Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: New Company Name

  1. #11
    clueless is offline
    Senior Member
    clueless's Avatar
    Joined: May 2007 Location: New York Posts: 251
    Well said. People tend to forget about technology or cleverly leave it out to serve their purpose.

    90% of my listening is done online and I can't think of any reason why I wouldn't be able to listen both services once the dust settles. Sure I will have to wait for them to integrate but there will be no technological limitations.

  2. #12
    homer985 is offline
    Senior Member
    homer985's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 485
    Quote Originally Posted by spanyo View Post
    Like good chess players, I'm sure Mel and Co. are thinking many moves ahead. The new company is about incredible content. Devices and technology will appear to deliver it.
    Quote Originally Posted by clueless
    People tend to forget about technology or cleverly leave it out to serve their purpose. 90% of my listening is done online and I can't think of any reason why I wouldn't be able to listen both services once the dust settles. Sure I will have to wait for them to integrate but there will be no technological limitations.
    The problem isn't with future devices and their abilities -- sure, they may be able to do all kinds of great things. The problem is with the 28 million current legacy receivers -- which will easily eclipse 30 million before we know it. Those are stuck in the past. You can't make those obsolete.

    Improvements in compression technology will only do so much, before improvements and changes on the receiver end will have to be made. And any future changes to programming and technology must be backwards combatible to those legacy receivers. That is where the problem lies. I am not "cleverly leaving anything out" as I'm not talking about future receivers -- I'm talking about current receivers. I apologize, I thought I made that clear in my previous post.


    -
    Last edited by homer985; 07-10-2008 at 10:31 PM.

  3. #13
    voogru is offline
    Member
    voogru's Avatar
    Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 73
    Quote Originally Posted by homer985 View Post
    The problem isn't with future devices and their abilities -- sure, they may be able to do all kinds of great things. The problem is with the 28 million current legacy receivers -- which will easily eclipse 30 million before we know it. Those are stuck in the past. You can't make those obsolete.

    Improvements in compression technology will only do so much, before improvements and changes in the receiver will have to be made. Any future changes to programming and technology must be backwards combatible to those legacy receivers. That is where the problem lies.


    -
    I suspect that they will have the capabilities of updating the software on the receivers remotely, just like the satellite TV companies do.

    Codecs are (or at least should be) built into the software, meaning to use an improved codec, would just require an update of the software on the receiver.

    It's possible they didn't design the receivers like this, but I find that unlikely.

  4. #14
    homer985 is offline
    Senior Member
    homer985's Avatar
    Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 485
    Quote Originally Posted by voogru View Post
    Codecs are (or at least should be) built into the software, meaning to use an improved codec, would just require an update of the software on the receiver.
    There are various updates that can be made to receivers -- little tweaks. Sirius noted this in their FCC filings. But the software updates that they can make, can only do so much to help squeeze out a few more bits. The drastic improvement in the technology to current receivers is behind them. Sure there will likely be more improvements -- but there is not enough to squeeze out the type of bandwidth that would be required for each other to add in the others exclusive content. MLB, NHL and the NCAA stuff takes up a lot of bandwidth. Improvement software updates in current receiver tech will never squeeze out enough bits for Sirius. Channels will have to be cut to accomodate most of what is needed.

    Unless they put up a plan to replace every legacy receiver of one of the companies -- I will go out on a limb and guarantee that they will maintain two seperate brand names for a minimum of another 5 years... and I rarely (if ever) make guarantees with this sector.

    The differences in tech and programming offerings are too drastic for them to overcome in the near-term, to combine into one brand name.


    -----
    Last edited by homer985; 07-10-2008 at 10:43 PM.

  5. #15
    Newman is offline
    Mentor
    Newman's Avatar
    Joined: Jun 2007 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 1,162
    Homer is absolutely right here.

    Although Hartlieb would like you to beleive that there may already be interop radios out there that just need an update, Sirius and XM and even General Motors have come out and said that this part of the system is not able to be modified through a firmware update.

    XM and Sirius combine and bust their @$$ to get an interop radio out there, and push the OEMs to rush it through their processes. They will get those radios into OEMs POSSIBLY in the 2010 model year, but I seriously doubt that. MAYBE in the 2011. That still gives us a full 2 years worth of vehicles that will have "legacy" recievers. 14 million cars sold a year, for 2 years, with an average install rate of approximately 60% means that another 16.8 million legacy recievers will get put out into the market. Add that to Homer's 28 million and you get roughly 45 million legacy recievers that are stuck to only recieving one signal, and that is 2 years down the road already.

    The only way that Sirius/XM can truely be a powerhouse is to eliminate Sirius's broadcasting and switch everything over to XM's codec. XMs codec is much more efficient, as is evidenced by XM being able to offer almost 40 more channels than Sirius. They HAVE to combine radios and switch to XMs codec to become a powerhouse, but I do not see this happening for at least 10 years.

  6. Ad Fairy Senior Member
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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