Printable View
your investing on hope. why do you own this stock in the first place? Youve said 15 negative comments in a row now... just wondering why you bought it in the first place if you feel like you do...Quote:
Originally Posted by stkdn
there are 10000 other stocks on the market...
I heard many talk about 'free' internet radio as threat to SIRI, so I decided to take a quick look at pandora and slacker. They are both very cool, BUT.....they're not really free. You get free service if you want to put up with the ads, or you can pay $36 - $48 per year for no ads. And, of course, no live stuff, no sports, etc. I didn't spend more than a few mins on each site, so I'm sure I didn't get the full experience.....but, I don't see them as big threat to SIRI. Just say'n.
i can only listen to my recorded content on my XMP3 one time and if I have the option for the live feed from the sats then i can't even listen to the recorded content.Quote:
Originally Posted by underway
If its not live, its stale....(good marketing slogan there?)
Nice. Well we know SIRI needs some good marketing...don't hold it to yourself. Email SIRI mktg and let them know that their investors have ideas, and we are wondering where they are hiding theirs. Offer it up at no charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by imromo24
Here is another: We don't dream live...We beam live. Commercial free!
Looks like there is not much interest in selling below .37 this afternoon. I predict close at .3690. (This has absolutely no basis other than my gut feel)
Keep in mind that millions of Slacker/Pandora iPhone and Blackberry apps have been downloaded. I agree that they don't have the same specialty programming but they have a great variety of music and live tracks that you would never hear anywhere else. I don't know why Sirius doesn't do more of that kind of stuff. Not to mention their ability to customize and their user interfaces are hands down better then Sirius XM.Quote:
Originally Posted by underway
In my office (28 people) there are 2 Sirius subscribers 1 Pandora subscriber 1 rhapsody subscriber and 3 Slacker users (one of which pays). Its hard to say they are not a threat.
Hello everyone was away for awhile and looks like i didn't miss much except an interesting convo on yesterdays intraday thread..
Sitting at .36 with a chance to close even or in the green,bids are raised a little bit and sellers still holding sway..
well, keep in mind, how difficult
it is to have live radio, a hundred and some stations,
nationwide, on demand, without drop in coverage,
24/7, while still paying royalties for music, merging
2 separate (and broke) satrad companies, getting fcc and usdoj
approval for the merger (and resulting monopoly),
dealing with the powerful NAB, dealing w/all the tech
problems, and hartlieb & co., and the egos of on air
multimillion dollar salaried dj egos, and serving 19
Freakin Million paying Customers who got problems
from A to Z, and dealin w/ergen, while having several million? shareholders
own a stake in the company complaining about the stock
price bein less than a kennedy half. It ain't easy. It's incredible, but
understandable, that with 19 million subscribers - about 5% of the US population! - the business model is still not confirmed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nisvan
I think most are seeing the business model as viable. The question is the execution. And presto...enters Malone. If the execution is too far off base, Malone should be able to provide direction and then product value expansion with his relationships. SIRI is still an acquistion play, so someone is thinking there is a viable business model in there.
Right Charles...but I believe it is a different market. It overlaps in places, but there are significant differences, mainly the broad array of types of entertainment, including live sports, news, traffic, weather (especially XM Marine Weather system which is f'n awesome!), and, the ability to broadcast to moving cars anywhere, with the very familiar and easy to use in-dash radio. Internet to automobiles is not mature, and, to make it truly ubiquitous, like satrad signal, needs infrastructure, which won't be free, and is a long way off (wiMax for example). WiFi works, but not feasible for cars on the move, especially if outside urban areas. Use of cell technology works, but it isn't free either. So, my conclusion is internet radio isn't really a direct threat and won't be for a while and could be a very long while. IMHO, of course!Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz
That broad array of entertainment doesn't appeal to everyone. There are people who actually just listen to Sirius XM for the music so, for those people they are like services.
Then there are people like me who commute for only 20 minutes but spend 8 hours per day with internet access. Lets not forget that you can stream slacker over 3g to an iPhone where I live (around boston) and get better quality streaming then you currently receive from satrad (I understand that people in more rural area cant do that YET). If that were not enough, slacker has now partnered with Sony and they are in their new bravia tv's and the new sony X-series Walkman.
For a bunch of companies that aren't a threat they sure are growing faster then Sirius XM right now. When do we start to worry? 1 million slacker apps were downloaded in a couple of months... all while Sirius XM reported a 400k loss in subscribers.
Disclosure: I am listening to Sirius right now. That doesn't mean that I will ignore the facts ;-)
credit where credit is due . . . Charles reported on this a few months ago including a discussion of Twitter and Sirius XM's pathetic marketing & innovation (sorry we mocked you Charles)Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz
Slacker/Pandora continue to innovate and grow while Mel, Frear, Blaylock & Meyer do the circle-jerk . . . just keepin it real.
