Slashdot Mirror


Technologies To Watch Fail In 2009

An anonymous reader writes "Microblogs, targeted advertising, social news, online video, streaming music, and enterprise social networking are among the technologies that will probably fail in 2009, according to a new report from Internet Evolution. The report cites revenue figures, failed or non-existent business models, and an overabundance of 'me-too' start-ups, combined with the current recession, as reasons the aforementioned technologies might not survive the year. 'Whereas the past couple of years have been defined by overcrowding and overfunding in the Web 2.0 space, and an onslaught of startups with no purpose or plan to make money, this recessionary year is likely to see more due diligence on the part of VCs, allowing strong companies and technologies to emerge from the smoldering pile of dead ones.'"

108 comments

  1. Not technologies that will fail by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I read the summary I was pretty annoyed - but I went and read the article (crazy I know) and that helped because it doesn't say these technologies will fail. It says some of the companies trying to make money off these technologies will fail. That's something completely different and I would agree that they are probably right. Of course most start-ups fail so making that kind of a prediction is a bit of a safe bet.
     
    The thing is a lot of this stuff, I'm thinking especially of microblogging since that has really been something I've been interested in a quite a bit recently, will not go away because a lot of people really enjoy using the technology. That it is difficult to turn that into a way to make money makes me happy. So what if twitter fails? People can just move to identi.ca. Then no one needs to make any money off the platform - they just need to enjoy it and participate for motives other than financial benefit. The costs will still exist but they will be spread out across all the participants.
     
    There is that segment of any new community that see it as a way to make money. Those people are rife in most social spaces ( web 2.0 or whatever you want to call it ) right now. People who just want to constantly talk about making twitter a part of your strategy to increase your fan base to make more money or how to use facebook to get rich, etc. I can't wait until they are gone.
     
    What is exciting to me is that most of the alternatives that will step up to fill the vacuum left by the failed commercial attempts are open. That means I can enjoy interacting with a wide array of people all over the world but maintain control over what happens and participate on my terms.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Not technologies that will fail by gbarules2999 · · Score: 1

      Web 2.0 = NEED MORE CLICKS. The article has it right. That model may be nice and all, but in execution, it's not something that will make money in the long term, at least not to the amount that corporations are hoping. They won't "die," (the revenue is usually enough to be self-sustaining) but the buzz around them will fall slowly off when people realize, "Hey, this won't make me a million dollars."

    2. Re:Not technologies that will fail by stoolpigeon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That model is completely unnecessary. There is no reason for any kind of revenue - just people who want to get to know others, participate in a community, etc. And if by buzz you mean all those marketing types and prognosticators going away - then like I said, I can't wait for it to go away. Those people are amazingly annoying.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    3. Re:Not technologies that will fail by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The thing is a lot of this stuff, I'm thinking especially of microblogging since that has really been something I've been interested in a quite a bit recently, will not go away because a lot of people really enjoy using the technology. That it is difficult to turn that into a way to make money makes me happy. So what if twitter fails?

      While I agree with your sentiment, I don't see the use of microblogs such as twitter. Regular blogs attract me as a possible source of information and well written information from someone more informed than a journalist at times.

      All I see in microblogs is the internet version of that person calling home from the supermarket asking their insignificant other whether to get 1% or skim milk and other such nonsense.

      Which isn't to say whether it has any real social value or not will make it fail as a business... it's just that I don't think it will really matter.

    4. Re:Not technologies that will fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I see in microblogs is the internet version of that person calling home from the supermarket asking their insignificant other whether to get 1% or skim milk and other such nonsense.

      Agreed. And rather than broadcast it to the world, it would best be handled by a direct text message (if you choose to go that route). Microblogs only really make sense for "celebrities", of which most of us are not.

    5. Re:Not technologies that will fail by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Right now on twitter I'm following @bashcookbook and I get a bash tip every day. I also follow @thaumatrope and read little 140 character slivers of science fiction stories. @Outshine calls theirs prose poetry and it is all with a speculative fiction type spin. @oreillymedia keeps me up to date on oreilly stuff including conferences, web casts, new books and things they have on-line like blog posts and interviews.
       
      This may not be your cup of tea - but for a lot of people it is a very popular way to receive and share information. The other people I follow are individuals who are pretty well known (Wil Wheaton, Jon Scalzi, Tim O'Reilly, etc.) and I'm interested in things like what they are doing, what they are reading, stuff like that.
       
      Does all that matter? I'm not sure, it all depends on context. But to me personally it matters right now. There is also the fact that now that I have a number of friends who are also on twitter we are able to use it as a way of keeping in touch. Of course we could use instant messaging or email - but we don't. If we need to say something longer we use another method - but throughout the day twitter is usually enough.
       
      Oh - and with the ability to search through all of this - it becomes an index of sorts as many microblog posts point to other places on the web. That's another feature that I believe brings real value. And I know that this is also available in other platforms - but what I've seen happen is that many people tend to microblog much more freely than they will do a regular blog post. So in the end it will get more information out there.
       
      I've been thinking about this a lot in the last few weeks - which may be obvious. I just put in a request to host a project at source forge for a microblogging tool I'd like to build. So there's my bias. I'm pretty excited about what I see as some cool possibilities. Of course not everyone will be on board with this. It may never grow beyond a niche thing. But I remember the first time I was on facebook and thought "What is the point and who is ever going to do this?" Of course now just about everyone I know is on facebook.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    6. Re:Not technologies that will fail by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's really wild is your entire post is the same kind of "microblog" stuff that you just said doesn't matter.

    7. Re:Not technologies that will fail by kjart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no reason for any kind of revenue - just people who want to get to know others, participate in a community, etc.

      That's absurd - who pays the cost necessary to actually keep such a service running?

    8. Re:Not technologies that will fail by stoolpigeon · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm interested in what my friends are doing - and 'celebrities'. It's sort of like the status update on facebook - but with a service like twitter that's all that happens. And is a completely opt-in format. I started following a guy a few weeks back - and then when I realized I didn't care for the content, I just stopped following. No one can push stuff to me without my requesting it. Very nice.
       
      I have a few friends from here at slashdot I follow on twitter and I think it is a cool way to keep in touch and know what they have going on. I don't think any of them fall into celebrity status - though The Fun Guy has been on tv and radio I guess.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    9. Re:Not technologies that will fail by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      but you've just described a use for twitter.

      just because it doesn't serve the same purpose as regular blogs doesn't mean it's not serving it purpose. i mean, post-it notes aren't going to provide you with the same depth/quality of content as an academic paper, but that isn't to say they're not useful. "unimportant," perhaps, but there are clearly lots of practical uses for such disposable micro-stationary.

      these days people increasingly are connected to the internet/web more and more. they're on the web at work; they're on the web at school (even in class); they're on the web when they're at home relaxing; and, with smart phones, they're on the web even when they go out. sure, if you really need to reach someone you can always just call them, and make sure they receive the information, but that is not always warranted. micrblogs provide an alternate communication medium that is passive and unintrusive. microblogs vs cellphones can be compared to one-way multicast vs two-way unicast.

      like blogs and just about any other medium, there will be lots of cruft. but also like blogs, it's just one more communication tool that's available to people to be used when appropriate. if people find away messages and status updates useful, then why not microblogs? and with the option of updating your microblog via SMS, you can post status updates regardless of where you are.

      i mean, when you chat with your friends, you don't always have a lot to say. we're social creatures, and casual social interaction comes naturally to us. you probably won't find the microblogs of complete strangers interesting, but that's besides the point.

    10. Re:Not technologies that will fail by stoolpigeon · · Score: 3, Informative

      All you need with a federated service like identi.ca is a small percentage of the participants to host a server. and those people just need a hosting account they can get out of their disposable income. With open social and the like a lot of other things can work the same way - there is no need for a central authority or revenue generator - everything is distributed. And the costs are low enough out at the end points that their need not be income derived from the activity itself.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    11. Re:Not technologies that will fail by wisty · · Score: 1

      Why not just use email lists? Except that emails get bloated, and so you can't view a days email on one page. Still, it's only a marginal improvement.

    12. Re:Not technologies that will fail by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>All you need with a federated service like identi.ca is a small percentage of the participants to host a server. and those people just need a hosting account they can get out of their disposable income.

      So my choices are pay money and host a server or see a little AD to have some other company do all the work for me?

      I think it's easier for me to have a little AD on the side of the page when I log into Twitter. Easier and free.

    13. Re:Not technologies that will fail by Franio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, he means that the choice is somebody (not necessarily you) paying money. Wikipedia is free to everyone with no ads because some people pay for it through donations.

    14. Re:Not technologies that will fail by OolimPhon · · Score: 1

      Nobody said anything about seeing adverts, if that's what you mean by AD. identi.ca doesn't appear to have any, that I can see. If you're already hosting a server of some sort, like probably most of the users here, why not allocate a bit of spare capacity to something you like doing?

    15. Re:Not technologies that will fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I would love to understand why people hold the economic ideas they do regarding Internet services.

      Why is it absurd to pay for some service I want, or form a co-op, or just share with my community out of good nature, instead of trying to harass with advertisements as micro-payment?

      Why don't we expect other activities to be handled the same way? When someone goes on a coffee run or brings bagels to the office, they just use a cash pool or rough karma balance. They don't expect to find an ad-supported free coffee and bagel service to drag into the office.

      I am a modest coffee drinker, perhaps averaging about one $2 espresso per work day. So that is roughly $10 per week, or $40 per month. As much as I pay for my ISP subscription at home. I pay less than 1/10 of that for a hosted e-mail solution.

      If I were into personal blogging, I would prefer to pay a small amount like I do for e-mail, and not bother my friends (my audience) with ads. Is the problem that everyone dreams they will become a famous author and earn an livable income from their blogs? It strikes me as a multi-level marketing scam, convincing millions of users they will all climb the ladder to Internet success, when mostly they are crushed at the bottom. The people with the viable business plan are the ones channeling ad revenue in bulk at the top of the pyramid.

    16. Re:Not technologies that will fail by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      exactly

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    17. Re:Not technologies that will fail by kjart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All you need with a federated service like identi.ca is a small percentage

      It's odd you bring up identi.ca, since the company behind them, Control Yourself, Inc would probably disagree with you about not needing a revenue stream - or at least, their investors would.

    18. Re:Not technologies that will fail by owlnation · · Score: 1

      That's a good post. The problem with a lot of these technologies is that, although there is a genuine use for them, the true user base is far lower than the actual number of registered users.

      The thing that is particularly annoying about them, is that the people who created them want to create as much buzz as possible and sellout before they go out of fashion -- and they all DO go out of fashion, because the majority of users are only using them since all they friends are, only to move on to the next thing when that becomes a la mode. If only the companies buying these startups would just realize there's very little long-term value in them, we might be spared a great deal of irritation.

      Myspace -> Facebook -> Twitter -> thenextbigthing.

      Now that the majority of teenagers, idiots, scammers and viral marketers have moved on from myspace, it's a very useful tool for promoting your work if you are an artist. Perhaps something similar will happen to facebook and twitter (although personally I can see no redeeming value in twitter whatsoever)

      Twitter has the World's most obnoxious marketing department. It is thrust in your face at every turn. Which only leaves me with the conclusion that, if you HAVE to oversell something that much, then there's no substance there. The emperor is, in fact, stark naked. I sincerely wish them every failure.

    19. Re:Not technologies that will fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy, some moron who hosts the services expecting to someday make a buck. Said moron hooks more and more ridiculous ads into the service, which their userbase blocks with ad-block-plus, enjoys the service until it goes under, and moves on gleefully to the next "big" thing.

    20. Re:Not technologies that will fail by stoolpigeon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not odd at all. I'm sure the company and their investors would like to make money this way. Maybe they will, maybe they wont. The point is that isn't necessary to the survival of the technology and if they go under, it wont stop people from using the product.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    21. Re:Not technologies that will fail by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      Ugh... mailing lists and RSS.

      But whatever, twitter is *hip* right now, I should be quite.

      I'm interested in things like what they are doing, what they are reading, stuff like that.

      blog, rss?

      There is also the fact that now that I have a number of friends who are also on twitter we are able to use it as a way of keeping in touch

      If there is any value in microblogging at all, I think that's it.

      Oh - and with the ability to search through all of this - it becomes an index of sorts as many microblog posts point to other places on the web.

      Gosh... need I say anything here? ;)

      but what I've seen happen is that many people tend to microblog much more freely than they will do a regular blog post.

      When I want to read other people's brain farts (or cut my own), I go to Slashdot or other forums ;)
      I guess I might be interested in what my friends are doing now and then, and we rarely write full emails back and forth.

      I'm not saying it's useless, but it is the cheapest form of communication, short text messages, and it's broadcast publicly. I don't see how the real value isn't going to be very far and few between with that model. At least a blog encourages SOME level of forethought. Sure many people speak less freely on them, but.. maybe that's a good thing?

    22. Re:Not technologies that will fail by edmicman · · Score: 1

      I'm not really sure where to throw this out there, so I'm just gonna do it:

      On top of the usefulness of micro-blogging and other social media connections, I think we [I?] will run into either a distillation of a common platform, or spin out of control into chaos. Ok, so twitter can be useful to post out content in short blips, that wouldn't otherwise be useful in the context of a blog. A full-blown blog lets me analyze and write exactly what I want. But my facebook profile probably gives me more exposure than my blog, at least at this point.

      So then we [I] have the problem of "where do I post this content?". I've found a cool new link that I want to share - do I post it on my blog where I can write more commentary that I could on the other services? Do I post it on twitter and merely share the link? Do I post it on Facebook so that more people see it? Do I blog it and post a link to that blog on Facebook and twitter? It's like I need a way to string them all together in a coherent manner. Not to mention the whole concept of keeping my blogging personality different from my twitter personality different from my Facebook profile. Or maybe I want to link them all and have any one of them actually reflect me?

      I think we're seeing lots of different ways to communicate with others, and then we'll start seeing things boil down to a workable method to connect everything.

    23. Re:Not technologies that will fail by johanatan · · Score: 0

      It's like I need a way to string them all together in a coherent manner. Not to mention the whole concept of keeping my blogging personality different from my twitter personality different from my Facebook profile. Or maybe I want to link them all and have any one of them actually reflect me?

      That's exactly what this guy seems to be doing. He's got his own domain somewhere and some software that let's him post to all of the networks at once.

    24. Re:Not technologies that will fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All 0 of them.

    25. Re:Not technologies that will fail by zarlino · · Score: 1

      Why can't everyone microblog on its own frigging server?

      --
      Check out my cross-platform apps
    26. Re:Not technologies that will fail by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not picking on you personaly but this whole thread is a confusion between revenue, costs and profit. A web site has costs, period. You have three choices.

      1. You eat the costs so everyone has a "free" service. (generous and passionate)
      2. You create revenue to balance the costs so everyone has a "free" service. (wise and passionate)
      3. You create revenue to exceed the costs, the service puts bread on your table. (business, passion is often fake)
      The most common way to eat the costs is through donations.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    27. Re:Not technologies that will fail by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      While I agree with your sentiment, I don't see the use of microblogs such as twitter. Regular blogs attract me as a possible source of information and well written information from someone more informed than a journalist at times. All I see in microblogs is the internet version of that person calling home from the supermarket asking their insignificant other whether to get 1% or skim milk and other such nonsense. Which isn't to say whether it has any real social value or not will make it fail as a business... it's just that I don't think it will really matter..

      Kind of irrelevant if people are enjoying using it, isn't it? I don't see the sense, you don't see the sense... but there are millions who do...

    28. Re:Not technologies that will fail by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Which is why the summary is bad.

      Microblogging is wildly popular on facebook already. The only way microblogging will go away is for facebook to go away.

      Even then... really microblogging has been going on for years. In people's Sigs and in people's custom status messages in AIM, MSN and ICQ.

      "Username - Things people should stop eating pesticide ridden apples."

      That's a microblog. It's just not posted on a site or medium dedicated to them.

      What we're going to see is it go distributed. Your twitter feed will be part of your facebook page. Your facebook page will just be an amalgam of associated services centralized around contact information. It might not be facebook because we'll probably want to have our choice of associating this data. And it'll be p2p hosted services so that your wall, your email, your twitter, your IM and everything else is handled through a single identity.

      Think Palm Pre. Palm evidently gets it. They're just doing it through the OS not a webpage.

    29. Re:Not technologies that will fail by extrasolar · · Score: 1

      All you need with a federated service like identi.ca is a small percentage of the participants to host a server. and those people just need a hosting account they can get out of their disposable income.

      So you see the problem...

  2. stuff that will fail in 2009 by Janek+Kozicki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This kind of news got pretty popular lately. There was at least one similar story past week. And it's logical (and boring too). Of course some random stuff will fail in 2009, because we have a global recession. Now every kind of journalists are trying to make predictions, which is like playing lotto (for those journalists who are stupid and can't really make an indepth analysis, which is way too difficult, anyway). Then in 2010 it will turn out that some random journalist was right, and he will win the prize "I was right!". Meh.

    --
    #
    #\ @ ? Colonize Mars
    #
    1. Re:stuff that will fail in 2009 by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that's because it's easier to figure out what doesn't work, than it is to figure out what does work. It's like trying to pick which runner will lose the race instead of picking the winner. If you have 10 runners, you have a 90% chance of picking a loser and a 10% chance of picking a winner.

    2. Re:stuff that will fail in 2009 by cferthorney · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every year people predict things, it's almost the journalists version of New Year Resolutions. Predict something and see if you are right. If you are then as you say you get to say "I was right" but if you are wrong you conveniently forget you ever wrote said article and rely on Google cache cleaning itself up.

      The world will be a different place after this recession - and so will the web. I don't think however we should all update our microblogs saying "The end of Web 2.0 is nigh" just yet.

    3. Re:stuff that will fail in 2009 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially when you figure that the "research" done for this article probably consisted of firing an email to Jerry Wang asking him for a description of Yahoo!'s top products and services.

    4. Re:stuff that will fail in 2009 by extrasolar · · Score: 1

      But I don't think it's purely random either. It's all of those pants gnomes business plans out there that really make you wonder:

      1. Provide a free service to upload and share videos!
      2. ???
      3. Profit!

      1. Make a platform for people to send short messages to anyone who subscribes at once!
      2. ???
      3. Profit!

      Like that.

    5. Re:stuff that will fail in 2009 by zobier · · Score: 1

      Something that's going to fail this year:

        * "$x is going to fail this year" news articles

      .
      Well, one can hope.

      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
  3. They forgot Sirius-XM satellite by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are only about two months away from following Circuit City's path, due to more-and-more people streaming their radio off the net or off their cellphones, instead of satellite.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:They forgot Sirius-XM satellite by LordKaT · · Score: 2

      due to more-and-more people streaming their radio off the net or off their cellphones, instead of satellite.

      Funny, I thought it was because they have billions in payments due this year.

