwellers generalize as if the entire country has access to the amenities they do, well, I'm afraid that's not the entire picture. It'll be a real loss for us. We have satellite radios in all our vehicles in the family, at work, and in my home. The day they go dead will be a day of mourning around here.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"why would anyone want to pay for proprietary hardware and a limited selection of a few hundred stations all controlled by one company?"
As opposed to the freedom I enjoy of everything coming down one or more pipes controlled by either a duopoly or a monopoly.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Where I live, we don't even get radio station reception at my house, so this is a good way to get lots of music, and national radio broadcasts, in my car, whenever I want. Or I can change the stations depending who's in the car with me. Somehow, this seems a lot less of a hassle than getting an iPhone just to hear some tunes.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
Some people like certain media personalities and are willing to pay a premium to subscribe to their shows.
BTW, this is also why sites like Forbes, NYT, and WSJ get paid subscribers while CNN and MSNBC basically give away everything for free. You said it yourself. Clearchannel's lock on the airwaves is something that some people are fed up with, and those people are looking to XM as a means of getting other types of content.
But I don't even own a tv or a radio, so I'm just a bit better than you.
Why was this suprising? Remember the days when cable didn't have any commercials? Now it's just like regular public TV except there is more "Adult" content.
This model was doomed for failure the moment it left earth.
Instead of posting on slashdot,, I should have been shorting the stock.
SeeqPod is pretty cool for the iphone/ipod.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
WiFi radio? Does Statesman mean internet radio?
Sirius has terrestrial repeaters of their signal in large cities, so even in a building in Denver, for example, a Sirius receiver would get full signal strength from their transmitter on the ground. The transition from satellite to terrestrial is seamless, it is the same signal.
My main problem with Sirius is that even on the "commercial free" channels, the DJ would ... advertise for stuff going on related to Sirius, on other channels. Also, they would repeat songs at least once per day on more than a few channels, which got aggravating if you listened to it all day long.
I recently got rid of my Sirius radios and went with Slacker, getting their G2 portable as well. Big advantages: they will stream internet radio to a Linux computer, something that Sirius will not do. Also, Slacker's selection is much better, and the "Ban" and "Next" buttons are something that you couldn't even dream of with satellite radio. The G2 will download songs over wifi to the 4 or 8 GiB of storage, and it attempts to create an internet radio experience on the go, and it really does succeed.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
The problem with subscription-based radio is that there are so many easy alternatives that provide the user with much more control over their listening environment. I could potentially see people subscribing who live on the road, but for your average driver the plethora of options presented by standard radio, in-dash units that play digital audio files, regular CDs, iPods, and other external digital music players makes the subscription model much less compelling.
I've only known one person who had a satellite radio subscription, and that was relatively short-lived. It just doesn't seem to make much sense to most people.
Pandora allows you to stream based on your favorite artists, and it seeks out music similar to your artists. It's also commercial free and allows you to skip 6 songs per hour.
The fix is easy, really. Offer up a set of channels that are free, open to all radios, with commercial support. Maybe 15 or 20 so of the "standard fair" that you get over the air in most major markets. That should be able to offset a lot of the cost of Sirius, and then, offer additional packages for people who want to subscribe to commercial free music. But, don't charge $13/mo for it. I'm sorry, I have two deactivated radios sitting at home because thats just too much. Maybe charge $3 or $4 for MUSIC. I don't want Howard Stern, I don't want Opie and Anthony, I just want music.
I live in West Texas. My XM radio has been fantastic during the times when I have to drive to Dallas or San Antonio. The radio stations out in some of the areas are very local. They have things about Billy Gonzalez's goat winning the 4H competition or Jim Brown lost his dog, has anyone seen it? Satellite radio offered a great choice.
I remember a few weeks ago when I got the new channel update: I was freaked out. Half of my presets were gone. Not just renamed, but GONE. Yeah, I was pretty upset, and my first reaction was that I was probably going to cancel as soon as Howard Stern's contract is up (I'm a big enough fan that I consider that I'm paying my monthly fee just for his two channels, every other channel I happen to get is just a bonus).
But it didn't take me too long to figure out that my old channels has just been both renamed and renumbered, and my unit wasn't smart enough to track a change in both. Sirius' "Big 80s" was replaced with "80s on 8." Sirius "Left of Center" was replaced with "Sirius-XM U." "Buzzsaw" was replaced with "Boneyard." In short, nothing whatsoever was actually LOST, I just had to do some digging.
Sirius is guilty of failure to communicate the nature of the changes they made - but as near as I can tell they haven't dropped any content. At least, no content that I listen to... but like I said, if they drop EVERY other channel in their entire lineup and then jack up the price, I'll still pay to listen to Howard anywhere I go (a pure internet feed wouldn't cut it during my commute).
Is this serious? An iPhone able to replace satellite radio? Lets start with battery life, as in, there is none. Using WiFi to stream music on the iPhone will kill the battery in less than an hour or so depending on conditions. To solve that, I guess I could plug the thing in.
Now, let's use WiFi in my moving car. HAHAHA yeah, that's a total joke. So we'll use T-Mobiles network for $20 a month... umm, maybe not. Let's use AT&T's network. Streaming data plan? $60 a month. Better hope you're in one of the urban areas that support the high speed data! ORRRRRRR... you could buy a $50 Satellite receiver, pay $12 a month (or $6 if you know someone nice) and do away with a $60/mo data plan AND have access to the signal anywhere in the US.
Seriously... I live in a big urban area, where the idea of this would work. But the implementation would be marginally feasible at best. The battery life issue is huge. The cost is huge (but one could argue that one would already have those, making the cost a non-factor... but how many people have an iPhone + an AT&T data plan AND have Satellite radio? Not many I'll wager.). The available coverage area is absolutely tiny, microscopic really compared to satellite radio.
No... there's nothing about this idea that is even marginally viable on even a small scale.
The business model of XM/Sirius may be flawed, but iPhones and FStream are not going to be a factor in any way, shape or form, nor is WiFi and Streaming radio. Satellite radio is good for so many things that WiFi and Streaming radio can't and won't be touching anytime in the near future (remote listening, professional music selection/composition/presentation, uncensored programming, big name talk show people (bleh personally), professional sports, etc...). Streaming audio can't compete at the same level anytime soon, if for no other reason than it's not organized enough.
I've got XM weather in my airplane (via a Garmin GPSmap 496). So do lots and lots of other people. There's no terrestrial replacement for that. I won't fly without it any more, as it allows me to keep an eye on the weather myself while I'm in the air.
I also have had XM radio in my car since December 2001, and love it: you don't have to go hunting around for decent programming every time you drive out of a station's coverage area on a road trip.
XM is worth every penny of the subscription fee, to me.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
I can't say I'm too happy with the result of the merger - I was originally an XM subscriber. They really pared down some of the channels I enjoyed, like XM Fungus (punk rock) and 3 out of the 4 Mexican music stations. Another shitty thing is that now all the channel names are mixed up on my Honda Element's dashboard display; for example, Air Musique (French Canadian rock music station) is now displayed as "World/Latin" for some reason. They're all out of whack.
Basically, this merger made the service less varied and worse off than before. Still beats regular radio, though...NPR excluded of course.
...a monopoly is a monopoly.
This is a tired and wrong argument. From wikipedia: "Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods." There are PLENTY of viable substitute goods (iPods, terrestrial radio, etc), plenty of economic competition, and Sirius XM lacks the pricing power of a monopoly. The mere fact that they use a satellite to transmit their signal directly to customers does not make them a monopoly by itself. If satellite were the only way to reach all or even am economically significant fraction of customers then it would be a credible argument.
Our federal government took over a year (far too long btw) to review the case and came to the correct conclusion that there is no monopolistic power here. Customers are free to use any of the numerous alternatives and there is ample customer churn for Sirius XM to back this fact up. There is no compelling argument to be made against the merger and it is reasonably likely Sirius XM will go bankrupt no matter what happens thanks to the downturn in the auto industry.
Sirius XM may go out of business. Their revenue model has always been questionable and they have spent money somewhat recklessly. Their debt load is what ultimately might kill them. They have a decent product but that by itself is never enough. They are not and never have been a monopoly. There simply are too many other options.
When I bought my XM radio subscription I did it for a few reasons. I have an impressive collection of music which I enjoy, but XM provided the opportunity to explore genres I was unfamiliar with. In addition, it was only $5 a month for bulk subscription, so it was cheap to just buy 5 years and forget about it.
Now it seems that I've exhausted the other genres I was interested in. XM's vast inventory of music has been sampled, and I've gone out and purchased what I felt my personal collection was missing.
In addition, I see the price of a subscription has almost tripled since I signed on. I can't really understand why they would need to triple their price, unless they just wanted to milk the numerous people who already bought a receiver and wanted to justify that expense by keeping the subscription active. They already have the satellites up, they already have the music.
They have to pay their disc jockeys to babble and advertise the other stations (commercial free really means they only play XM commercials). They also regularly create new jingles and catchy phrases to play between songs. They could save us the expense and them the effort and just play music. I find myself more and more often turning to my ipod so I don't have to listen to TV sound bytes between songs.
