Toyota Rolls Out 2009 Corolla – XM Featured
If you surf the net, or read this site you will see that Toyota has launched a new on line advertising campaign featuring the all new 2009 Corolla. Toyota has given the Corolla a new richer styling, and the advertising is quick to point that out. The Corolla has long been seen as an entry level car, but these days, entry level cars can include amenities such as satellite radio and navigation. Given the price of gas, a car such as the new Corolla is sure to be a big seller.
For satellite radio watchers, the new Corolla will not disappoint. Both Sirius and XM are available. Toyota puts marketing push behind XM in both the on line Google ads, as well as on their tour of the Corolla, but those that want Sirius can get it as it is a listed option on the car.
With uncertainties in the auto sales world for 2008 predicted by many, consumer value will be a big factor in car purchases. Consumer value is no longer just about price, it is what you get for your money, and this ad campaign by Toyota gives consumers a clear picture of all they they can get for a reasonable price.
Go ahead, check out the new Corolla on Toyota’s website. Even if it is not a car that you would consider, the richness of the ad campaign is worth seeing.
Position – Long Sirius, Long XM
>>> I will tend to believe what he has to say about the satilites being funded
Okay, so you’ll believe David Frear? From the Q3 CC:
“David J. Frear
And then on the Sirius 5 program, we’re about halfway through the program and so I’d say we’re about halfway through the money as well.”
>>> I dont know were you got your 2012 date from, but in that same press release (about the new sat.) they stated this satilite would fill all their needs tell 2018.
Obviously, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You and should get together.
Their existing satellite infrastructure, the three Molniyas, have to replaced by around 2012/2013 as their useful lives will be over. You cannot run Sirius on a single satellite. Duh.
Frontmed…
There is no cop out. I have asked you to read the report and you seem to not want to do that.
Yes, reading the full report would give you a different conclusion than where you currently stand. I have expressed this, and asked you to read the report. You seem to want to be at the conclusion you are at, and thus refuse to read the report.
Why don’t you read it?
I am not dodging, I am trying to get you to catch up to the conversation so that a conversation can happen.
Okay, well, I think it is clear you are unable to cite anything contrary to my posts. When you do, I’ll be glad to respond.
To any objective person, you are posting pro-Sirius BS without regard for whether or not it coincides with the facts as we know them.
Nothing new here.
Frontmed…
I can cite many things that counter your posts. However, I have asked that you read the report so that a discussion can happen. You, for whatever reason, refuse to read the report. Until you understand the subject matter of the discussion, how can a dialogue happen?
To any reasonable person, I posted report excerpts from an analyst as I often do. I did not interject my opinion on the excerpts. I do not filter the reports for “Pro-Sirius” or “PRO-XM”. I simply post them.
Because you came to a conclusion without reading the reports is not my problem, nor is it my issue. I pointed out that you would likely not carry the same stance if you read the report. You simply don’t seem to want to do that.
“The Facts As We Know Them?????” You have not seen the facts. Your version of the facts is based on incomplete information.
The reason there is nothing new here is because you refuse to read the report. The request was quite simple and quite reasonable.
Well first of all you have stated that as of 2012 they would need to replace these satilites, now you say 2012/2013 whats next 2013/2014. Were do you get your information because it keeps changing. Once again I’ll say it, eqiupment is always given a expected life of usefulness and in most cases it exceeds it(Skylab, Hubble, Mere space station, Mars Rovers, most of the Soviet Unions communication satalites, alot of ours (commercial and government), the B-52, F-15, F16 even with repairs/modifications were suppose to be scaped a long time ago). The list gos on forever. Thats why they have a what SIRI calls a backup in storage and another one being built. But if you think they or any company spends the money to sent a satilite up reguardless if they need it or not, thats your right. I will believe that even if you got crediable information on the life of those satilites 2012, now 2012/2013 or what ever the new date is, that they will wait until it is a piece of space juck before they spend the money to send the new one up.
>>> Because you came to a conclusion without reading the reports is not my problem
Okay, I’ve gotten the report and read it. I see nothing, whatsoever, that changes its meaning from what you posted.
What, exactly, are you referring to? Please cite pertinent quotes.
>>> Well first of all you have stated that as of 2012 they would need to replace these satilites, now you say 2012/2013 whats next 2013/2014.
If the satellites have to be operational by 2013/2014, the replacement process has to begin in 2010.
So lets see here you start out by saying the two satilites have to be replaced by about 2012, then its 2012/2013, and now it is 2013/2014. you sure thats it, you dont want to go for 2014/2015. I feel like I am at a action.
2013/2014 was your time frame, not mine.
The point is the satellites will be approaching the end of their useful lives at the end of the decade, and you cannot wait until they are dead to replace them — you have to start spending money several years ahead of schedule if you want to replace them before they just stop working.
Over the course of the next several years, you’re looking at close to a billion dollars in expenditures for satellite replacement. XM, with new satellites and requiring only two (versus 4) to provide service, does not face these massive cash demands.
If you want to argue with this, it is out of your own ignorance.
My time frame, were did you get that. I put those last dates in to show how you have changed your dates, and to sarcastically show this. My date (2018) was from the press release were they anounced the new satilite that was going to be built. I’ll say it again, were did you get your dates from. You tell me that and I will check them out for myself. Excuse me if I dont trust your time frames or your reading of the information were you got it, ie. your translation of that information. Example the designers of the Mere space station gave it a life span of between 4 and 6 years (it was used for 15 years), you would say it had a life span of 4 years if it was a Sirius project. Next thing once again they have a backup if one gos down they can run with 3. I have seen nothing on any planned launch of this backup like I did with the DISH launch of EchoStar 10. If you dont think they can run with 3 then your talking from ignorance. Ergo one gos down they put another up.
This is going in circles. And when we transition from satellite radio to space stations, I think it is time to give up on you figuring it out.
In response to frontmeds last comment: Yea that happens with you when you cant back your arguement up. Whats the matter couldn’t find the sight, or did you just pull those dates out of your ass. I bet it was the latter of the two. Your last comment also shows you have no cognitive skills. So I will explain; first the word (example) was put in the front, it was ment to show how you spin a phrase or comment to your position, and why I dont arbitrarily believe anything you say. This is why you are so messed up **EXAMPLES**; You try to convince me you are right by telling me to go to a posting you did on YAHOO (real lodgical premise there). Second every time you get cought in a false premise or arguement you move to multiple other ones. **END EXAMPLES** I have said this before to you and Tyler has mentioned how you tend to go in several directions at one time. This is why you get stumpted up and caught in so many false premises (you try to defend a false premise with a different arguement, you then have more false premises in that arguement, and so on, and so on).
To be honest, I’m tired of interacting with you because your posts are almost unintelligible.
When you’re typing and the form underlines a word in red, that means you’ve misspelled it and it needs to be corrected.
I can correct your post to, but I didn’t think we were in a essay contest. So here we go: you dont start a sentence with (And), when you use (useful lives) should have been (end of their life span), you use way to many commas, and so on, and so on. I do these things also, but I dont try to correct someone else on their typos, grammatical errors because of that. You should do the same.
Also you just proved my point about my last comment, as you yet again flip to another arguement.