Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Pandora, really.

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    john163888 is offline
    Member
    john163888's Avatar
    Joined: Feb 2010 Location: Wayne County, Michigan Posts: 80

    Pandora, really.

    I have talked about this kind of service now for some time and to be honest things have not changed much since the first time several years ago.

    First let talk about comparisons:

    Who would Pandora be closest to???????? Hummm, thats right terrestrial radio. Lets get some of the differences out of the way first. Pandora has a larger MUSIC selection, when you get to listen to it. Thats because terrestrial is alot easyer to get then Pandora. Terrestrial has talk and sports, Pandora has none of that. Now we get to how are they the same. Well that is simple they are both mostly ad based services. That means you pay for it with your time. They both have many that listen to them (probably because they are both FREE).

    Now that a case has been built that pandora is much more like terrestrial radio then satellite radio. What was it again that has happen to terrestrial lately???? Ho thats right, they are having trouble staying in business. Really that should have been put into the comparison portion of this Pandora thread. Why well because lets face it Pandora is STILL far from out of the woods and is still having trouble making its business model work with the high price of royalty fees (and those fee will only go up, NOT DOWN).

    What I find most amazing is that the same people that said SIRI/XMSR/SIRIXM could not make it when competing against free terrestrial, are now saying a service which says its free (really only free if you dont mind paying for the other service you NEED TO HAVE to get it) is also going to put SIRIXM out of business. So I have to ask where are the articles from these same people that say, "look out Viacom, Pandora is going to put you out of business"???? Soooo let me get this logic correct; A service like Pandora that is as different from SIRIXM as SIRIXM is different to terrestrial, and that same service (Pandora) is alike in many more ways to terrestrial is going to put SIRIXM out of bussiness. So let me clarify this, they are going to skip right over terrestrial (its closest compeditor) and put SIRIXM out of business FIRST. Yea that makes alot of sense......NOT.


    Here are the basic facts:

    First of all Pandora actually cost MORE then SIRIXM. Yes thats right you heard me correct because how do you get Pandora????????? Ho thats right you need to have a cell service + (basically unlimited service WHICH WILL COST MORE), OR you have to have an internet service. Both services on there own will cost more then what you would pay for SIRIXM. I should not even have to mention that SIRIXM only cost 6.95/month for just its music channels (lets compare apples to apples here).

    There will always be the problem of connectivity with Pandora for the foreseeable future. SIRIXM does not have that problem.

    Internet royalty fees cost way more then SIRIXM pays for its satellite radio royalty fees. Trust me there is a reason you dont get a bunch of music channels on the internet. If I had to guess (not a fact, just my opinion here because it is very sensible) SIRIXM would like to stay as far from the internet as it possibly can. They have seen how the higher royalty fees for internet have made it hard to pay and still stay in business.

    Pandora is like terrestrial EXCEPT the royalty fees are much higher for Pandora and SIRIXM has had no trouble competing with terrestrial so far.

  2. #2
    SiriusBuzz is offline
    Head Honcho
    SiriusBuzz's Avatar
    Joined: May 2007 Posts: 2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by john163888 View Post
    Why well because lets face it Pandora is STILL far from out of the woods and is still having trouble making its business model work with the high price of royalty fees (and those fee will only go up, NOT DOWN).
    There business model is profitable and their royalty fees are lower than Sirius XM's internet royalty fees. They will remain lower because if they are raised to the point where they can't be paid, no one wins. It behooves the RIAA to take just enough money to profit while allowing Pandora to grow more and more.

    Just thought someone should point that out.

    Quote Originally Posted by john163888 View Post
    What I find most amazing is that the same people that said SIRI/XMSR/SIRIXM could not make it when competing against free terrestrial, are now saying a service which says its free (really only free if you dont mind paying for the other service you NEED TO HAVE to get it) is also going to put SIRIXM out of business.
    1. Pandora is much better than terrestrial radio. If given the choice I would chose Pandora every time.

    2. That other service you NEED is typically already paid for. No one is buying internet just for Pandora, we have the internet and use music service as a bonus. I dont pay $50 per month to listen to Sirius XM online, I am already online and happen to use Sirius XM while there.

    3. I think the only company to put Sirius XM out of business is Sirius XM themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by john163888 View Post
    Here are the basic facts:

    First of all Pandora actually cost MORE then SIRIXM. Yes thats right you heard me correct because how do you get Pandora????????? Ho thats right you need to have a cell service + (basically unlimited service WHICH WILL COST MORE), OR you have to have an internet service. Both services on there own will cost more then what you would pay for SIRIXM. I should not even have to mention that SIRIXM only cost 6.95/month for just its music channels (lets compare apples to apples here).
    This is misleading (as I noted above). I only listen to Sirius XM online so, by your logic, I am paying $50 per month to listen to Sirius XM but, that is simply not true.

