XM Radio Can't Stop the Bleeding

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: Litchfield285

Originally posted by: SampSon
XM had the chance to own the market, but didn't make the proper moves.
Sirius will overtake them quickly.

With inferior programming and equipment? Sure.

Originally posted by: Pantoot

Originally posted by: Litchfield285
They'll be fine. Sirius is the one with all of the problems. Paying all of that money to a washed up, un funny, hack. They will never see a return on the Howie investment.

XM ftw, Raammmone.

Regarding the switch from FM:
The Sirius audience expanded from 600,000 at the time the switch was announced to more than 3.3 million subscribers...

I would take 2.7 million people as a decent return, even if only half of them went to sirius as a result of the washed up, un funny, hack.

2.7 million is a decent return in the short term, but now that the Stern pub has died down the novelty will wear off. I highly doubt they will be any closer to the 6 million that XM currently has by years end. The diehards switching were a given, but the rest of America realizes how much pure crap Howie's show really is. If Sirius would've invested in developing half decent equipment and been smarter with their programming choices, then it might be a closer race. The sad truth is, it isn't.

The Oprah move was a good choice. Regardless of how little she will actually be live on the channel. There are much more women with a disposable income that will do whatever Oprah tells them to, than idiots who blindly follow Stern.

Oh boy, yet another Stern hater. Is that your only angle on why sirius sucks?

Oh wait, the end-user equipment sucks too, that's right. End-user equipment is easily designed and changed as time goes on, that's hardly a deal killer on sirius' part. Most people I talk to that own XM or sirius really don't care about the end-user equipment. The vast majority of users don't care as long as it works and gives them their programming. I've heard this "equipment sucks" argument from the XM fanboys and in reality it doesn't hold up. Give it time and the equipment will improve, if you don't believe that then just look at the history of consumer electronics.

The real equipment that matters, the satellites, sirius has the edge on XM. Sirius has more business partners and ones that are more profitable (who the hell wants GM in your business model?). Sirius has the NHL, NFL and NBA, XM has nascar, MLB and PGA tour.

Implying that sirius doesn't have a chance against XM is complete ignorance. If you read opinion articles you will see that things are swinging sirius' way, regardless if you want to acknowledge that or not. The "sad truth" as you put it is that you have very little idea of what you're talking about. But that's just my opinion.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Oh boy, yet another Stern hater. Is that your only angle on why sirius sucks?

Oh wait, the end-user equipment sucks too, that's right. End-user equipment is easily designed and changed as time goes on, that's hardly a deal killer on sirius' part. Most people I talk to that own XM or sirius really don't care about the end-user equipment. The vast majority of users don't care as long as it works and gives them their programming. I've heard this "equipment sucks" argument from the XM fanboys and in reality it doesn't hold up. Give it time and the equipment will improve, if you don't believe that then just look at the history of consumer electronics.

The real equipment that matters, the satellites, sirius has the edge on XM. Sirius has more business partners and ones that are more profitable (who the hell wants GM in your business model?). Sirius has the NHL, NFL and NBA, XM has nascar, MLB and PGA tour.

Implying that sirius doesn't have a chance against XM is complete ignorance. If you read opinion articles you will see that things are swinging sirius' way, regardless if you want to acknowledge that or not. The "sad truth" as you put it is that you have very little idea of what you're talking about. But that's just my opinion.

How do business partners relate to the satellite itself?

Anyway I am very impressed with the sports packages of sirius, but I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of their superiority. MLB is a game that can be much more easily enjoyed over the radio, with a rich tradition of such. Basketball and football are more difficult to enjoy over radio, for me anyway. Any game where the action is pretty intense and it can't easily be summed up with a few words is harder to enjoy. XM also has college basketball, I think.

I did choose xm over sirius because of the equipment - specifically the sky-fi was much better than what sirius offered at the time. I think it does play some role one way or another, but I don't know how much.

Whether or not you like stern, I don't think anyone would argue with the notion that it was quite a risky move by sirius and to some degree, for stern - although $500 mil is not really risky in the traditional sense. $55mil for oprah seems a lot less risky to me.

 

[Goosemaster]

all the investors aren't downgrading the stock or anythign because they know that the costs of aquiring a new subscriber base are high and losses such as these are acceptable...


Sirius's earnings come out tomorow:evil:

 

[Pantoot]

The Oprah move was a good choice. Regardless of how little she will actually be live on the channel. There are much more women with a disposable income that will do whatever Oprah tells them to, than idiots who blindly follow Stern.

It is funny how people can get so rabid over this that they lose all sense of the world.

Look at Stern's audience. These are people that listen to the radio for hours a day. They are used to doing it from the days when he was on FM. They will not stop doing it because of the $12 a month.

Look at Opera's audience, as opposed to the idiots who blindly follow Stern, they are women with disposable income. Will these women pay to listen to a radio show? How many of their subs do you think they will renew when they find out they are paying to listen to her for 30 minutes a week?

I would argue that both are decent moves, simply because once people do tire of Stern, or Opera, they will discover all that Sat radio has to offer. Once you go to sat it would be really hard to switch back.

 

[imported_sling]

OK...I think people care when they compare both company's first gen portable units. XM = The size of an iPod, Sirius = small satchel, I think there is a difference and people do care. That's just size, don't even compare the features on the first gen ones. I have no idea what's out right now.

O and A > Stern all day long.

Just take a look:

XM said it had more than 5.9 million subscribers at the end of 2005, up 84 percent from a year earlier, and said its total had risen to more than 6 million in the first week of January. Sirius has said it has more than 3 million subscribers.

2/3rds of the market...there is a reason.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Pantoot

The Oprah move was a good choice. Regardless of how little she will actually be live on the channel. There are much more women with a disposable income that will do whatever Oprah tells them to, than idiots who blindly follow Stern.

It is funny how people can get so rabid over this that they lose all sense of the world.

Look at Stern's audience. These are people that listen to the radio for hours a day. They are used to doing it from the days when he was on FM. They will not stop doing it because of the $12 a month.

Look at Opera's audience, as opposed to the idiots who blindly follow Stern, they are women with disposable income. Will these women pay to listen to a radio show? How many of their subs do you think they will renew when they find out they are paying to listen to her for 30 minutes a week?

I would argue that both are decent moves, simply because once people do tire of Stern, or Opera, they will discover all that Sat radio has to offer. Once you go to sat it would be really hard to switch back.

If you ignore the financial aspects, they both look like good moves. The difference is the amount of money and length of the contract.

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: SampSon
Oh boy, yet another Stern hater. Is that your only angle on why sirius sucks?

Oh wait, the end-user equipment sucks too, that's right. End-user equipment is easily designed and changed as time goes on, that's hardly a deal killer on sirius' part. Most people I talk to that own XM or sirius really don't care about the end-user equipment. The vast majority of users don't care as long as it works and gives them their programming. I've heard this "equipment sucks" argument from the XM fanboys and in reality it doesn't hold up. Give it time and the equipment will improve, if you don't believe that then just look at the history of consumer electronics.

The real equipment that matters, the satellites, sirius has the edge on XM. Sirius has more business partners and ones that are more profitable (who the hell wants GM in your business model?). Sirius has the NHL, NFL and NBA, XM has nascar, MLB and PGA tour.

Implying that sirius doesn't have a chance against XM is complete ignorance. If you read opinion articles you will see that things are swinging sirius' way, regardless if you want to acknowledge that or not. The "sad truth" as you put it is that you have very little idea of what you're talking about. But that's just my opinion.

How do business partners relate to the satellite itself?

Anyway I am very impressed with the sports packages of sirius, but I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of their superiority. MLB is a game that can be much more easily enjoyed over the radio, with a rich tradition of such. Basketball and football are more difficult to enjoy over radio, for me anyway. Any game where the action is pretty intense and it can't easily be summed up with a few words is harder to enjoy. XM also has college basketball, I think.

I did choose xm over sirius because of the equipment - specifically the XM2GO was much better than what sirius offered at the time. I think it does play some role one way or another, but I don't know how much.

Whether or not you like stern, I don't think anyone would argue with the notion that it was quite a risky move by sirius and to some degree, for stern - although $500 mil is not really risky in the traditional sense. $55mil for oprah seems a lot less risky to me.

The business partners agree to incorporate the service into their vehicles/transportation services.

I'm not saying the sports package is vastly superior for listening purposes (though many may disagree), I'm saying sirius has the more powerful businesses partnered with them.
I've never heard of anyone listening to golf on the radio, have you?

Satellite radio is in it's early stages and the equipment will only improve as time goes on. Eventually you won't even be able to tell the difference because satellite radio will be standardized like cable television. Though picking one service over another because of the equipment and not the programming is just short changing yourself. Though it's your money to spend, I really don't care.

The stern deal was risky, but it seems to be working, and no matter how much people say stern is washed up and the move to satellite is all hype I don't believe it. The man has had a huge solid fan base for a long time that isn't going to disappear because people claim he's washed up. I used to listen to stern in the morning and O&A at night.
If I had to make the choice of paying for listening to one of them, I would take stern. O&A were funny primarily because of their guests, everyone knows that. You don't see them doing standup routines or comedy shows. Overall I think that two year break from radio just killed them.

As satellite radio becomes more like cable the equipment will be transparent and thoes who like to nitpick won't have much to say.

If XM is so great, why are they losing so much money?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: MathMan

Originally posted by: TheNinja


Exactly, let's say even 2 million joined b/c of Stern.

If you think 2 million people signed up for Sirius because of Stern, then you have some issues.

I'm guessing there's a small number who signed up for Sirius strictly because of Howard Stern... and there's a bit larger number of people who were leaning towards Sirius that the Stern signing convinced to actually subscribe.

But I'm convinced the vast majority of those 2.7 million new subscribers weren't pursuaded one way or the other by Stern's signing.

I think you're delusional. After years of operation they had 600k subscribers, they have 5 times that now and you don't think Stern was responsible for most of that?

 

[imported_sling]

I don't know why they are loosing money, but it isn't because they don't have enough of the satellite subscriber base. The equipment matters alot. At the time I got my myfi I looked at sirius and their proposed mobile unit was a freaking back pack that couldn't listen to live radio, only record for listening later or some ignorant crap. The myfi records like 5 hours and you can listen live all day.

I hope to see programming become standard more like cable is. I'd like to have Big XII football, which sirus has, but I think that's it. I don't need Stern or Martha.

Here is some info on Sirius's portable unit:

Satellite radio provider Sirius today announced its forthcoming portable S50 player which measures just 1.9 by 3.9 inches by 0.7 inches thick (49 by 99 by 18 mm) and which can store up to 50 hours of Sirius content (or a mix of Sirius shows and MP3/WMA files). Although Sirius is billing the S50 as its "first wearable satellite radio," the portable S50 unit isn't a satellite radio at all: it's just a playback device. To receive and capture Sirius satellite radio programming, the S50 needs to be connected to a home, car, or "executive" docking station.

For my $329 I'd rather have a myfi that can listen live and record something at the same time. Judging from the portable aspect of satellite, XM is way out front.

 

[imported_Mike]

Originally posted by: sling
OK...I think people care when they compare both company's first gen portable units. XM = The size of an iPod, Sirius = small satchel, I think there is a difference and people do care. That's just size, don't even compare the features on the first gen ones. I have no idea what's out right now.

O and A > Stern all day long.

Just take a look:

XM said it had more than 5.9 million subscribers at the end of 2005, up 84 percent from a year earlier, and said its total had risen to more than 6 million in the first week of January. Sirius has said it has more than 3 million subscribers.

2/3rds of the market...there is a reason.

Look at the market share Intel has, and that doesn't really mean a whole lot. I had XM for 6 months, and Ive had Sirius for just about 8 months and IMO Sirius is better. Its not for everyone, but I think Sirius will capture more of the market share, just give it some time.

 

[imported_sling]

Washington D.C., May 16, 2005 -- XM Satellite Radio (NASDAQ: XMSR), the nation's leading satellite radio provider, announced today that it exceeded four million subscribers last week, extending its significant leadership position in the satellite radio industry.

So, in 9 months XM gained 2 million subs to get to the 6 million they have now.

Sirius just got to 3 million. They better start getting some massive numbers coming in, otherwise XM will be too far out in front to ever consider catching.

 

[torpid]

Isn't sirius losing money too?

 

[imported_Mike]

Originally posted by: torpid
Isn't sirius losing money too?

I think they report tomorrow

 

[imported_Mike]

EXPECTATIONS: Sirius, which provides direct satellite radio broadcasts to more than 3 million subscribers, said in November that it expects to report 2005 revenue of $230 million and an adjusted loss from operations of $540 million for the year.

 

[Sphexi]

Sirius didn't lose nearly as much as XM did for the year, and they're gaining subscribers a lot faster.

As far as Stern is concerned, yes they're paying him a lot of money. But they're getting a whole channel just for him (not just a half hour out of Oprah), plus they have income from his cable PPV channel to add to that, whatever he shows on there they get a slice of.

 

[erikistired]

if i could get jim rome on xm i'd probably subscribe. i do know a few people who left sirius for xm when fox news switched (or joined xm? not sure which happened, i just know they are xm subs because of fox news).

 

[Pepsei]

hmmm, i think i'm going to pick sirius over xm.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Sphexi
Sirius didn't lose nearly as much as XM did for the year, and they're gaining subscribers a lot faster.

Sirius' outgain is a one time event. Now that the Stern buzz is over, Sirius' growth will drastically slow.

And XM did just fine for the year.

Grossly inferior hardware will kill Sirius in the end.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: DotheDamnTHing
am/fm ftw

Ugh... I hope you like hearing the same 20 songs 400 times a day and the same news casts on every radio station. That's what am/fm is like. Except for NPR.

Ahh, you must live in a ClearChannel-controlled market.

I live in Reno, a blessed breath of fresh air in terms of diverse radio. Every saturday night the two local rock/alt rock stations have all-request night, and I mean ALL request. Elvis, Classical, hell Polka, whatever, they'll play it. The rest of the week they throw in a random song every so often along with the usual suspects, not incredibly frequently but enough that you don't get bored. Vegas is much the same. Both markets are inherantly hostile to ClearChannel's presence in the area; Reno has completely shut them out of the FM market, and refuses to let them in. I say more power to 'em for keeping the bastards out; ClearChannel are the worst offenders in terms of stale, cookie-cutter radio, and leave absolutely no control in the hands of the DJs. It's all up to what market research says is hot, 20 or so songs at a time.

For those of you who support XM, ponder this; XM is part-owned by ClearChannel. Do you want your satellite radio to be as crappy as your local CC station? I didn't think so. Let XM die, or at least ClearChannel.

 

[Muadib]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
all the investors aren't downgrading the stock or anythign because they know that the costs of aquiring a new subscriber base are high and losses such as these are acceptable...


Sirius's earnings come out tomorow:evil:

And it ain't good.....

 

[FoBoT]

i want to get XM because i live so far from the city that AM channels die at night and i want some of the Talk Radio content offered by XM

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Litchfield285

Originally posted by: SampSon
XM had the chance to own the market, but didn't make the proper moves.
Sirius will overtake them quickly.

With inferior programming and equipment? Sure.

Originally posted by: Pantoot

Originally posted by: Litchfield285
They'll be fine. Sirius is the one with all of the problems. Paying all of that money to a washed up, un funny, hack. They will never see a return on the Howie investment.

XM ftw, Raammmone.

Regarding the switch from FM:
The Sirius audience expanded from 600,000 at the time the switch was announced to more than 3.3 million subscribers...

I would take 2.7 million people as a decent return, even if only half of them went to sirius as a result of the washed up, un funny, hack.

2.7 million is a decent return in the short term, but now that the Stern pub has died down the novelty will wear off. I highly doubt they will be any closer to the 6 million that XM currently has by years end. The diehards switching were a given, but the rest of America realizes how much pure crap Howie's show really is. If Sirius would've invested in developing half decent equipment and been smarter with their programming choices, then it might be a closer race. The sad truth is, it isn't.

The Oprah move was a good choice. Regardless of how little she will actually be live on the channel. There are much more women with a disposable income that will do whatever Oprah tells them to, than idiots who blindly follow Stern.

Talk about inferior programming. Opie and Anthiony, Opra on for 1/2 hour a week for $55,000,000, inferior Music Formats compared to Sirius? The only reason XM has more customers is becauase they were first on the Market and signed a deal with GM. Most people that have experienced both services prefer Sirius.

 

[brandonbull]

I think O&A and Stern suck are a bunch of unfunny hacks.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: brandonbull
I think O&A and Stern suck are a bunch of unfunny hacks.

Well it's debatable whether you think at all. Granted they aren't always funny and I know that most women like you find their humor a bit offensive but then when yiou get a bunch of non fegula guys together the humor is often off color.

Tuesday they had one of Stern's guys (Richard Christie) get a bikini wax on air and it had to be the funniest bit I've ever heard anywhere. Pure Comedy Gold!

 

[boomer6447]

I've had both....the sound quality for Sirius blows XM out of the water...

and omg, if I ever have to listen to those douchebags opie and anthony again,
i'm going to shove pens down my ear canal...they are awful!!!