I would argue that the loss of customers is more a function of yearly subscriptions expiring and customers unwilling to pay the increase. Secondary would be the ease of acquiring a cheap mp3 player and the ability to listen to only the music you like without the cross-channel advertising and annoying jingles.
Stern is the reason why Sirius/XM are still alive. He brought along millions of subscribers when he left terrestrial radio, and they are sticking with him. However he retires in two years, and I imagine Sirius/XM will have some very hard times retaining customers when that happens. baba booey baba booey
Not every single successful business model is based on gaining critical mass, and appealing to a majority of the public. It's called a niche market. How many customers is enough to survive? There's no clear answer.
The thing is with the 1000 channels out there on internet radio, i don't have the time to dink around looking and listening to each one.
At least with satellite i have a selection of varied chanels with specific descriptions in one location.
Just because you have options does not make it good
Playboy radio? How does that even work?
XM/Sirius' stock is trading in the trash because they have over $1 billion in debt that needs to be refinanced next year and there are substantial fears that they won't be able to obtain such financing in the current market. If they are unable to obtain the financing they need, then the stock will be worthless. It's a pretty easy explanation.
The summary indicates that the submitter has no idea about satellite radio. I don't have one, nor have I ever had one, but even I can see through the faults in his explanation. Listening in a building does invoke the terrestrial rebroadcast, yes, but only a tiny fraction of satellite radios are portable. The overwhelming number of units are permanently installed in cars.
"Proprietary hardware?" Seriously? Satellite radio gear is manufactured by Alpine, Kenwood, Sony, Pioneer, and most of the smaller car audio names and is available as OEM equipment from nearly every car manufacturer. The iPhone is, near as I can tell, available from one vendor. If subby is perhaps using the words "proprietary hardware" to refer to the encrypted stream that is beamed from XM/Sirius, I might point out that the iPhone suffers from similar problems; please tell me how to use an iPhone with Verizon, or for that matter, how I keep Apple from remotely disabling FStream if they decide to do so.
What does XM/Sirius have to offer? For one, clean integration in your car. Car interface for an iPhone involves either a crappy little FM transmitter that will inevitably result in crackly, washed out audio on any channel or hardware-specific add-ons that work with some models of stereo but not others. If you're talking about an OEM XM/Sirius-capable radio in a recent model car, getting satellite radio is as trivial as calling a phone number. If you're talking about a car that lacks XM/Sirius hardware, then we're talking about installing new gear, which is essentially the same level of cost outlay and difficulty as adding iPhone playback. There are a few cars/aftermarket car stereos that have aux-in jacks, but those are pretty unusual. I would imagine that the ease of use in finding a radio station is probably lower on, you know, a radio than on some device that needs to be plugged into my car and have special software started up before I can browse for my preferred station.
I won't even get into the comparison between the $30 data plan on an iPhone (in addition to the standard voice plan) and the $6.99 a la carte pricing on XM/Sirius (for those who aren't interested in many of the stations).
Simply put, XM/Sirius isn't a "pay for bandwidth" service any more than Cable TV is. By the article's logic, the fact that I could go hook up my computer to my TV and use YouTube and Hulu and Netflix instant play means that the cable company is trying to sell me nothing more than bandwidth (over which similar shows tend to flow). It couldn't be further from the truth. XM/Sirius made some fundamentally, seriously bad business mistakes, starting with the fact that they didn't pool their resources and launch one company in the beginning. Launching (ultimately) redundant satellites, installing (ultimately) redundant terrestrial rebroadcasting towers, bidding against each other for radio "talent," etc. didn't come cheap, and much of it could have been avoided if one company launched in the beginning. On top of that, they forced potential subscribers to sit on the sideline until they figured out who was going to "win." Now, add in the fact that a huge amount of their debt is coming due at possibly one of the worst times to try to deal with it, and you've got a recipe for disaster.
But seriously, don't try to tell me that there's no good reason to use a $7/month radio service when a $30/month iPhone is just as good if you don't even grasp why someone might choose one over the other.
I subscribe to SiriusXM as well as riding the 3G network, and if it's radio you want... hate to tell you guys, but you're going to pay a metric assload less for satellite radio versus 3G internet access.
My XM subscription costs $130 USD per year.
My 3G access (unlimited data with unlimited tethering) is $85 USD per MONTH, which is only the data plan portion of my phone bill.
My opinion on why SiriusXM is tanking? They looked at all their combined radio stations, separated the wheat from the chaff, and gave us the goddamn chaff. The one channel I listen to the most (XM82 The System) was nixed in favor of something called Area, which in comparison, sucks. Even my wife who is not a die-hard electronica fan said that the quality went downhill. They screwed around with Chill, nixed Chrome, and I am quite certain that several other stations have been screwed around with much to the dismay of SirXM's subscribers.
They need to realize that most of us subscribe for literally a handful of stations, and if you screw with them, we get pissed.
"Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
I know it's incredibly in vogue these days to blame everything on selfish people who make more money than you, especially the evil CEOs, but sometimes companies fail and it's not the CEO's fault. The best covered wagon CEO on earth couldn't figure out a way to beat the Model T.
Satellite radio is caught between a rock and a hard place. The RIAA wants their cut of royalties for the music XM / Sirius plays, and wants XM to police things so people don't rip music off their streams (which never happens in practice anyway because the stream quality's not good enough to incite enough people to want to do that). That costs a lot of money. XM / Sirius don't make a lot of revenue from ads, so they have to make it from subscribers. Logic dictates that one way to increase the subscriber base is to offer discounts -- but that presents them with cash flow problems while maintaining (or increasing) maintenance costs on that larger subscriber base.
Some of the subscriber attrition can be attributed to folks with multiple radios shutting one of them down to help save money in an economic downturn. I have two older radios -- one in the car, and an XM PCR in the house. Since I can get the XM stream via PC anyway, I recently shut down the PCR.
The ONLY thing keeping them afloat right now are deals with high-profile comedians and pro sports. Period. And they have to pay those folks boatloads of money to play at all. As wireless Internet becomes more ubiquitous and more and more of the premium content is available via Internet (Sunday Night Football via NFL.com is a perfect example), sat radio will finally be killed off.
It was a great idea in the pre-wireless days, but satellite radio is going the way of Iridium Phones.
If you compare it to buying a CD per month (yah, I know, paying for music, etc.) at the end of the year I'd have 12 albums, which I'd be deathly sick of by the end. I drive a lot, so the endless supply of music is appreciated. You can listen to genres you'd normally not. If you get tired of a playlist (hello First Wave), then there are a few dozen others to explore. I do miss the modern Jazz channel S lost when XM merged. Standard FM radio ? Way, way too many commercials. I'll give you the 13 bucks not to have to listen to them. I do listen to NPR, and the international (formerly shortwave) stations, which you'd have a much tougher time finding. I just wish Sirius would pick up C-SPAN. Yes, I could obtain the music on line, load an Ipod or generic MP3 player, and do it that way. My time is worth something (YMMV), and for that, I press a button and get sound-I don't have to rip my considerable CD collection, get dollared to death by iTunes, or infringe. It only has to be better than Broadcast FM, for which the FM Broadcasters have made easy by the tiny playlists, incessant commercials, and overcompression of sound. (yes, I know Sat Radio could do better, but it still sounds better than the overcompressed FM signals we get here in the NYC area. The true tragedy is that FM broadcast CAN sound wonderful) When WiMax becomes practical, and I can log onto a website whilst mobile, I shall take my early - adopting self over there. Till then, you have two choices...FM Broadcast or the Sat Monopoly.
The summary (and some of the comments) seem to make the assumption that I'm just going to rush out and get an iPhone with a great data plan. Sorry, I'm happy with my Verizon nothing-but-voice plan -- it's about as cheap as you can get.
So what do I do for music? Well at home, where there's Internet access, there's always Pandora. If you still haven't heard of it, it's a streaming radio service based on what they call the Music Genome Project, where music is classified based on its attributes, from major stuff like genre and artist to more esoteric things, like being in minor key with mostly keytars and a wailing androgynous singer...well, you get the picture.
But what about on the road, where there's no internet access? Well, I'll make the leap and say that if you're reading Slashdot, you have some variety or flavor of MP3 player. This seems a safer guess than the iPhone, since there's lots of them and they're pretty cheap. I've got a Sansa, and it works fine for me. I hook it up to a tape deck adapter (my car's a 95 Oldsmobile, no CD or AUX input for me) and put it on shuffle. Music problem solved, no need for satellite.
A bit off-topic, when my father bought his Honda Pilot, he got a three month preview of XM, and none of us were impressed. They repeated the same songs over a day, even more than normal radio, and the other upshot -- no commercials -- wasn't true. They were just all for XM, which seemed pointless, unless they were targeting their XM ads to those trying the free trial. Either way, it wasn't an impressive experience and certainly not worth the monthly fee when the car has a six-cd changer and an MP3 player input. He just does the same thing I do now and listens to his Stevie Ray Vaughn on the way to work instead of the radio.
I'm surprised no one else does this, though -- I figured I'd see plenty of other /. commenters saying much the same.
Oh, I don't know ... perhaps it has something to due with the fact that not everybody has a iPhone or a gPhone ... just a thought ...
Geeks who would pay for this likely have ipods or *GASP* MP3-CD players in their cars.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
The merger was approved on July 25th, 2008. Four months ago, not "a little over a year ago." They announced their intention to merge in February of 2007. The long period between these two events probably created a lot of new unexpected problems for the two companies.
In the third quarter their subscription rates and revenue were up 17% and 16% respectively over last year. I haven't seen any evidence that they're losing subscribers at an increasing rate.
Satellite radio is built into many new cars, which is where most people listen to the radio. It's also extremely popular with truckers. The iPhone thing is a nice alternative for technically inclined people, but it seems unlikely to me that the average person is going to bother with it.
Full disclosure: I am a satellite radio subscriber, and I am somewhat satisfied with the service but not sure how much longer I will keep my subscription.
Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/25/ST2008072503697.html
http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/sirius-xm-radio-inc-losses.html
Living in New Mexico and soon to be in LA, it's kinda nice not to have to change my radio presets w/ Sirius radio. Any out here in New Mexico, when I'm a million miles from no where, I'd rather let the radio DJ's do the music thing than me. If I crash fudging with my iPod, I'm a million miles from no where.
Sometimes it really does take a rocket scientist...
How can internet audio/video streaming ever compete with satillite radio for people who drive???
First example, long haul truckers....I think that speaks for itself.
Second example, the west...Unless you live in a major city, have fun in vallies trying to get the FM signal 50 miles away in your house.
Third example, price...12.95 per month is ALOT better then what ANY of the cell operators can offer for data service 24/7. Unless they came out with a "streaming only" for 12.95 no thanks.
Fourth example, clogged cell towers...Do you realise the infrastructure the companies would have to have if everyone with a phone streamed media while driving?? There would have to be a tower every 500 feet just not to drop people's "music". I don't know about you but have you ever tried to drive around while using the "data" side of you phone? Iffy at best in big cities, impossible in most areas that don't have ubber coverage to hand you off before the signal gets to weak.
And don't mention the bandwidth...If we can't get our "ISP" with there sudo-monopoly to build more "infrastructure/bandwidth" to meet the needs, would we really be surprised in the cell companies follow the same trend???
ok, ok, rant over...I just hate when people think that "ALL TECHINICAL ISSUES" can be solved with the internet. Sure, maybe in the future when the entire "US for example" is covered in 100% quality wireless signal at "ahem" affordable prices, then yes, it may...but not until.
I would love to see Sirius/XM sue every hearing person on the planet. Rip a page from the record companies and litigate your way to prosperity.
I have an account with Sirius and don't mind paying for ad free music. I also appreciate the ability to tune in to my same favorite stations wherever I am in the US (I travel a lot for work). However, that's not really what Sirius XM has become. Because of the following reasons, I will be cancelling my subscriptions (I have two) once the year long contract runs out...
First of all, many of the channels are not ad free anymore. If it's not a real ad from another company, it's Sirius advertising their own services. Sorry, an ad is an ad. I won't pay for a service that is suppose to be ad free but isn't.
Second, in the merger of Sirius and XM, they did away with 5 of the 7 channels I routinely listen to. They also did so with no warning. Good grief, Charlie Brown, at least Sirius XM could have come up with some notice about the changes coming (ever heard of email?). Better, they could have conducted a survey of their customers as to what channels were the favorites and dumped the least favorite channels first. Not sure if my channels would have made the cut but at least it would not have been arbitrary (or based on some out-of-touch business manager's decision).
Third, their customer service has always sucked, and their web site has always been less than friendly. At least in my opinion. Maybe it's a monopoly thing. Not a deal killer but definitely a strike against them.
Fourth, with the XM merger, now they want to charge even more money to access all of their stations (specifically, they have a list of "The Best of XM", which includes Oprah, various sports related channels, and some public radio). It's not like they're not already charging an arm and a leg, so to speak.
Lastly, their REAL competition is access to the internet from any location (car, airport, jogging track, home) by any hardware. And with better reception (mostly, anyway). In fact, I would expect broadcast radio to be following satellite radio in short order for the same reason (ubiquitous internet access coupled with DRM free music and the proliferation of podcasts).
So, as a business model, I don't see them remaining viable past the end of 2010. It may be a self fulfilling prophesy but I will not be renewing my subscriptions for the above reasons/rants/predictions.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
I did a coat to coast roadtrip last year and Sirius in a rental car was basically the only thing there was to listen to. Sad if that goes away.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
why would anyone want to pay for proprietary hardware ... controlled by one company ..which sums up Apple and iPhone in a nutshell.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I have never understood why anyone would pay for satellite radio programming. Most sporting games of any importance are broadcast on free radio. Paying for any other programming (music, talk shows, etc.) via satellite radio always struck me as frivolous (that's what iPods, CDs and podcasts are for). I guess the industry is just now figuring that out, judging by the XM/Sirius stock implosion.
Things are worse in Canada. My new car came with a built-in XM receiver and I immediately signed up. I actually thought that the merger was going to be a good thing in terms of selection. The problem is that Sirius Canada and XM Canada are both separate companies than their U.S. counterparts. I'm guessing that they license the channels and add a few law-mandated French channels. The end result is lack of choice for Canadian subscribers. I was very excited at the thought of being able to get Howard Stern and all the NFL channels. As it turns out none of them are available to Canadian subscribers. Furthermore, the blogs that I've read show that the chance of getting those channels in Canada are slim-to-none.
Ever leave the city and go on a road trip? How old are you anyhow, 17? Guess you've never driven through a less populated state where you can go hours without hitting a radio station let alone a cell tower. If you do find a station theres a good chance the first word you hear will be "jesus". I can take my Sirius radio all over North/South America and get a signal (short of a metal roof in the way).
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I am a former alumni of the company that became the company that launched XM as a separate venture, then sucked the parent company dry to get XM up and running. The parent was renamed, and now it seems to be redirected to yet one more company. The ad copy in this current iteration reads the same promises that they were making to the market when I was freshly hired in 1996. If these people are still even remotely connected to what XM is today, then it's probably going to end up as more of the same, merger or else. It is sad because their technical people were top notch, all of this mess was because of the business side of the house.
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
I'm thinking about dumping it next year. Now that the merger is over, the Sirius "jocks" WON'T SHUT UP! The main reason I went with XM radio 5 years ago was NO TALKING, NO COMMERCIALS. The decades channels and some of the rock channels have "DJ's" which have to talk over the music, yack yack yack. If I wanted that, I could listen to FM for free. Fix that, I'll keep it, don't, and I'm outta here. Back to FM, CD's & MP3's
CNBC's audio feed and the comedy channels. It will be a sad day for me when I lose those.
"That "lots of ads" thing? Nope, no ads."
Bullshit, XM is full of ads. Not only that, but it was ads for sex toys & shit.
I had XM for free for 6 months, & it still wasnt worth it.
Hell, they aren't even going to let you stream video over your AT&T broadband without charging you soon. (They claim they will charge the content providers, but that is just another way of charging YOU. You will pay for it... kind of like taxing corporations... no such thing - it just results in higher prices, or fewer jobs...) AT&T is one of the biggest enemies of Net Neutrality. There is no way they are going to let people stream 128k or better (below 128k is not even listenable) for very long before they start gouging you. There are already hidden limits on the amount of data you get with your "unlimited" plan...
why would anyone want to pay for proprietary hardware and a limited selection of a few hundred stations all controlled by one company?
Content, content, content. The same reason people pay for HBO when they can rent the movies from Netflix... their original-series. Opie and Anthony, Ron and Fez, Howard Stern, and just about every sports game for people who drive a lot I suppose.
Now for me it doesn't work. I'd like to hear O&A and Stern but not enough to pay that amount for them. But I can understand why some people would. My guess is that the niche market is the truckers. People in their vehicles most of the day, driving long distances.
...was that they did not make the same channels available over internet that did on their satellite broadcast. The terrestrial coverage didn't work for me in my location. Had they just made the same channels available via internet, I'd still have my subscription today ($12/month, I think is what it was a couple of years ago).
...its sinking because Sirius took control as opposed to XM. The new channels are terrible compared to what XM had. Now I hear the same music over and over. The new DJs aren't as good as the ones they replaced either. If I didn't pay a few years in advance (its built into my car, so i figured I'd keep it as long as the car), I would have canceled. I do not plan on renewing it at this point assuming they're even still in business by that time.
The audio quality on satellite radio is really only good enough for talk radio or news and if you listen to those channels they are stuffed full of the worst commercials.
Satellite radio is doomed to fail or become obsolete because it's based on shoddy technology. When SIRIUS first got going, it petitioned the FCC to shut down other devices using adjacent frequencies because they caused interference to the SIRIUS service. The real problem was that by design, the SIRIUS signal is very close to the absolute noise floor so that it requires incredibly sensitive receivers. And even under best conditions, they need swarms of repeaters in urban areas, and the signal will drop out under even modest bridges and underpasses. Why pay for high-tech radio and still get AM radio reception problems? Music channels are compressed to the point where artifacts are constant and annoying. Talk channels are compressed to where they sound like an out-of-tune AM radio picking up an overseas broadcast on a cat's whisker radio. Why pay for crap? Just to hear people say "fuck"?
The two people that I know with Sirius built into the car have dropped it. New car sales are still plummeting, which will notch Sirius sales down even further.
And how in the world could the company LOSE almost 5 billion dollars in a year? They provide a SERVICE based on satellites that are already operational. They sell their radios for good money, and even their sweetest carmaker deal couldn't cost them all that much to include a Sirius module in the factory radio.
Sirius/XM also got in bed with the RIAA as the first in the USA to pay for performance rights for pre-recorded music. They cut themselves a great deal, and now the RIAA is doing their best to shut down Internet radio - which is the ONLY source for musical diversity.
I use XM on DirecTV and it's great!! Since the merger my channels have changed but with a little attention I was back on track. It's a good resource for new music, when i hear something that i like I just seeks it out on itunes or amazon and download it. Satellite radio is a keeper and will order it in my next auto purchase. I want the option of purchasing my music instead of suffering through ads in order to hear something new.
It just needs to realize what it's core consumer group is: people listening in cars.
Let me paint you a picture. I live in Wichita, America. Here are my choices for radio when I drive to work in the morning:
- Local sports show
- Local news show
- Bob and Tom
- Walton and Johnson
- Todd and Tyler
- Kid Cratic
- Local soccer mom-friendly morning zoo team
- Whatever the hell the hip hop and country stations are playing
That's pretty much it. Half those nationalized shows I don't really even have a clue about besides hearing their ads run on the drive home, but that's enough to tell me I want to have nothing to do with them. Even during the day it's not much better. We have a couple of what you would probably call "adult contemporary", a rock station that redefines the term "playlist", and of course the requisite "classic rock" station where I can hear Hot Blooded for the 90th time. The only "alternative" station who would even bother to crack a White Stripes CD once in a while closed up shop in favor of Mexican radio, literally. In other words, Wichita radio is a farking wasteland.
Sat radio was a God-send for me when I got my new vehicle a few months ago. It came with three months of free XM, and even though Lucy played way too much Offspring, it was light years better than the alternative. Since the merger of stations I haven't had time to form much of an opinion, but what I've heard so far sounds pretty much the same to me.
You can talk about iPhone this and iPhone that, but I'm not really willing to buy an iPhone, or any other phone for that matter, just to have streaming radio on me, particularly when the only time I care about the radio is when I'm driving to work, and would rather listen to the car radio anyway. Yes MP3 players and CD's are an alternative too, but even they get stale after a while, especially when you're like me, spending all my free time looking after two newborn girls; I don't really have time anymore to go actively searching for new music I might like.
I've had a Sirius subscription for 8 years using the same hardware all of that time and it still works the same today as it did when it was new --come talk to me about the longevity of your iPhone in 8 years. I hate commercials and for the most part, I hate DJs too. I just want music, the same music choices, where ever I go in North America and so do all of the other subscribers of the service. I doubt Sirius is in danger.
This article is garbage anyway because the author is really just an Apple fanboy preaching from the normal Apple fanboy pulpit about the superiority of the iPhone experience.
Just the same, I'll keep my Nokia E71 because it is a real phone that doesn't require being charged every 6 hours, and I'll keep my Satellite radio because the user experience for music is far, far superior to that of the iPhone.
Democrats and Republicans are like AIDS and Cancer, I want neither!
I'm not sure about the OP, but I know that I certainly don't listen to Sirius-XM at any time other than when I'm in my car. And when I'm in my car, it's a godsend. Terrestrial radio is just complete crap--ads, payola, etc. (how many version of Z100, Y100, X100, KISS, etc. are there?).
Satellite radio is really not designed - primarily - for those of you who are sitting in an office or at home. That's a fringe benefit or secondary revenue stream. The real benefits are for the vast majority of people who want something interesting and consistent to listen to in the car. I know that when I drive from NY to Boston, I don't have to deal with the dead zones of central Connecticut....I get the same stations the whole way.
So I think the issue here is one of perspective...don't look at Satellite Radio as an expensive competitor to the various forms of Internet radio -- look at it as a cheap alternative to crap terrestrial radio in the car.
Ferrari and other exotic car rentals in New York
There are any number of problems with this proposal.
It too is tied to one specific mobile provider (AT&T Mobile, which is notorious for awful customer service) and it too has proprietary hardware (Apple, which won't release its iTunes software for open systems and sics its lawyers on attempts to crack its current iPod hash security scheme, as already discussed: Apple DMCAs iPodHash Project).
Interesting as a proposal for the future, but that's all.
Prevent Windows piracy. Use Linux instead.
Sirius's Karmazin ran over the dogmazin.
I have had both XM and Sirius radio; I currently have Sirius.
There were two main reasons why I stopped listening to ordinary radio and jumped to satellite. The first problem with ordinary radio is the endless onslaught of commercials. The second problem is the endless gobbling of retarded DJs. Collectively, most DJs have the IQ of a soap dish. That doesn't keep them from voicing their opinion on everything from economics to cultural imperialism. The XM DJs were kind enough to be silent, for the most part, but the Sirius DJs don't share that fortunate habit.
An example: a few nights ago one of the Sirius morons described the movie "Starship Troopers" as a cheesy "Star Trek-like" film, named after the song by the group "Yes." She then observed that the rock group must be singularly irked that such a sucky film had been named after their song.
That's just a minuscule example on a totally meaningless pop culture topic, but it's a reasonable illustration of why I prefer silent DJs.
When the new XM/Sirius channels have lousy music, babbling DJs and (some channels) commercials, I have to ask myself why I'm subscribing to their service.
I now find myself listening to regular radio again, just so I can find some decent music which doesn't bode well for satellite radio.
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
I tried out Sirius once - and was fed up after a few months. I don't understand how anyone can actually enjoy listening to satellite radio's wretched audio quality.
Perhaps it's not the "pay-for-broadcast" model that's flawed, but a whole economic system structured in such a way that no company can stay afloat offering a decent service any more.
It's not just Radio. Look around. Every product and serive today is fighting for your last dollar in a race straight to the bottom.
XM/Sirius can't stay in business b/c they are being eaten alive by excessive CEO compensation, government regulation and taxation, and a fixed stock market casino.
:T:R:A:N:S:
My iPhone can't stream radio for shit even on 3G. It seems a big reason for the low stock price right now is concern that they wont be able to refinance their debt next year.
You always pay for bandwidth. Music may be less demanding than video - still, the numbers do add up. Both for the listener and the broadcaster. The geek may rant when his broadband service is capped at 250 GB a month. But there are lots of places where you can't get a tenth of that at any price.
Why would anyone want to pay for proprietary hardware and a limited selection of a few hundred stations all controlled by one company?
Is he talking about Apple?
XM generally has no ads, no DJ's and costs only $12 per month. The hardware, available from several manufacturers, cost me around $30 for a car unit that I can put in my house for a little extra. I can also listen to XM on my computer via their website. The reception and bitrate could improve; but overall, I do not listen to commercial radio in my car any more with all the commercials and yappy djs.
IPhone is about $500 for hardware and $30 - $60 for unlimited data. That is 10x as much for hardware and 2x as much monthly. For that, you get "unlimited" fly-by-night internet radio channels, if the 200 XM radio channels are not enough for you.
I listen to "Chill", the smooth electonica station pretty much all the time, as that is the type of music I like. I also listen to reggae, blues, or FOX news simulcast once and a while. I recommend it.
There are lots of reasons to go Satellite vs iPhone / MP3s etc. A. I can travel across the country, and listen to the exact same channels. Try doing that with FM or even streaming radio via iPhone. I bet you'll lose the cell signal in some parts of the country. B. You get the ease of having the XM / Sirius hardware integrated into your car or your home equipment, fewer things to screw around with when you're driving or just simply want some music. C. Getting music from your iPhone to your radio in the car is done via a crappy FM transmitter or proprietary hardware. What a pain... goes back to B, ease of use. D. If you're chosing MP3s / preset playlists... you miss out on finding new songs / artists that you might like. It drives me crazy when friends of mine have playlists that are always the same artists and never go outside their box because they don't listen to other mediums. That's just my 2 cents.
As a Sirius subscriber, I'm still left shaking my head regarding the channels they nixed as opposed to the ones they kept. Rather than consolodating the ones that were basically duplicitive of each other, they killed the unique ones. This was a boneheaded move.
They did drop their most unique and niche content - the stuff that customers can't get on terrestrial radio. For example, they still have several channels of "rap and hip-hop", while killing the one disco/R&B channel. My wife was really pissed about losing her disco station, which is one of the big reasons for getting the service in the first place. So, it's back to the CDs for her. She may keep the service for Stern, but isn't sure yet.
The key to making the service viable is to carry a larger diversity of "niche" channels, not a bunch of "mainstream" ones that mainly compete against terrestrial radio or even each other.
The entire business model needs to be rethought. Right now, it's based on lock-in of subscribers who obtain expensive radios and would lose their entire acquisition investment if they drop the subscription. That risk deters potential customers from even considering the service at all.
A few non-subscription channels, even if they are somewhat bland "mainstream commercial" content, removes that disincentive. Those who want the unique content will subscribe, those who don't won't, but at least get some revenue from advertisers on the "free" channels. The more listeners, the higher the advertising revenues.
Pay for commercial-free and unique content with the assurance that the equipment will still have some limited functionality minus the subscription would work much better.
One other opportunity that Sirius could persue is to act as a "content originator" for a network of terrestrial broadcasters, especially those adding HD Radio. Offering them the content at a lower cost than they would incur by hiring DJs and sharing ad revenue could work as an additional income stream.
Attack the market in multiple directions at once rather than just being a one-trick-pony is the real key to success.
Is there any service that doesn't trump sat radio in a single aspect? Probably not. But I'm with the others here who see value to the service. The footprint of sat radio is in a league of it's own, and while it has it's own reception issues - especially in the hilly northeast US - it's not as if there aren't signal issues with any other wireless service. Satellite radio as we know it may be doomed. Sirius/XM has a business model that defies explanation, and WorldSpace has it's own troubles. That doesn't mean that a digital broadcast service with a continental footprint doesn't have a place in our modern media mix, just that the Sirius/XM radio model probably isn't it. fwiw, I've been an XM subscriber since around 2000 & I have no immediate plans to cancel... even though I probably spend more time listening online when I have access to a broadband connection. I'm hopeful that whatever private equity group picks up Sirius/XM (& maybe worldspace) assets & infrastructure at the inevitable bankruptcy firesale can come up with a practical business model and a way to woo back the installed hardware base - much of which is probably idle & unsubscribed.
on road trips?
Best Slashdot Co
Might as well have a This Post Sponsored by Apple as the subject line. You do realize not everyone lives in a city, right?
If Sirius goes under I am going to be one seriously sad panda. Radio in my part of the country is fucking dire.
I find it hard to believe people don't think it's worth $13/mo, honestly.
+++ATH0
"...and they have written off $4.8 billion dollars in stock value.."
Submitter, did you bother read the article? They impaired (wrote down) assets on their books in response to a drop in stock value.
Show me the asset on their books that represents their ownership stake in themselves. You can't since it doesn't exist. Before you start writing about accounting and finance, learn about it first ignorant pig.
I subscribed to XM several years ago when I used to do a lot of traveling and did not always wanted to hunt for radio stations every 45 minutes or listen to the same CDs over and over again. I discovered that in addition to the music, news and sports (which I never listen to) the classic radio shows and audio books which is now my favorites. However the broadcast days are being cut back on one station and the other seems to have more and more commercials on it and I pay a subscription and have to listen to commercials? Possibly they need to come up with a business model where you can select what you want to hear and drop what has no interest to you. For me that would be some music stations, radio plays and news. Since I have only a few selections it should mean a lower monthly subscription
I bought a new car a couple years back, and with the car came a free year of Sirius. I Siriusly (haha) tried to listen to it, but .... people actually *PAY* for that? I simply could not handle the horrible sound quality. I called Sirius and Dodge, thinking something was wrong with either the system or the service, and that's when I learned the bitstream was somewhere in the neighborhood of 34kbps! No wonder it sounds like an AM radio under water.
Fix the quality, shut the DJs up, drop the prices a bit (I'm not paying 13+/mo for radio), and I would consider it.
By the way: My nickname is Newman, and I am a writer/moderator for Siriusbuzz.com. I did not feel like creating an account here because if this article is any indication of the type of reporting this site does, I will not be back to comment again anyways. This is just another example of the crap reporting we are used to in this day and age. No research, no facts, just throw out some stuff and make an article you think will sell.
1) Sirius is not loosing subscribers. They are GAINING subscribers. The growth is SLOWING, but still GROWING. In this economy, GROWTH is something you are NOT seeing out of a lot of Fortune 500 companies, but you ARE seeing it at Sirius XM.
2) The 4.8 billion they wrote off in the latest conference call was nothing but a number. It did not affect the shareholders or the subscribers one little bit. So what does it matter? Absolutely nothing to anyone but the media, who likes to bash Sirius XM. Is this publication a memeber of the NAB?
3) COMMERCIALS?!?!?!?! Sirius XM still have over 50 COMMERCIAL FREE MUSIC CHANNELS!!!!!! Why do you not mention that fact? This is clearly a basher article with absolutely nothing positive and made up negative facts. That is as far as I got in the article because articles like this make me sick to my stomach.
I originally signed up for Sirius three years ago to listen to Howard. I was blown away, however, by the other programming. Specifically, the Boombox and later Punk channels were terrific. Music unheard on any other broadcast medium. Now that the merger is over, those two channels are gone. The company encourages fans of those channels to listen to Pop2k (top 40) and the Faction (not classic punk), which I don't find to be acceptable substitutes at all. Howard is on vacation every other week, so even that doesn't justify my continued subscription to the service.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
My Cingular/AT&T store said $60 for 50 mbytes per month plus overage charges. My phone bills for the last 9 months prove they weren't lying. Asking intitially/subsequently got no different pricing. So you now should have the idea that my $60 cost is coming from the provider. Oh, so they have different pricing for iPhone customers? Now I'm even more disgusted with them.
Remember the 2XL? An 8-track 'computer' that fooled non tech-savvy people into thinking it was a computer. But it was just a tape with 4 channels, with 4 buttons to switch tracks. It would ask you a question and then you pushed 1 of 4 buttons to get the correct answer. Why couldn't the same thing be done with radio, with 16 or 32 channels? (when has a commercial webpage had more than 32 links on it?)
I haven't seen anyone really touch on this but it's absolutely the case. Most people have really terrible sound systems in their cars but the one in mine is quite good. As such, I can hear the substantial difference in sound quality between sirius satellite radio (I used to have a starmate) and even horrible 128kbit mp3's. Even FM radio has way better sound quality. It's really sad. Couple that with when I was a sirius subscriber years ago, the alternative and techno/trance station I liked repeated songs over and over and over again until my ears bled. There are literally *thousands* of fantastic easy royalty trance song and I swore they played the same 5 over and over again. In the Philadelphia area, a new alternative station ran by clear channel just popped up and it's substantially better than anything sirius ever put out. And the really sad thing is that when I got my unit I did so because Sirius was reputed to have better sound quality than XM.
It's a great idea, and I'd pay for it... But if I am going to pay it better be good. Damn good. And they failed.
I have an iPhone and 2 Sirius radios. Sirius doesn't have to compete with iPhone. They should use the iPhone to make money. Why isn't there a Sirius app on the iTunes store yet? Have a subscription? Great, listen all day long for no additional cost. (Think Netflix on the XBOX). Don't have a satellite radio? Listen to Sirius for 20-30 bucks a year on your iPhone, including Howard.
This is a no brainer. I'm under the assumption that as soon as Howard retires, the whole company is going down in flames.
"I can bare with commercials ..."
At least in the USA, most states frown on this while driving on public roads! :-)
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
The author of this article is making a very broad assumption that everybody in the United States has access to the high speed EVDO or HSDPA services offered by the cellular carriers. In Amarillo Texas (where I live) there is no HSDPA or EVDO from Sprint or AT&T and neither have any plans in the immediate future to bring that higher speed data to the area. Many of the areas I travel to in the Texas Panhandle have ABSOLUTELY no cellular service. The only two ways I can get music is via my iPod or XM Radio. The iPod's shortcoming is that it's limited to the songs I can fit on it and I might suddenly want to switch genres. XM's advantage is that they play music I may have not heard in a long time and haven't had the thought to purchase it from Amazon or itunes.
>I find it hard to believe that people actually pay $13/mo for radio :)
10: It's not just a radio. It's entertainment without commercials and it's the only (legal) place to listen to Howard Stern each day. You can't get that on radio (anymore, and in the case of the former; ever), and I have to do some early morning mp3 work to attach Howard to my iPod for the day's show. iPod is a helper here, not a competitor. I'd pay double for this service, it's that much better than any alternative. Never heard of FStream, does this somehow work on my in-car radio, over many miles of roads? I doubt it. What I don't doubt is that this item smells of NAB sour grapes for spending $400M+ on lobbyists to try and keep the XM/Sirius merger from even happening in the first place. While HUGE oil and wireless companies merged in a fraction of the time. This is just another example of our misguided government and their weakness for some cash for influence. Over a year it took before the merger was approved, that hurts the two companies by not allowing them to shift to a better business strategy, or offer other combined services, during a critical time in their development, nor does it help me as a subscriber. It's not a free market when your competitors have to bribe officials to help protect their ailing, old-fashioned business. Radio stations are worthless to me and most investor and station owners too. Face it, XM/Sirius has a great product, they have over 18 million subscribers combined, and they aren't going anywhere except in my new car next year.
Tell me this, genius. Do you subscribe to a cable or satellite TV service, or just get your shows over DVD(not free), youtube, bittorrent, appleTV(not free), and the rabbit ears? Thought so. Like I said, this service is worth double to me *because* of the lack of commercials, the permanence of the stations at any location, and the variety. I'm a happy subscriber of two Sirius receivers, and I shut off my DirecTV two years ago, and I don't miss it. Sirius(or XM now), and DVDs, that's all I need. What else do I need? Some shitty commercials on a higher bandwidth, pay for, radio? HD radio is what will fail. That and anything else that does not deliver the goods (no commercials, high quality audio, variety, signal ubiquity). The NAB got their asses handed to them. If radio is so fucking good, go buy a station yourself. You can get one AWFUL cheap now! Wanna know why? goto line 10!
The radio in your car is good for one thing; being a host for a satellite radio receiver, iPod or other MP3 player, when there is no AUX jack. HA! Stick THAT in your drive and boot it.
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
If it goes down, I don't have anything good to replace it with. I can't afford an iPhone, nor can I afford the extra bite of an unlimited-data plan to stream music with. Besides, it would be nowhere near as convenient, as I couldn't leave it in the car as I can the XM radio; too expensive and too much temptation for thieves! (The XM radios are far less valuable, and they have the added bonus that they can be "bricked" by the company if they're reported stolen.) Use an iPod in the car? Same problem. (Worse, even; Apple might be able to remotely "brick" an iPhone, too, but couldn't do that with just a regular iPod.) I guess it would be back to either pre-burned CDs or the vast field of bullshit that is FM radio for me...
Be who you are...and be it in style!
Why would I pay a monthly charge to listen... to the radio? I can get internet radio and Podcasts for free, and I can listen to them when I want as opposed to when they think I should.
XM/Sirius might die. They do have competition, in the form of terrestrial radio. Iphones and fstream? Not a competitor. you can't seriously think that wifi will work from any kind of moving vehicle. Seriously. And cellular data is a) capped at 5GB, so you'll hit that cap streaming audio too much. b) Not reliable enough.
AT&T's network is awful in many places, with VERY slow 3G speeds. Verizon, Sprint, and Alltel have much better EVDO speeds, but if you hit one weak spot, the data device drops from EVDO (2-3mbps max) to 1X speeds (144kbps max), and will not kick back up to EVDO until the connection is idle -- which will never happen if it's streaming audio. In addition, there's MANY areas that have no cellular coverage, and MANY more where there's coverage but the signal is low (a 0-bar signal will get like 20kbps.)
I drive long distances with gaps in radio coverage on a regular basis, I recently purchased a new car that has XM built in, and yet when the free trial expires, I have no intention of buying a subscription. First of all, you need to consider the cost vs the time you would use it. And while I do travel for work frequently, I don't listen to the radio while at a client site, and per week, I average maybe 5 hours in the car, of which only 15 minutes I'd have a hard time finding an FM station. It's hard to justify the monthly costs for something I need so little.
However, the real competition isn't streaming wifi over the iphone, it's listening to already downloaded content on the ipod or mp3 player. For keeping up to date on the day to day world (those of us that don't listen to FM may still keep ourselves up to date), I use an RSS reader, and that also has feeds from several podcasts. In my new car, it included not only XM and the now mandatory line in for the mp3 player, but a usb plug so I can just load up a thumb drive of podcasts and do something useful with my 4 hour trip. With the usb, there's no more reaching down to operate some tiny controls on a little mp3 player screen since the audio is played directly on the car stereo with the steering wheel controls completely functional.
Don't be surprised if cable and satellite TV providers have a harder time in the future if the interesting content is provided for download online and DVR's improve support for downloading and viewing this content automatically. As content moves online, and the methods for getting this content becomes easier, the vendors that do nothing other than repackage and deliver this content will find it more difficult to make a profit in the future.
XM and Sirius are not really trying to succeed. For example, I signed up for a free trial of the XM internet feed. When I tried to use it, I found out that it requires the Microsoft Media Player. Well, I use a Mac and I'm not interested in loading Media player. And, that means it won't play at all on my iPhone. You can call me a Mac fanboy but that misses the point. I'm the customer and therefore I'm right. I might understand if there were some compelling reason why they had to use Media Player, but there isn't. XM doesn't even want my business badly enough to take the simple step of support a generic media player. They are some combination of arrogant, lazy, and/or incompetent. So, I'll spend my money elsewhere.
I have been an XM radio customer, from Day 1... My favorite 3 channels on XM was Ethel, Lucy, and Fred (yeah, an awesome "I Love Lucy" reference). Since the merger was complete, these stations have been taken off the air, and replaced with "Alt Nation", "Lithium" and "1st Wave" - of the 3, "1st Wave" is the only one worth anything.
I *never* heard repeated music, at least in the same day, on Ethel or Lucy. On Sirius's Ethel-equivalent, "Alt Nation", I've heard The Airborne Toxicity "Sometime Around Midnight" *FIVE TIMES* in the same day! (The song sucks, by the way.)
Oh but now, due to the merger, I can get 24/7 AC/DC, 24/7 Jimmy Buffett, and 24/7 Bruce Springsteen. Yeah, that's worth it. :sarcasm:
I canceled my XM subscription on Nov 24th. I had been paying for 2 radios on a family plan. At first I listened to XM a lot, then over time I listened less and less. I listen to my mp3 collection at home, and local talk radio when I'm in my car.
Toward the end, what really started bugging me, was hearing songs repeated 2 or 3 times in a 4 or 5 hour period. This was on a channel that was supposedly pulling the play list from the last 3 decades. I imagine that, even restricted to a particular genre, 30 years produced more than 4 hours of play worthy songs.
So, in accordance with the service agreement they have online, I canceled my family plan via email. I got an automated email informing me that 1) they got the email and 2) how great XM is and thanks for being a customer.
I waited a few days and checked my account online and didn't see any indication that the status of my account had changed. Then I got another email saying that if I really wanted to cancel I'd have to call customer support. I guess the service agreement page on their website is meaningless since they don't abide by it.
So, I called customer service, and the nice lady who answered asked me for some basic information, got my account information pulled up, and then asked how she could help me. I said, I want to cancel my subscription.
That's when the hard core retention pitch started. Paraphrased:
Why are you cancelling?
I don't listen to it anymore.
What if we give you 3 months of free service?
No thank you, please just cancel the account.
Are you sure you don't want an extra 3 months to think about it?
No, thanks. Please stop with the sales pitch I just want to cancel my subscription.
Now here is where it got interesting:
Do you have a car kit? (I think: Wha?)
Just cancel my account.
Can you give your radios to someone else? (Me to myself again: Wha? -the other neuron kicks in- They must be getting desperate.)
Just cancel my account.
She finally gave up and told me the account was closed and the date my radios would stop working.
If I had an interest in listening to sports, or shock jocks, or more than a handful of music genres, I might have kept XM. But even with a radio sitting within reach from where I type this, I have hardly turned the thing on over the last few months, and I spend a lot of my time sitting right here. Sirius XM has a lot of competition, and in my experience it is just not compelling enough to be part of my entertainment budget.
Frank
when? when was the merger approved? the merger was approved in JULY,statesman. that means that refinancing the debt was IMPOSSIBLE until july. after july the credit market suddenly FROZE and the markets imploded. this substantially lessened the prospects for refinancing. investors piled out and traders shorted the hell out SIRI stock. the fact that you think the merger was approved a year ago kind of discounts EVERYTHING you say following that. it shows that you really don't have a grasp of what is actually going on. SLOPPY work, statesman. next time do your homework before publicly making a fool of yourself.
Xm and Sirius should have taken the cable-TV model approach. One company should have built the infrastructure, and other companies should have provided the programming. Then when programming deals went wrong (i.e. paying fortunes for name brand broadcast personalities, which proved to be not worth it in most cases) the infrastructure company would be in fine shape; only the programming supplier's business would be in trouble.
It's also sad to see how XM and Sirius duplicated so much programming across the two. They've changed that now with the coordinated lineup, but in the process it seems we got the intersection of their channels, not the union of them... they're down to 65 music channels now; hard to see how that's enough to properly cover all the formats they're trying to cover.
"... the question is: why would anyone want to pay for proprietary hardware and a limited selection of a few hundred stations all controlled by one company?"
Ron and Fez noon to three
-Monkey Hoooouuuuuuuuuuse
"It's entertainment without commercials and it's the only (legal) place to listen to Howard Stern each day."
You say that like it's a good thing.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
The alternatives to satellite radio that are bandied about can only replace one part of the content -- the music -- and there are a great many subscribers who are there for the sports or the talk, and they'll never get that on an internet-sourced system, sports in particular. Music is just cheap filler. Yes, I also wish the Sirius DJ's would quick flapping their yaps but I really don't care. Only my kids listen to the music and although "XM Kids" has been renamed the same great hosts are still there.
I also got the lifetime subscription.
I have a 45 minute commute, and I drive across several states every couple months. Since I got my satellite radio the commute and the 13 - 20 hour drives fly by a LOT faster!
And I have discovered more new music (and comedians) in the past few months than I had in the past few years.
I don't think this is still true. I just went to crutchfield and easily a third of the car receivers on the first page had front auxiliary inputs.
Satellite radio, like TV and radio and the internet, is simply a delivery system for media. Unfortunately, their design philosophy takes very close cues from the antiquated system they're trying to compete against (traditional radio) without taking any advantage of their technological superiority. In fact, it's two biggest weaknesses are what makes terrestrial radio so ubiqutious:
Portability and Price.
You can get an XM radio for your car or you can listen to it streamed over the internet, but go for a jog and you're SOL. Commute via mass transit and you're SOL. The power goes out and you're SOL. Not true with a five dollar walkman -- pop in two AA batteries and you're good for hours on your own. And most of them have a secondary medium, such as tape or CD. My MP3 Player also has an FM radio. My CELLPHONE has an FM radio.
Also, you don't have to *pay* for FM or AM service. Mobile users with unlimited data plans don't need to pay extra for audio streams. They're weak solutions, but they're ad supported and there's almost always something else on another station to listen to when the Weight-Loss-Drug-Of-The-Month is being pitched.
So what should Satellite radio do to compete?
First of all, open the hardware to anyone who wants to make a receiver. They still control the content, but when you can buy a Coby XM receiver for twenty bucks it'll be much more appealing.
Second, ditch the subscription model. It's dead, Jim. For music stations, only allow advertising that's in the form of music content -- ie, jingles or full length songs that feature product placement. For talk radio or news stations, let the talent do the pitch work themselves. Howard Stern was one of the most memorable pitch men I've ever heard -- all you need is "What is this?" and you know it's an ad. See also: Paul Harvey.
Finally, put some storage in the receiver and add a "Burst Delivery" mode, where the upcoming content for the next 12 hours is sent to the receiver all at once, ahead of time. Set it in a time sliced format with archived material where the "live" feed would go if a signal's unavailable. This would give it functionality in dead spots, tunnels, subways, on the go, wherever. It also gives you a chance to rewind or fast-forward if there's a particular song you want to hear again.
Satellite Radio, this is your official invitation to join us here in the 21st century.
Many channels on XM sound like MP3s playing under water. However, it was nice to hear Les Davis playing jazz on my Jetblue flight.
Ray
Thank you! Glad I'm not the only one who thought that. When I heard Sirius had bought Howard Stern's show I thought "You Go Sirius! And take Howard with you! And please don't bring him back!"
But I think the combo of free radio+ungodly amounts of space on mp3 players=dead sat radio. I just don't see how the can last with the incredible debt and losses they have. Like one of the other posters said, maybe someone will buy them up cheap when they go out of business. So does anybody know if these sats are good for anything besides sat radio? Because with the economy swirling down the drain I just can't see enough folks paying for radio to keep it afloat, even with a new owner. It is just too much of a niche product.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The channel I listened to most (fungus 53) was pulled. The ska, punk & surf that was played on it is no longer avliable or either xm or sirius. Satellite radio is mainly for the 55 and over market now. With 24 / 7 ac/dc, elvis, greatfull dead, bruce springstein & a jimmy buffet channel they are turning away half there market.
They're overpriced alright, but at the same time they were never going to be able to pay for their business model with the rates they were charging...way too low.
Wonder if GM (especially) wishes they had some of that satellite money back now that they "invested" in this "scam"? LOL.
-Matt
Satellites are the real problem, with satellite radio...people just have no freaking clue how much is costs to fly a satellite, let alone a network of them!
This is especially true when you look at those costs over time. The satellites they use have a surprisingly short lifespan.
To those who are interested, I would suggest paying attention to who made money off the creation and selling (and merging) of these businesses as well as who's standing next to them - then you'll know who to blame. It was a scam from the get-go if you ask me - I don't know who would think their business model could possibly work.
A high dollar piggy-back application (likely military) would be the only logical way to keep a network like that afloat, funding wise, IMO. (Which really would make radio the piggy-back app.)
-Matt
I bought a lifetime subscription.
I'm sorry for anyone who paid for that if these crackers go under.
Caveat emptor, eh?
-Matt
They are now outsourcing their customer support to the Philippines. The cost savings will raise the stock outlook.
Learn About Outsourcing. http://www.pioutsource.com
Yes, they are. XM is basically a spin-off technology of a company called Worldspace (overseas sat broadcasting and now bankrupt.) WS used to broadcast "Internet-like" content (their term, not mine) over the same airwaves.
Bark less. Wag more.
Well Sirius XM has NOT lost customers, they have been gaining every quarter since they went online and have over 19.1MM subscribers now. Steaming music, particularly in a car across the US is impossible right now, and not likely anytime soon. It is also very unsatisfactory in term of reception, much like terrestrial radio is. Satelitte radio give you news, music, special content, over 170 stations, and all the sports broadcasts live as they happen for professional and college sports, and gets it to you everywhere in the US. I have 16G on my MP3 player, but nothing matches satellite radio. Far from 'dieing' Sirius revenues and customer base is still growing, and every car sold in America has a Satellite ready radio, and over 55% have satellite installed. Over 90% of luxury cars come with it installed and a three year subscription standard. Once you have it, you con't go back. Check out the new player from XM: http://www.xmradio.com/xmp3/index.html If you are going to comment on something you might want to try it! Go to www.xmradio.com and get a three day internet trial. Also, they pay the artists, and always have for their music, and that is more than terrestrial radio who pays nothing to the artists. www.siriusxm.com is a great place to learn more. No I don't work for them, but I do lover the product. The company is going to around for a long time.
I don't know if I can believe anything else he claims when the first line is wrong. the DoJ approved the merger a year ago. The FCC didn't approve it until July. Sirius XM also announced this month that subscriptions were up over last year. There's more info on www.orbitcast.com
BOO!!
I just drove from Upstate NY to Maine and back for thanksgiving and guess what...I listened to Sirius Satellite radio all the way there and back...no drop outs...clear reception and great, FCC free, radio programming. Now, I'm not IT guru...but I don't think that the iphone with streaming internet radio would have been as successful. Plus...internet radio is still government censored radio....right?
I got Sirius radio in my new car 2 years ago. I had listened to Howard Stern 15 or 20 minutes a day before he moved to Sirius, but I hadn't missed his show enough to buy a radio. I finally signed up, and was surprised how much I liked it, particularly the absence of censorship. I also really like the various music channels, without commercials. I can't describe the amazing difference. On my old car, I had 5 pre-sets, it wasn't unusual to have all 5 playing commercials at the same time during my morning commute. And I live close to NYC, there are plenty of "free" channels to choose from. I also listen to Sirius at work, via the internet, for $2.99/mo. That's such a paltry fee for the music I want, uncensored, with no commercials. I really urge people to give it a try. It would be a shame if they went under.
there are a few reasons that Sirius is failing.
first of all, the iPod/music players/built-in-hard-drives are killing the need for Sirius. we have all spent countless hours working on our music collections, and we now have them (or a portion of them) on our 160GB iPods that we can plug into our cars. some cars have built in hard drives now. why would we pay Sirius money to listen to music that we probably already own(rent), and when we can listen to it truly commercial free? i have an all 80s playlist with all of the music from the 80s that i love. why do i need to pay for it again?
secondly, Sirius is not commercial free. they advertise 100 commercial-free channels, but when i had Sirius (3 month trial membership that came with my car), i could never find one. and a 10 second commercial telling me what channel i am listening to, or telling me that i am listening to Sirius radio (because i must be that stupid) is still a commercial.
lastly, they are doing bad business. if you bought in and got a $300-$500 lifetime subscription, then they won't let you take it to different vehicles. it is only a lifetime subscription for that car. in other words, you helped the company out in the beginning by taking a chance, and you get screwed later on once they become successful (or not...). it's bad business, and after seeing a family member get screwed, why would i support a company who does that to people. just because 90% of the things i buy are made by 10-year-old chinese kids doesn't mean i dont have ethics.
just my two cents.
Why does Google list this on their news page? This is opinion mixed with some unexplained, or poorly explained, facts by someone with an agenda against Sat radio. They don't even know about repeaters FFS.
The reason why XM and Sirius are loosing subsribers is that they pissed off both in the merger. They took away many of XM's stations in favor of crappy Sirius replacements and they took away Fine Tuning (booooo!). They pissed of Sirius by taking away many of their sports stations and putting them on XM instead. Nobody won so everybody is leaving!
"the question is: why would anyone want to pay for proprietary hardware and a limited selection of a few hundred stations all controlled by one company?"
The answer is: because it works.
When I'm charging down an interstate at 65mph I don't need to dicking with a phone to figure out why my TCP connection is timing out.
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
The date of the FCC approval is in the first linked story. Sure, it was proposed a little over a year ago, but they were separate companies until recently and completely operationally separate until VERY recently (try two weeks).
Anyway, satellite radio will continue on, they'll just keep getting cash infusions from somewhere until they start making money.
There's a lot to be said for having 20something million customers. If you can't make a business work with well over a billion dollars a year in revenue, it's time to trash upper-management and bring in somebody new that can.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
SiriusXM is a monopoly in the satellite radio space.
I respectfully suggest further study of the term substitute goods before making that argument. There does not need to be another satellite radio provider for there to be competition in the audio entertainment or even the radio market. Note I didn't say satellite radio because that is not the market - and that is not (solely) my opinion. The fact that there isn't another close to identical service is IRRELEVANT. You may not prefer the alternatives to Sirius XM products but iPods, terrestrial radio, cellular radio, and other technologies ARE without question substitute goods. They do NOT have to be perfect substitutes for them to compete.
If you define the marketplace sufficiently narrowly you can make almost any company a monopoly. If Sirius XM didn't compete with terrestrial radio, why were Clear Channel and the other terrestrial broadcasters arguing against the merger? After all, if they don't compete and satellite radio is a market unto itself, there is no issue and the terrestrial broadcasters should not care. If they do compete then terrestrial and satellite radio are substitute goods and there is ample competition in the form of terrestrial radio, cellular networks and MP3 players among others. You can't have it both ways.
You don't have to be a mathematician or a business major to know that if you have two companies competing and they merge into one, that is the very definition of a monopoly.
Well I do have degrees in both engineering and business and I submit you left something very critical out. You have to have ONLY two SIGNIFICANT companies competing for a merger to make a monopoly. I think it is quite clear that there are FAR more than two large players competing in this marketplace.
I recently dumped Sirius on two car units. It was simply a value decision. For the price of a year of Sirius, I can buy another iPod.
My whole family has acquired new iPods/iPhones since I got the satellite radios. We just never listen to Sirius, and haven't for months.
When I called to cancel, I was kept on-hold for 26 minutes. After a 10 minute sales pitch to stay, I was on-hold ANOTHER 7 minutes to "verify the credit to my card" for the few weeks I had left.
Since then, I've gotten multiple e-mails per day asking me to sign up again and at least 6 phone calls, even though I was very clear about why I was canceling the service.
I am my own gestalt.
The only place XM/Sirius is even remotely worthwhile is where I don't have some form of internet access, and with 3G getting more prevalant, that's going away. I just wish more portable players, like the sansa e280 (rockboxxed, baby!) had 802.11 capability, without restrictions on where you go to get your streams. That would be really nice at the gym. Yeah, phones can do it, but I really prefer having a cheap device that is really good at that one thing that I don't worry about breaking.
At home I use my roku soundbridge, which provides a great streaming interface. On the road, I use streamtuner to 'dial in' my internet radio stations from shoutcast. Audacious, I just discovered while trying ubuntu as a good xmms replacement.
I had Sirius for a year and wasn't thrilled. The few stations I liked, repeated songs too often. Their version of 70's hits was virtually all disco, 60's hits were mostly folk and the "punk" station never played anything I liked. All Elvis, all the time got old real quick and they even wasted two channels on some guy named Howard. Blues and classical were alright. Comedy channels were a cute novelty on ocassion. The news shows were pretty standard fair. Perhaps I wasn't so impressed because we have good stations here in Detroit. I can keep up with music on 89X while I get the news on WJR and NPR. I have 6 CDs loaded with MP3s, if that's not enough. I was gonna resubscribe for $50 for 6 months then they raised the price so I lost interest. Nothing against it and I'm glad other people enjoy it. Part of my lack of interest may be because I like to "think" that my DJ has a hand in choosing the music he or she plays and the whole national programming thing completely destroyed the illusion.
Push the button, Max!
Satellite radio antenna's SUCK. They are ugly, and they ruin the lines of your car. One of the greatest inventions of modern times is cars without antenna's sticking out of them. For those of us who really love our cars looks, that antenna is a deal breaker. Lots of cars these days don't even have an option to remove them, since they drilled holes in the roof.
My condition is rare: I don't listen to music by choice, pretty much ever. But I love talk shows on our radio in Toronto, the AM 1010, 640 and half useful news only 680.
These are the stations that I listen to, they are not on FM radio, unfortunately, so the quality is not the same as what the music stations get, but whatever. I like these stations because they are not politically correct, even though some hosts are (and of-course there is gov't regulation about cleanliness of speech, but it's OK, though some swearing doesn't hurt anyone and you can hear it after 9PM on the same stations). These stations have show hosts who actually do discussions, not preaching like the US Clearchannel, there is difference of opinion between hosts, and people can truly participate in discussions that are meaningful. Stuff about local, regional and global politics, economy and sometimes just discussing stupid things that happen every day.
That's my radio, and I actually would pay a few bucks a month for it if it wasn't available for free (ad supported) on AM anyway.
You can't handle the truth.
The company is losing subscribers, not going bankrupt. There's a big difference. XM/Sirus isn't going anywhere.
Mix in a poor economy and people not spending money on things that are frivolous and not necessary for their own survival, like Satellite Radio -- and you get, deflation of both the economy and gosh... the companies that make up the economy. Normal 7 year business cycle.
But going back to the bigger picture: The view of companies is that they must have CONTINUOUS GROWTH, or they're failing. This is flawed.
Let's explain why: A company that has just enough growth to cover inflation who has a 75% profit margin, is a wildly PROFITABLE company. But Wall Street will still hand their asses to them in the stock price if there's not GROWTH.
This has been going on for a long time, and makes little long-term business sense. Companies push beyond the point where their customers are happy with the service, making the quality drop off to maintain GROWTH when they could just hold at a high quality level and maintain PROFITABILITY.
I haven't looked at XM/Sirius... are they profitable, or are they leveraged (borrowing money) heavily to operate. Any company heavily leveraged with no cash on hand in this market, is definitely going to have their asses handed to them. Welcome to business risk analysis 101. The CEO's don't want to blame themselves because they need those uber-egos to be able to demand the insane paychecks they pull down. No BUSINESS ORIENTED Board of Directors should ever pay those guys as much as they do in the first place... but they do, because they're often other CEO's (peers) of the guy whom they're paying.
You pat my back, I'll pat yours. The normal way of the world. But it's twisted beyond belief right now. Look at the GM, Ford, and Chrysler guys all showing up to their Congressional meeting begging for money, in their corporate jets. I'm a big General Aviation fan, and love when GA aircraft can really do something good for the economy and companies... but I think they could have saved a few bucks and shown up via the other corporate scum suckers, the airlines, and saved a few bucks getting there.
When asked why they did it, you could tell from the looks on their faces that they simply don't even THINK about flying on an airline. It's not even an OPTION in these guy's heads. Blank stares like, "What?" Not even comprehending the question, let alone understanding the political impact of it. As far as being REAL businesspeople goes, these guys are CLUELESS. Did they EVER have a "normal" job in their lives?
I've followed the career of a few high-ranking folks who started out with nothing, and guess what... their businesses are sitting on piles of cash and cutting unneceesary spending to get through the next couple of years. Go figure.
If XM/Sirius is heavily leveraged... maybe it's time for them to die, the people who took risks on them to learn what they signed...
(Do they own bonds, or stock? Who gets paid first? This is all carefully and well documented in business, of course... think of it as a Slashdot homework lesson... who's getting paid if XM/Sirius can't pay the bills... you can do this exercise with ANY company and their public records...)
Then the liquidators come in, and give a different management team a chance to make something of it, and sell them the assets at pennies on the dollar for a new group of people to take the risks.
Fun. Capitalism.
+++OK ATH
>I find it hard to believe that people actually pay $13/mo for radio :)
10: It's not just a radio. It's entertainment without commercials and it's the only (legal) place to listen to Howard Stern each day. You can't get that on radio (anymore, and in the case of the former; ever), and I have to do some early morning mp3 work to attach Howard to my iPod for the day's show. iPod is a helper here, not a competitor. I'd pay double for this service, it's that much better than any alternative. Never heard of FStream, does this somehow work on my in-car radio, over many miles of roads? I doubt it. What I don't doubt is that this item smells of NAB sour grapes for spending $400M+ on lobbyists to try and keep the XM/Sirius merger from even happening in the first place. While HUGE oil and wireless companies merged in a fraction of the time. This is just another example of our misguided government and their weakness for some cash for influence. Over a year it took before the merger was approved, that hurts the two companies by not allowing them to shift to a better business strategy, or offer other combined services, during a critical time in their development, nor does it help me as a subscriber. It's not a free market when your competitors have to bribe officials to help protect their ailing, old-fashioned business. Radio stations are worthless to me and most investor and station owners too. Face it, XM/Sirius has a great product, they have over 18 million subscribers combined, and they aren't going anywhere except in my new car next year.
If I had to pay $13 a month to NOT hear Howard Stern, I'd probably do so.
Tell me this, genius. Do you subscribe to a cable or satellite TV service, or just get your shows over DVD(not free), youtube, bittorrent, appleTV(not free), and the rabbit ears? Thought so. Like I said, this service is worth double to me *because* of the lack of commercials, the permanence of the stations at any location, and the variety. I'm a happy subscriber of two Sirius receivers, and I shut off my DirecTV two years ago, and I don't miss it. Sirius(or XM now), and DVDs, that's all I need. What else do I need? Some shitty commercials on a higher bandwidth, pay for, radio? HD radio is what will fail. That and anything else that does not deliver the goods (no commercials, high quality audio, variety, signal ubiquity). The NAB got their asses handed to them. If radio is so fucking good, go buy a station yourself. You can get one AWFUL cheap now! Wanna know why? goto line 10!
No, I don't subscribe to cable or satellite TV. I get about a dozen channels of HDTV/DTV for free over the air with a simple roof antenna, and can get most other stuff off the Internet. It's awesome and it's free.
Just like commercial radio and internet-based free music services.
The radio in your car is good for one thing; being a host for a satellite radio receiver, iPod or other MP3 player, when there is no AUX jack. HA! Stick THAT in your drive and boot it.
The radio in my car usually stays on 88.5 ("Real Jazz, Real Traffic") or 89.3 ("The Current"), both are commercial-free stations in my town.
Or I listen to Pandora Radio in my car, thanks to my iPhone and the 3G network.
Or I just chose an album that I own.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I know that Honda has a deal with XM to use XM's birds to send some data to Honda's in-dash navigation systems.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.