    Quote Originally Posted by john163888 View Post
    There will always be the problem of connectivity with Pandora for the foreseeable future. SIRIXM does not have that problem.
    Sirius XM's service is spotty at times and their streaming quality leaves a lot to be desired. Although I agree mass adoption is a problem with Pandora, the same generation that loves and uses the product doesnt seem to have a problem accessing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by john163888 View Post
    Pandora is like terrestrial EXCEPT the royalty fees are much higher for Pandora and SIRIXM has had no trouble competing with terrestrial so far.
    Again, see above. Pandora's royalty fees are quite manageable and they got a sweetheart deal.

    All of that said, I still listen to Sirius XM daily and do not listen to Pandora at all. (I prefer slacker on the rare off chance).
    Charles LaRocca
    SiriusBuzz Founder

  3. #3
    john163888 is offline
    Member
    john163888's Avatar
    Joined: Feb 2010 Location: Wayne County, Michigan Posts: 80
    Quote Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz View Post
    There business model is profitable and their royalty fees are lower than Sirius XM's internet royalty fees. They will remain lower because if they are raised to the point where they can't be paid, no one wins. It behooves the RIAA to take just enough money to profit while allowing Pandora to grow more and more.

    Just thought someone should point that out.



    1. Pandora is much better than terrestrial radio. If given the choice I would chose Pandora every time.

    2. That other service you NEED is typically already paid for. No one is buying internet just for Pandora, we have the internet and use music service as a bonus. I dont pay $50 per month to listen to Sirius XM online, I am already online and happen to use Sirius XM while there.

    3. I think the only company to put Sirius XM out of business is Sirius XM themselves.



    This is misleading (as I noted above). I only listen to Sirius XM online so, by your logic, I am paying $50 per month to listen to Sirius XM but, that is simply not true.



    Sirius XM's service is spotty at times and their streaming quality leaves a lot to be desired. Although I agree mass adoption is a problem with Pandora, the same generation that loves and uses the product doesnt seem to have a problem accessing it.



    Again, see above. Pandora's royalty fees are quite manageable and they got a sweetheart deal.

    All of that said, I still listen to Sirius XM daily and do not listen to Pandora at all. (I prefer slacker on the rare off chance).
    Watch your step because it is a very slipper path you are going down and one I would recommend not even starting down in the first place.

    I personally would link to those things you mentioned to back it up. Now while most things cannot be totally be proved out, I tend to use logic, common sense, and history to fill in the blanks where the facts cannot be found (also dont go to far off the reservation when making your conclusions).

    So the point being, watch how you come to your conclusions. Hey you can be like me for instance, I use 4 things (facts, logic, common sense, and history) correctly, I have been proven to be correct MOST (not all) of the time.

  4. #4
    SiriusBuzz is offline
    Head Honcho
    SiriusBuzz's Avatar
    Joined: May 2007 Posts: 2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by john163888 View Post
    Watch your step because it is a very slipper path you are going down and one I would recommend not even starting down in the first place.
    I don't follow... what do you mean? What path?

    Quote Originally Posted by john163888 View Post
    I personally would link to those things you mentioned to back it up. Now while most things cannot be totally be proved out, I tend to use logic, common sense, and history to fill in the blanks where the facts cannot be found (also dont go to far off the reservation when making your conclusions).
    What part of what I said do you have a problem with? I will be happy to elaborate on any of the points I made.

    You have a problem with the fact that they are profitable? They are. That's public knowledge.
    Or do you have a problem with their better royalty deal? It is better. That is also public knowledge.

    I'm not looking for a debate. I didn't attack your post. I just wanted to toss out some points I thought may have been overlooked. People should get the whole picture. It's tough to be objective when you are invested in something so deeply. Whether monetarily or emotionally.
    Charles LaRocca
    SiriusBuzz Founder

  5. #5
    john163888 is offline
    Member
    john163888's Avatar
    Joined: Feb 2010 Location: Wayne County, Michigan Posts: 80
    Quote Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz View Post
    I don't follow... what do you mean? What path?



    What part of what I said do you have a problem with? I will be happy to elaborate on any of the points I made.

    You have a problem with the fact that they are profitable? They are. That's public knowledge.
    Or do you have a problem with their better royalty deal? It is better. That is also public knowledge.