Right...but how much $$$ they bringing in? Free always attracts a lot of people, till they realize it ain't really free, and that to get the better service you have to pay. And, wait till the talent sees them making $....bye bye free, because the ad revenue probably won't be enough to fund it. And, no sports....that's a huge draw which SIRI has and internet radio doesn't (except for when the leagues do it themselves, like MLB). Like I said, they have overlapping market for sure, but enough differences to keep them from head to head competition. Soon SIRI has iPhone app, which will help too. And, with SIRI iPhone app, number of downloads will directly correlate to cash because you have to pay to get the programming, as opposed to a million slacker downloads for free. SIRI could offer free programming via iPhone for a while, who knows what they'll do. If they play this right, they can prevail. But, no doubt they have to do a major anal-cranial extraction in the marketing dept! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz
We don't know how much they are bringing in because they are private but, make no mistake about the fact that they do have a subscription service and they are selling hardware as well.
People throw around the word free an awful low but they do have a subscription based service and that FREE service that is constantly belittled is actually 'ad supported' so, they are making revenue either way.
The rest of what you say is speculation and you might be right (even though I disagree) but, the fact remains... TODAY they are cutting into the bottom line of Sirius XM.
BTW, I personally do not think that a Sirius XM iPhone app is going to add a ton of subscribers or revenue. I think it will be value added for current subscribers but, it will not be the reason that people sign up. UNLESS they offer a free 1-3 month trial (which they will not unless they have been listening to me).
Before anyone jumps in with their two cents... use slacker.com for a couple of days and then get back to me. It is hands down, far and away, better then the online version of Sirius XM. If you are commenting without listening for at least a day, I don't want to hear it. DO SOME RESEARCH.
No argument about the interface being superior to S-XM internet app. That was apparent after 2 minutes. But, you are also making a huge assumption that the 'ad supported model' is making money for them. They could be bleeding cash in an attempt to buy business, a very common startup tactic, and can be successful....or not. But, as you said, they're private company, so who knows. Time will tell. We can both speculate all we want, but have no way to know whether this internet model will monetize. As an example, I've read about YouTube model as not generating enough revenue. Founders got rich by selling the company to Google but now Google isn't making money off of it. They may eventually, who knows. But, I guess my point is that just because something's 'free' on the internet and is 'way cool', it may not monetize. That's the hard part!Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz
I've always wondered how the internet ad model works. I know how it is designed, with advertisers paying per click or ads served, whatever. But what I don't get is how legit it really is. Maybe it's just me, but I rarely click on internet ads. They annoy the sh$t out of me. And, a lot of annecdotal evidence seems to indicate that a lot of people feel that way. I spend a ton of time on the internet every day as part of work and just lookin' up junk like everyone else. I practically NEVER click on ads. So, money is coming in from advertisers, but, are they really getting true conversions to actual sales? It's weird. I guess they are, but, something about it smells, especially the 'per click' model. Obviously, ad revenue is paying for much of the internet web presence. but it seems strange. TV ads support broadcasting, but I think there's been a ton of statistical evidence proving the value of TV advertising because your eye is on the screen and not diverted to another part of the screen. Sure, you flip channels or walk out of the room to get a snack, but, think of all the thousands of ads you actually watch. A lot. When on internet pages, I avoid looking at the stupid ads to get to the content I'm looking for. Again, it's weird. just sayin'
Youtube does not have a premium subscription... slacker and pandora do.
Define threat?Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriusBuzz
Charles, does Pandora and Slacker use the same program to generate play lists? Simliar? or completely different?
underway, I'm with you. Those ads annoy the living shit out of me. I'd recommend you download the latest version of firefox along with the adblock addon. It's great. Very intuitive to set up and you can add filters to ads that are not caught. You can also do the same thing with Internet Explorer 8, but it is more of a kludge. I'm guessing it will be more integrated in an up coming version.Quote:
Originally Posted by underway
We have 30 or so folks in my shop as well. A few listen to their own downloaded music. I have Sirius Internet feed and noone has slacker or pandora. Based on my evidence slacker and pandora are not a threat?? :)
Without getting too detailed? They are able to take away from the Sirius XM userbase or potential future userbase. That would be the threat to a shareholder. We already know based on comments and other forums that people actually do switch from Sirius to Slacker and Slacker to Pandora (and all of the other possible combinations), I mean it is happening. I use to listen to Sirius exclusively and that is no longer the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by relmor2003
No, they are different. In addition to their regular programming, you can actually define your own channel with whatever artists you please. I have my own custom station with about 30 different bands and between all of their music and live music that you wouldn't hear on any other radio station, it never gets old.Quote:
Originally Posted by relmor2003