    2. Re:They forgot Sirius-XM satellite by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For the satellite service, Sirius/XM's main market are car drivers. Streaming radio isn't going to have much of an impact, nor are cellphones with radios built into them. It's also worth noting that most Sirius subscribers I know are attracted in large part because of Sirius's own streaming service. They listen to the satellite in the car, and then listen to the same Sirius-exclusive stations via streaming from their computers at work.

      It's possible that in five years, ubiquitous LTE coverage will mean streaming radio to cars will suddenly start to become viable, but XM/Sirius has an opportunity to carve out a niche in the meantime, and at that point Sirius/XM will become more of a seller of streaming services than a satellite operator.

      While they're not doing well, there's no reason to believe that they have an unviable business model. As long as they provide a portal to subscription funded ad-free content, they're going to attract a market. A move from satellite based distribution to streaming will probably end up helping them more than hindering them, as they'll no longer need to fund the distribution.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:They forgot Sirius-XM satellite by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Which is due to a shortfall in income from subscribers, which is due to subscribers moving to other alternatives like Net radio.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:They forgot Sirius-XM satellite by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can't listen to your Cellphone as it streams wireless radio in your car? Or Ipods in your car?

      I think satellite radio is going the same way as the VCR - slowly but surely being replaced by other technologies.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:They forgot Sirius-XM satellite by Zerth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I bought a Focus recently. It came with both Sirius and Sync, which takes just about anything with a USB plug or bluetooth.

      I was rather liking Sirius, as it had several channels of rock, electronic, opera, etc. so I heard lots of new music that I wouldn't hear on the radio.

      Then they merged with XM, dropped most of the channels I listened to, and my free trial ran out.

      About then I realized that for the cost of Sirius I could stick a 500 gig hard drive in the Sync and buy a hundred or two new songs every year.

      I'm also glad I went that way since my wife got me a Crackberry Storm for Xmas and now I can stream music off the internet through my car stereo with my phone, which lets me find some really random new stuff.

    6. Re:They forgot Sirius-XM satellite by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You can't listen to your Cellphone as it streams wireless radio in your car?

      Ok, first thing: "Wireless radio". Think about it.

      Second thing: No. If you're referring to cellphones with radios built in, there's no point: cars already have built-in radios.

      If you're referring to connecting to a streaming radio service using the wireless Internet, the vast majority of cellphones offer no such facility. Even when they do, you're going to have to find a streaming service worth listening to (hey, here's an idea, subscribe to Sirius!) The free streaming services I've seen are generally either rebroadcasts of radio-accessible content (your car already has a radio), or ad-supported music stations (or non-ad supported stations that'll exist fleetingly at best.) You'll also generally have to pay more for your data subscription than the $12 per month Sirius charges for its content.

      The point of Sirius-XM is not "woo! we have satellites!", it's "we have high quality content, you pay for it by subscribing rather than buying advertiser's products". If you're obsessing about how "technologies" are going to make "Sirius-XM" obsolete, then you have no idea what Sirius-XM is and you've ignored the part of my comment where I pointed out Sirius-XM can exist without satellites.

      Or Ipods in your car?

      iPods contain a fixed collection of content that can only be updated when you're at a computer, with items you select in advance. I can't even begin to imagine why you'd bring them up as a Sirius-XM competitor.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:They forgot Sirius-XM satellite by NuGeo · · Score: 1

      I find it very doubtful that the average person who would subscribe to XM/Sirius is now streaming "Net radio" in their cars. What's more likely is people are just penny pinching and discontinuing their subscriptions and simply going back to their terrestrial radio, CDs, or iPods.

    8. Re:They forgot Sirius-XM satellite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iPods contain a fixed collection of content that can only be updated when you're at a computer, with items you select in advance. I can't even begin to imagine why you'd bring them up as a Sirius-XM competitor.

      podcasts, dumb ass. fill er up over night and you have hours of fresh "radio" to listen to on your commute, as commercial free as you want.

    9. Re:They forgot Sirius-XM satellite by edmicman · · Score: 1

      Can I realistically get net radio in my car, in a convenient and easy-to-use form?

    10. Re:They forgot Sirius-XM satellite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As long as they provide a portal to subscription funded ad-free content, they're going to attract a market."

      Its not ad-free... i had XM for free for most of the summer, & i still didnt think it was worth it. The only channels i ever listened to much were the comedy channels, & i couldnt stay on them for long because i got sick of all the ads for sex-toys.

      An mp3-capable cd player is 10000X more useful.

    11. Re:They forgot Sirius-XM satellite by jschottm · · Score: 1

      It's possible that in five years, ubiquitous LTE coverage will mean streaming radio to cars will suddenly start to become viable, but XM/Sirius has an opportunity to carve out a niche in the meantime, and at that point Sirius/XM will become more of a seller of streaming services than a satellite operator.

      If they go bankrupt in the immediate future, they have no opportunity to carve out a niche. It doesn't just look bad for their future, it looks dire. Even if they do manage to survive, having the legacy of satellites will be a weight over their heads that newer competition won't have to worry about. Either they have to spend substantial amounts of money on maintaining the satellite capability or they risk alienating customers who don't want to switch away from satellite (and who will generate bad word of mouth for them if dropped).

      Even when they do, you're going to have to find a streaming service worth listening to (hey, here's an idea, subscribe to Sirius!)

      Assuming they don't go under as well, streaming services ala Pandora offer features that Sirius doesn't like customizable stations and the ability to skip tracks you don't like.

      you've ignored the part of my comment where I pointed out Sirius-XM can exist without satellites.

      The point of the article that this discussion is talking about was looking at technologies that the author expects to have financial problems this coming year. The fact that people like ad-free content is irrelevant if there's not enough people willing to pay what's required for a business to justify running it. From what I understand, part of the merger means they can't raise prices for three years, which means they have to increase the number of subscribers or substantially reduce costs. The former sounds challenging and the latter is hard to do without causing subscribers to drop their memberships.

      If opportunity exists, it's most likely for someone who buys the satellites for dimes on the dollar after a Sirius bankruptcy, escaping the massive startup costs that they caused as well as overvalued contracts such as Howard Stern.

      iPods contain a fixed collection of content that can only be updated when you're at a computer, with items you select in advance. I can't even begin to imagine why you'd bring them up as a Sirius-XM competitor.

      Because most people who want to listen to something while they're driving don't really care what form their entertainment comes from - they just want to hear something that they enjoy. As belts get tightened, people will look at what redundancies exist in their life. How many of your friends who subscribe also have mp3 players? I'm not overly familiar with any of Sirius/XM stations other than Lucy, but from what I can tell, it could be pretty easily simulated with about 20GB (if that much) of mp3s. You don't get quite the variety, but you only have songs that you like and you gain the ability to do things like skip and pause. Unless you're a talk radio or sports devotee or for some reason really love one of the satellite radio stations, sticking your favourite mp3s (and maybe subscribing to some podcasts for variety) on an mp3 player make a fine replacement for radio. Personally, I don't like driving to music I don't know - I don't want to be distracted by new material.

    12. Re:They forgot Sirius-XM satellite by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Ok, first thing: "Wireless radio". Think about it.

      Okay. (thinks). It occurs to me that not all radio is wireless. For example, the radiowaves you receive from your cable company is not wireless. Neither is MIX106.5 when I listen to it via my computer.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    13. Re:They forgot Sirius-XM satellite by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>>> Or Ipods in your car?

      >>>iPods contain a fixed collection of content that can only be updated when you're at a computer, with items you select in advance. I can't even begin to imagine why you'd bring them up as a Sirius-XM competitor.

      Ipods can hold more music than a typical radio station's playlist, and without the annoyance of ads, or songs you don't like (rap). As for quality, Sirius compresses their music to 32 kbit/s - hardly what I call quality.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    14. Re:They forgot Sirius-XM satellite by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      iPods are also white, whereas most Sirius receivers I've seen are black. And iPods have colour screens too.

      I raise those points because they don't answer anything raised by the comment you were responding to either.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  4. Microblogs? by LordKaT · · Score: 1

    I'm not quite sure why they see microblogs failing. They might not work as a business model for a large enterprise, but as a method of generating extra personal revenue, they get the job done.

    1. Re:Microblogs? by me+at+werk · · Score: 1

      Especially with the open source laconica powering http://identi.ca/ and Google's Jaiku going Open Source. I think they'll exist, but yeah, I guess it costs money to run servers! People paid for LJ accounts though, didn't they?

      --
      For context, click Parent.
    2. Re:Microblogs? by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      identi.ca allows for federation which means the cost can be distributed. No single company has to generate enough revenue to support some huge structure. You just need lots of little servers connected to one another and tons of people are already doing that.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  5. Investors Business Daily cares to disagree by me+at+werk · · Score: 1

    Just yesterday I was reading (it's behind a paywall I think, I get the newspaper) that online video views and more notably video ad views are going to be higher this year, and continue growth for the next few years. I don't know if everything listed will succeed, and I mentioned to a friend that I had doubts on Twitter making it through the year (I'd say they could start charging, but people just flock to the next startup like FriendFeed, then when that dies, something else), and he had mentioned he had the same thoughts.

    I think that these things ARE monetize-able, you just have to start charging businesses who are using the stuff to 'connect' with customers for a higher API limit or something.

    --
    For context, click Parent.
  6. Mobile phone targetted advertising by xaxa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    About 6 months ago I signed up to Blyk, a "free" mobile network for 16-25 year olds, which gave subscribers 43 minutes call time and 217 texts free per month (plenty for what I use). It was supported by advertising, every day I'd receive either an MMS or SMS with an advert, typically for clothes and music (that's what my demographic is meant to waste its money on, isn't it? Well, that and booze.)

    Anyway, I haven't had an advert since about Christmas, and yesterday got a text from Blyk saying they were changing the deal to £15/month free credit, which works out as less texts/minutes at their prices (8p per text, 24p/min call). Maybe the business model wasn't quite as good as predicted.

    1. Re:Mobile phone targetted advertising by tompaulco · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That sounds like Netzero. They started out offering free internet that was ad-supported. Hence the name. Then they discovered they couldn't make money that way, and eventually ended up charging about the same as all the other ISPs. They look pretty stupid calling themselves NetZero now. And when they come on their commercials and say "we started Netzero to provide low cost internet..." I have to restrain myself from arguing with the guy on the ad.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  7. Social news? by the_arrow · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's been a sweet ride, but goodbye Slashdot! See you on the other side!

    --
    / The Arrow
    "How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
    1. Re:Social news? by MarkRose · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, the death of Slashdot is a blessing in disguise. You see, Slashdot is entirely responsible for the current global economic crises. When a nerd or other smart person first reads this site, he or she is instantly hooked on the discourse with other nerds, even if it's just inane drivel. As more and more nerds get addicted to Slashdot, productive grinds to a halt, causing companies to fail. The happened first in North America with the dotcom crash. As ubiquitous internet access spread around the world, so did Slashdot's productivity sucking force. That is why we're now in a global recession, except for Africa where there's been an on going recession ever since an unfortunately soul laid out a stone and a stick in a /. pattern thousands of years ago. Cowboy Neal is nobody more than a drug runner for the Bilderberger Group who plan to control all the intelligence in the world with their Slashdot drug.

      --
      Be relentless!
    2. Re:Social news? by Evil+Pete · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cowboy Neal is nobody more than a drug runner for the Bilderberger Group who plan to control all the intelligence in the world with their Slashdot drug.

      I see, it's all so clear now. It is actually Cowboy Neal Stephenson, and he is peddling Slash Crash to the tech community resulting in a reverse technological singularity.

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
  8. Evolve with trends by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In order to survive, many of these sites and companies will just have to do the unthinkable and evolve to keep up with web trends.

    For a good discussion of where the trends could be going, read this article: http://tech.lds.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=371&Itemid=5

  9. Targeted marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, we are going back to untargeted advertising - just blast your ads out to everyone. Don't worry about the fact that you are wasting money trying to sell diapers to 12 year olds.

     

  10. The trouble with "targeted advertising" by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Targeted advertising" has real problems. Ads on search results pages are valuable, because they're presented at the point that the user is actively looking for something. Vaguely relevant ads on other pages (the "Google Content Network" comes to mind) are a distraction, and far less valuable. Clicks on such ads are mostly from the 10% of web users who make 50% of the clicks, but don't buy much. Many advertisers have opted out of the Google Content Network (read Search Engine Watch). As we point out, about 36% of Google Content Network advertisers are "bottom-feeders", junk sites with no verifiable business behind them. There's been a slow decline in contextual advertising, and I expect that to continue, and maybe accelerate. Ad-supported sites will feel the squeeze.

    Targeted advertising is effective if the advertiser has the user's buying history. Amazon exploits this successfully; they know exactly what you've bought. But spreading that information around creates privacy problems and loud objections. Merchants aren't keen about letting their competitors know who their best customers are. Payment companies like Visa and PayPay could in theory take that role, but they've been reluctant to do so for fear of regulatory backlash. Payment companies don't currently know what you bought, just who you bought it from. They'd need merchant cooperation to profile their customer base.

    What this may mean is a network effect for broad-based online merchants like Amazon. The bigger they get, the better their targeted advertising becomes. Customers don't object, because they're dealing with one company which legitimately knows what they've bought. Amazon may take up the slack as brick-and-mortar stores go under. In consumer electronics, Circuit City, The Good Guys, CompUSA, etc. have all gone under, and Amazon is taking up much of the slack.

    1. Re:The trouble with "targeted advertising" by Mex · · Score: 1

      The Google Content Network will remain viable and profitable for businesses as long as Google remains on the ball with context advertising.

      As a customer, I've bought many a thing that I wasn't actively searching for, but the ad was there at the right time in the right webpage. Recently, some vitamins and supplements while reading about the benefits of fish oils, for instance. Another was a set of strings while reading an interview with Eric Clapton, I just happened to think "Yeah I think I needed to buy strings for my guitar..."

      But if you're reading an online jazz magazine like I was recently, and the ads are so out of context you roll your eyes, then something has failed. (One was for coaxial cables or something, and another for a guide to make cocktails... Why would they even be together? specially in a music site)

      I agree about needing to weed out the bottom feeders, but I remember reading that Google still makes a pretty penny out of them, so I doubt they'll ban them. Like all those domain parkers who pretend they are advertising what you were looking for. You know which ones, "The best resource site for "

      In conclusion, I half agree with your comment, but the Google Content Network (and good targeted advertising) ain't going anywhere.

    2. Re:The trouble with "targeted advertising" by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree about needing to weed out the bottom feeders, but I remember reading that Google still makes a pretty penny out of them, so I doubt they'll ban them

      The "bottom feeders" are mostly into ad arbitrage. They're not selling anything; they're just sending users to pages with more ads. The advertisers whose ads appear on those pages didn't ask to be there; they were stuck there by Google. And they don't like paying for those useless clicks.

  11. Adblock by js_sebastian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So my choices are pay money and host a server or see a little AD to have some other company do all the work for me? I think it's easier for me to have a little AD on the side of the page when I log into Twitter. Easier and free.

    Or use adblock, and wait for twitter,facebook and Co. to go bankrupt when enough people join you... Then distributed, open alternatives will be the only option...

    1. Re:Adblock by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      So my choices are pay money and host a server or see a little AD to have some other company do all the work for me? I think it's easier for me to have a little AD on the side of the page when I log into Twitter. Easier and free.

      Or use adblock, and wait for twitter,facebook and Co. to go bankrupt when enough people join you... Then distributed, open alternatives will be the only option...

      All we'll need then is someone to pay for it ;)

    2. Re:Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention use things other than the web interface to interact with your service, when shoving ads is just impractical.

      The only time I use twitter is either through an irssi script or through digsby. Neither show twitters ads.

  12. My thoughts by Junta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I agree with the perspective on microblogging as athe only thing a site does. I just don't see the revenue stream in something like that inherently. I do see the alternative possibility that Twitter becomes a brand name and licenses their presence to be integrated in other sites. I think there will be a focus on bringing together currently disparate aspects of 'social networking' and revenue strategies to evolve. Currently, I don't think the revenue streams can stand on their own, but social networking is too ubiquitous and popular for *no one* to get a rational business plan going.

    I think the outlook on targeted advertising is particular. The only aspect that is potentially interesting is that too much money went in and set impossible expectations. However, the quality of the advertising I think too significant to discount. Interactive, targeted advertising is something leaps and bounds over television. There are a few hotspots on television where almost everyone will see advertising, and some shows with such a narrow fanbase it actually turns out to be kind of targeted. However, the production cost to participate is non-trivial, and viewers have to take it upon themselves to write down details to research it later if they have never heard of the product. Also, the ubiquity of DVR reduces the exposure to ads.

    The statement on social news had nothing to do with the value of social news sites, and everything to do with neglecting a business plan. This is no surprise.

    On online video, they claim that other than YouTube and Hulu, little will be left. I would support the statement, with the note that Porn content sites will continue.

    On online radio, I would be reluctant to say that's out, but again the focus is not inherent flaws, but rather the recording industries being resistant towards that model and making life hard intentionally. The recording indutry is ass-backwards enough to sink an industry that would be highly valuable to them.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  13. Missing from list: by ternarybit · · Score: 1

    DRM.

  14. TFA is running on IIS 6 and asp by awpoopy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    www.internetevolution.com is running on a ms web server and asp.
    Maybe they don't know what they're talking about? Didn't asp die already?

    --
    I say things which affects my Karma negatively. (and I don't care) For instance; All religion is false.
  15. Re:test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hope that articles over multiple pages just for advert-hits dies a death in 2009, along with webmasters who practice this.

    Anyway, 1 page version of the article:
    http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=169817&print=yes

  16. Also look for virtual worlds... by Lordfly · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...to fail in 2009. Not all of them, obviously. Second Life will continue to trundle along (although they've lost about 3000 servers the last few months due to a rather unfortunate series of "gotcha" price increases), mostly due to its user content.

    There's an entire industry of virtual worlds stuff, and almost every single startup in this space does the exact same thing: Take Second Life, remove the user content, add in dancing, music, and social networking embedding. Voila! Instant startup. We're talking dozens of companies doing the exact same thing over and over again.

    So those guys are dead.

    PS3's Home is dead on arrival (no user content). Google Lively's already dead. Any "enterprise" use of virtual worlds is in the research phase (or just using open source alternatives like OpenSim).

    Anyone investing in virtual worlds tech in 2009 is a chump, sorry.

    --
    hookers and grits.
    1. Re:Also look for virtual worlds... by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Home COULD work, but they need to add some very basic stuff first.

      Consoles haven't had IM or chatroom features for a long time even thought they've been steadily building up multiplayer online games.
      From what I understand, Xbox Live has some kind if chat room features too, but I think it's based on inviting people from your friends list. Prior to Home, you could do the same on PSN. I think the more mature, older gamers don't like the idea of adding random strangers we play games with to a "friends" list, much less chatting with them.

      I think what they really need is something like IRC. Home should establish some kind of GAME RELATED context, not fake bowling alley / mall. I occasionally want to talk about feature X in game Y.. even if the expert on the subject has a whiney voice and is fifteen years younger than I. Or what about coop campaign, how to older gamers do this? I don't live in a dorm full of friends who buy video games. Rather than building a list of fake "friends", I'd rather team up with someone at random, on the spot, when I felt like it. Home really makes that difficult. Why is there no way to tell Home, "I have these games, put me in these rooms." Let me just talk with other people who own the same games or are interested in them. I don't care what the freaking visual content is - add it LATER.

      Once they fix the social, and technical aspects, the visual stuff should be secondary. Sell addon content & advertise to a social system that works first. Who TF is going to go into Home... for the sake of buying virtual crap and ads? Ah, anyway, it fills a gaping hole in console gaming, so don't count it out yet.

      Anyone investing in virtual worlds tech in 2009 is a chump, sorry.

      Consoles need chatrooms & more public socializing. Virt world == 3D chatroom. Fix the social, add 3D, monetize.

    2. Re:Also look for virtual worlds... by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      Sorry, replying to myself

      I honestly think a reliance on user-generated content is a sign the social aspect is seriously broke. If the virt world doesn't facilitate communicating about the real world, fake world crap is the answer.

    3. Re:Also look for virtual worlds... by DUdsen · · Score: 1

      You're once again faced with the dilemma of profitiblity virtual worlds in the sense of eve online UO WoW and similar have their loyal userbase willing to pay but the content needs to be developed at huge costs before your service gets there, and you cant run for long without adding more content.

      Every other web 2.0 service face the same dilemma, either you cut your prize almost below operating cost or you spend spend spend on content. both ways makes it look a lot less like the get rich now scheme the VC investors and me-too entrepreneurs were looking for

  17. Sprint EVDO Streaming Works Fine by meehawl · · Score: 1

    a streaming radio service using the wireless Internet, the vast majority of cellphones offer no such facility. Even when they do, you're going to have to find a streaming service worth listening to

    Podcasts and streaming audio work fine on my Windows Mobile HTC Titan on Sprint as I drive. I personally like the Resco Radio application but there are at least five other mature media players that do streaming. I can also use Orb to stream my *own* audio (and video) from my home server over the net. And then of course there's Last.FM and Pandora.

    Between all these options there are several thousand "channels" to choose from. Lack of choice is not a problem. How many channels does Sirius offer?

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Sprint EVDO Streaming Works Fine by edmicman · · Score: 1

      Quantity always outweighs quality, too!

    2. Re:Sprint EVDO Streaming Works Fine by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Your response to my comment that streaming radio over cellphone connections is expensive and not supported by the majority of cellphones appears to be that you have a fairly uncommon (and generally not desirable) cellphone that you use to stream radio over an expensive EVDO connection. You also appear to have added another argument that how you do it is convoluted and unlikely to be considered user friendly (or even usable) to the vast majority of people, who just want something that "just works" - something a Sirius receiver gives you in a nice neat package.

      Sirius/XM may or may not make it next year, but it's certainly not going to be from competition from unpopular smartphones running third party streaming apps.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  18. DRM by Kingrames · · Score: 2, Funny

    DRM all over again. and again. and again.

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  19. Losing Sirius would be a shame by anorlunda · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm a blue water sailor. I use Sirius off shore and in the Bahamas and in the Caribbean. Without Sirius we will be forced to resort to old fashioned analog short wave radio, with the squawks and crackles.

    I don't use it for music, but it's irreplaceable for news and NPR. Next Tuesday I'll use it to listen to Obama's speech. Still haven't seen that man's face on TV, but I'm familiar with his voice on Sirius.

    I can hardly claim that blue water sailors and cruise ships and others outside Internet/phone coverage are a significant market segment. Still, it would be a unlikely shame to see any segment of society forced to abandon digital technology for tired old analog stuff.

    The Sirius/XM satellites will still be there even after bankrupcy. Perhaps a new owner could buy them for 1 cent on a dollar, wipe out the original share holders and bond holders, and make a profitable business out of keeping them operating.

    p.s. I'm not at sea today. Otherwise I couldn't get Slashdot.

  20. Rinse, lather, repeat... by Evil+Pete · · Score: 2

    and an onslaught of startups with no purpose or plan to make money

    Is it just me or does this sound like the 2000 bubble all over again?

    --
    Bitter and proud of it.
  21. t-bills competing for money by heroine · · Score: 1

    Startups need to compete with t-bills for money. Expect most of the technology money to go into t-bills to fund government economic plans. The economic plans are so far focused on housing & social services.

  22. green/alternative energy also in trouble by eberta · · Score: 1

    With the price of oil so low and still sliding, all those green energy startups that started up in the last couple of years are now bleeding money and have little chance for profitability. Their only hope is massive government subsidies or a miraculous economic recovery to bring back the price of oil to $100+ a barrel.

  23. Here's Hoping by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    There are two companies that refuse to die despite the fact the the original concept failed miserably almost 50 years ago. Trisenxâ(TM)s scent dome and DigiScents' iSmell both have been promising to produce "smell-o-vision" for computers for years. I'm not sure whether they're actually this clueless themselves, or whether they're hoping to latch onto an even more clueless venture capitalist. Either way, here's hoping those involved suffer a Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious and let the poor crippled idea die.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  24. Re:test by david@ecsd.com · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    It won't go away. If you aren't able to figure out how to hunt down the "Print" link, then you deserve to look at all those ads.

    Drrrrrr

  25. Blu-Ray by david@ecsd.com · · Score: 1

    Online distribution of hi definition content is the future. We're seeing services like Netflix, and Amazon unbox flirting with the idea, and I'm convinced that this will kill bluray like bluray killed hd-dvd.

    1. Re:Blu-Ray by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      Online distribution of hi definition content is the future. We're seeing services like Netflix, and Amazon unbox flirting with the idea, and I'm convinced that this will kill bluray like bluray killed hd-dvd.

      Because when I want to see a classic visual masterpiece like akira, I want it to be covered in huge blocks, green splotches, and artefacts, and i want to rent rather than own it.

      Now the DRM on these disks is annoying as hell, but you still own the disk and the DRM can be cracked more easily client side than server side.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  26. Maybe this is the year... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that Linux on the desktop finally dies?

  27. Re:test by Vertana · · Score: 1

    That's why people invented add-ons for Firefox, such as NoScript and AdBlock. When more people adopt these the ads will stop... the ads will stop.

    --
    "The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec^2" -Marcus Dolengo
  28. It can be done again by kumma · · Score: 1

    Well. I guess that you can found bad companies again when the next hype phase comes.

  29. Ohh So Touchy by meehawl · · Score: 1

    stream radio over an expensive EVDO connection.

    My "expensive" EVDO connection costs $30/month for unlimited internet access and texts, and includes voice minutes as well.

    As regards your conflation of "uncommon" with unavailable, I dispute that. Most of the cheaper, consumer phones from Sprint now seem to come bundled with SprintTV (a rebranded MobiTV) and some sort of music streaming service. I gather it's similar with Verizon and the otherc arriers. Personally, I avoid those "value added" services because they incur an extra monthly fee.

    how you do it is convoluted and unlikely to be considered user friendly

    Hmm. Slide to unlock phone. Click "Radio". Click "Favourites". Click channel. Listen.

    Yes, you're right. That's desperately convoluted. How could that ever "just work"?

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Ohh So Touchy by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      My "expensive" EVDO connection costs $30/month for unlimited internet access and texts, and includes voice minutes as well.

      Sirius costs $12 a month, or $10 a month if bought a year in advance.

      Most of the cheaper, consumer phones from Sprint...

      Yeah, we're still trying to go for something popular here.

      Hmm. Slide to unlock phone. Click "Radio". Click "Favourites". Click channel. Listen.

      So you installed third party applications by sliding open the phone, clicking "Radio", clicking "Favourites", selecting a channel, and listening? 'cos I can't really get my head around that. How do you install a Bluetooth headset? Do you bring up the address book and select a person to call?

      What you're describing is not a particularly intuitive interface. I'd have gone for something like "Install Application", and then found a streaming player app from a list, and then selected that. When you click on the word "channel", is that where it tells you all about streaming audio channels, and how to download applications to listen to them?

      But, before I did any of that, I'd have had to know that the application existed. I'd have also had to know that the music channels existed. I'd have had to know that my phone can actually stream these without data charges.

      And then I'd have had to know that the interface was going to be usable. I'd have had to know it was something I could control in the car. Like a radio. I'd want a nice interface consisting of, say, six presets plus a scan button, in an easily accessible part of the car, so I don't KILL PEOPLE when I change the channel.

      I've used Net"radio". I have it on my N800, and on my Powerbook. iTunes does it, y'know. It's a nice toy that I virtually never listen to. I don't have the time or inclination to sit there seeking out channels of content that'll exist fleetingly or else be as bad as what I can receive in analog OTA. And I'm certainly not going to make the effort to make it work in my car. I'm not going to invest in a new phone. I'm not going to pay $30 a month to a desperate cellphone network. I'm not going to search eBay for some kind of dash-mounted control panel to control the cellphone's streaming audio capabilities - assuming such a thing even exists. And I already know streaming audio exists.

      Your solution is too hard and too expensive. It. Can. Not. Kill. Sirius/XM. Sirius XM may die, but it will not be because of a convoluted, expensive, streaming audio solution that a requires geek skills and a geek mentality to make work, and is based upon a clumsy interface that's a liability when placed in a car.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  30. Re:test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "the ads will stop... the ads will stop." I can understand what the GP is saying. But do you really want the ads to stop completely? Are you planning to pay for every website that you visit?

  31. because major blogs don't suck too right? by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    How many scandals have there been in which major bloggers on (insert subject here) have been bribed to post favorable reviews.

    Lets drift a bit from the internet as well, how about hannity and faux news? Multi-million person audiences watching the media equivalent of a strip-club garbage chute.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  32. Cruise lines not a significant market? by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    You're kidding right?

    Cruise lines are a massive market. There are entire shipyards dedicated to them.

    A properly managed Sirius/XM could shift focus from average customers to cruise lines (while still keeping single user service)

    Tangentially, I listen to WRAS where I am, and while it's been getting watered down lately it's much much better than anything else nationwide. I'm thinking of moving to a better job market and am checking into satellite radio to see if they're carried.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:Cruise lines not a significant market? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I ran the cruise liner I'd buy only a dozen or two Sirius/XM radios; leave each tuned permanently to a selected station; and pipe the sound throughout the ship.

      That gives Sirius only the revenue of a dozen or so subscriptions, not thousands.

  33. Why I read this post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I only read this post, not because I cared what technologies someone else think would fail, but because I was curious if there was some new technology that I didn't know about yet.

  34. Top businesses to die in 2010! by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    News sites reliant on Economic Fearmongering

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  35. Dumbing It Down by meehawl · · Score: 1

    I should have known there would be an invocation to iTunes somewhere in all this...

    based upon a clumsy interface that's a liability when placed in a car.

    I was dumbing it down for you. For driving I actually use the voice interface for the phone. I want to call someone, I can say "Call X". I want the radio, I can say "Play Radio". It just works. The voice command program came built in courtesy of HTC and it seems to work pretty well. I know there are more advanced voice control software programs but this one works fine.

    And you missed the bit about Orb. I am not limited to only what other people choose to play. I can stream all my own content and playlists, or I can stream my Pandora or Last.FM lists.

    You are in any case actually missing the main point entirely, which is that there are several different ways for people to get content delivered to moving vehicles. Every year brings another few. Which together none of these may amount to the same single domain penetration of satellite radio, together they represent in aggregate an alternative to satellite that will be "good enough" for a sufficient number of people so as to make the business model of satellite extremely problematic (with its massive capital requirements predicated on the idea of a virtual monopoly in content delivery to moving vehicles).

    You're also missing also entirely the idea of a custom software radio. You see, one of the beauties of a bitmapped screen is that you can make the interface look like pretty much whatever you want. In this case, the Resco thingy looks like a hybrid between a 1970s-style AM/FM radio and an mp3 player. I like having big buttons on screen that I can mash with my finger. If I wanted something more like J River Media Center or iTunes, with fiddly little lists of things that I'd have to scroll or swoosh through, I would use CorePlayer.

    And as for "expensive", well, I decided to get cellphone service. The fact that, on Sprint with SERO plan, the Internet effectively comes free with the $30/month voice plan works out very well. I get to make calls, and if my minutes go over, I can just switch to Skype on the phone and use broadband instead. I also get to tether the 3G connection and use the phone as an AP, also for free. All in all, it's far from what I would call a "desperate" service.

    Thanks for the "geek" epithet. On /. that means a lot.

    --

    Da Blog
  36. Re:test by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    You forget, that money not spent on marketing also makes our products cheaper, giving us the money to pay it.

    Of course, what company would stop marketing. How would you then know they exist?

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.