    I'm not looking for a debate. I didn't attack your post. I just wanted to toss out some points I thought may have been overlooked. People should get the whole picture. It's tough to be objective when you are invested in something so deeply. Whether monetarily or emotionally.
    think about nabster, it charges 12.95 a month for downloads, and all you get is music. Then you have to find someplace to get all the sports you may want, then your news, and talk, ect., ect., ect. Satellite offers a all in one package for one low price, on one device. My use of television was not a bad comparison, it was used to show why people switched to cable for content they could not get any where else. While satellite may compete with cable all the other crap such as net flex does not. Case in point most people have cable or satellite, they dont substitute it for netflex plus something else plus something else then not have cable or satellite. While they may use those other things they still have cable/satellite.

  6. #6
    SiriusBuzz is offline
    Head Honcho
    SiriusBuzz's Avatar
    Joined: May 2007 Posts: 2,489
    It seems as though we are getting off track here and I would like to stick to the original issue at hand but, I will do my best to comment.

    Quote Originally Posted by john163888 View Post
    think about nabster, it charges 12.95 a month for downloads, and all you get is music. Then you have to find someplace to get all the sports you may want, then your news, and talk, ect., ect., ect.
    IF you want sports, news, and talk via radio. Not everyone cares about that stuff or, if they do, they get it by other means such as a news web app, newspaper, or television. I like talk radio but, I get zero sports or news via radio. News and live sports content is not exclusive to radio.

    Side Note: Slacker offers news via their service. I believe their deal is with ABC news.
    Charles LaRocca
    SiriusBuzz Founder

  7. #7
    john163888 is offline
    Member
    john163888's Avatar
    Joined: Feb 2010 Location: Wayne County, Michigan Posts: 80
    ho, you have got to love this time of the year. once again Charles has been caught in a lie but wont admit hes proven to be wrong. Just like Havasucker will look out the window to see 4 feet of snow and say welp, that must be due to glopal warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz View Post
    You have a problem with the fact that they are profitable? They are. That's public knowledge.
    now unlike me, i will just stick with the facts of what the owner of the comapny himself has stated:

    Founder Tim Westergren won’t say if Pandora was profitable in 2010, explaining they’re focusing on more than the bottom line. “It’s not the principle goal right now — we’re focused on growth,” he says.

    now this is an example of why you dont see me going to far off the reservation. i stick only with facts which can be proven. let me remind you again what charels said

    Quote Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz View Post
    You have a problem with the fact that they are profitable? They are. That's public knowledge.
    now here is what the owner of the company himself has publicly stated in a recent interview when asked about 2010 revenue:

    What revenues did you do last year?

    TW: We can’t discuss numbers but it’s all going in the right direction.


    now here's charles proof:

    Quote Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz View Post
    "We became profitable for the fourth quarter of 2009, and now we're shooting for profits for the entire 2010 [period]," Tom Conrad, Pandora's chief technology officer, told GigaOM.

    They became profitable in Q4 of 2009 and have done nothing but grow by leaps and bounds since then. The only reason they wouldn't be stacking cash is because they are reinvesting in themselves.
    ho, thats right, let me remind you that "shooting for profits for 2010" is not the same thing as there profitability being "public knowledge". So, once again Charles has been caught in a big lie by saying that Pandoras profits are "public knowlege" when really they are nothing more than assumptions, speculation and a fig mint of charles imagination.

    you just cant admit you have lost. i stick only with facts, logic and common sense and things that can be proved unlike charles who uses assumptions, speculation and hearsay. thats a big difference

    you and havasucker probabnly thing the muslim brotherhood will be good for egypt for god sake simply because of things you assume to be true that are proven to be wrong evertime

    So the point being, watch how you come to your conclusions. Hey you can be like me for instance, I use 4 things (facts, logic, common sense, and history) correctly, I have been proven to be correct MOST (not all) of the time.
    Last edited by john163888; 02-09-2011 at 08:09 AM.

  8. #8
    Havakasha is offline

    Red face

    I thought this was an argument about Pandora? You had to drag me and weather into it didnt you John. LOL

    There you go again John mixing up winters WEATHER with the year round CLIMATE.
    You do know the difference John dont you? Obviously not.
    And by the way, your argument is a retread from last year and you
    were proven miserably wrong.
    Earth to John: 2010 tied for the WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD. Please return to your
    cave mr. Neanderthal.

    P.S. Were you the same John who was wrong about the stock market's moves toward the
    end of the year (just ask S&L. Dont take my word for it) and beginning of this year, and wrong about SXM pushing out their debt to later years?

    Now back to Pandora. Thank you.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 02-09-2011 at 10:13 AM.

  9. Ad Fairy Senior Member

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •