...and Sirius XM should read a chapter.
The new iPhone 3G S, unveiled yesterday at Apple's WWDC conference, is the latest version of the continued line of iPhones. There wasn't much revealed that could be deemed a "surprise" - well, minus a new voice-controlled interface - but most features were already speculated on by industry watchers.
All in all, the new iPhone 3G S isn't a breakthrough revolutionary device - it's an evolutionary device.
The new features are just enough to get fanatics to buy it, while at the same time, the 8Gb iPhone 3G now will be available for a mere $99 - opening it up to a whole new market of consumers. If price was a barrier for some folks to convert to the iPhone, it's not anymore.
Meanwhile, let's take a look at Sirius XM Radio's line of products.
Aside from the two top of the line radios, the XMP3 and Stiletto 2, which both have very specific intended uses - most satellite radio subscribers have had little need to upgrade their receivers. I can't count how many Starmate Replays I still see on the road.
Any why? Because aside from changing the color of the screen, there's little else to make most current users want to upgrade. (Caveat: For new subscribers, I almost always recommend the XpressRC or the Sportster 5, because they're both great all-around radios.)
The problem is that Sirius XM is constantly on a mission to sign on new subscribers. With churn so relatively low, there's not much of a "corporate incentive" to work on subscriber-retention programs. They let the call-centers do that. But with the latest quarterly results, the need for a strategic subscriber retention program has become more important than ever.
Enter the concept of planned obsolescence (read the Wikipedia entry about it here). It's not anything new, but Apple has mastered it.
It's about thinking about products holistically - as a line of products to be released over the years. And not has individual products confined in their own silos. Don't throw in the kitchen sink all at once, pick a handful of features and do them - but do them well. Then move on to the next set of features, and again - do them well.
Windows Mobile phones have had the majority of features that the iPhone has, for literally YEARS. But they're kitchen-sink devices with a target of propellor heads (for the record, I own a WiMo phone). They don't bring the sex and cohesiveness that the iPhone does. I'm not trying to start a Microsoft vs. Apple discussion here, I'm trying to illustrate a point. It's not about who has the longer bullet-list of features, it's about exceeding expectations on a handful of the useful features.
There's light at the end of the tunnel though. XM's human-interface staff - the folks behind the clunky XMP3 interface - has been long gone for a couple month now. In their place is Ziba, the consultants that came aboard Sirius back when the Sirius S50 hit.
Hopefully, moving forward, Sirius XM can come up with a cohesive "evolutionary" strategy, and not just look at each product as a one-shot deal.
[via Engadget]
Any why? Because aside from changing the color of the screen, there's little else to make most current users want to upgrade. (Caveat: For new subscribers, I almost always recommend the XpressRC or the Sportster 5, because they're both great all-around radios.)
The problem is that Sirius XM is constantly on a mission to sign on new subscribers. With churn so relatively low, there's not much of a "corporate incentive" to work on subscriber-retention programs. They let the call-centers do that. But with the latest quarterly results, the need for a strategic subscriber retention program has become more important than ever.
Enter the concept of planned obsolescence (read the Wikipedia entry about it here). It's not anything new, but Apple has mastered it.
It's about thinking about products holistically - as a line of products to be released over the years. And not has individual products confined in their own silos. Don't throw in the kitchen sink all at once, pick a handful of features and do them - but do them well. Then move on to the next set of features, and again - do them well.
Windows Mobile phones have had the majority of features that the iPhone has, for literally YEARS. But they're kitchen-sink devices with a target of propellor heads (for the record, I own a WiMo phone). They don't bring the sex and cohesiveness that the iPhone does. I'm not trying to start a Microsoft vs. Apple discussion here, I'm trying to illustrate a point. It's not about who has the longer bullet-list of features, it's about exceeding expectations on a handful of the useful features.
There's light at the end of the tunnel though. XM's human-interface staff - the folks behind the clunky XMP3 interface - has been long gone for a couple month now. In their place is Ziba, the consultants that came aboard Sirius back when the Sirius S50 hit.
Hopefully, moving forward, Sirius XM can come up with a cohesive "evolutionary" strategy, and not just look at each product as a one-shot deal.
[via Engadget]
Ryan,
Way off base. Sirius XMs product isn't the hardware, its the service. Churning subsidized radios only will cost Sirius money, not make them money. It doesn't mean they don't need to continously make their hardware better, and more importantly encourage the OEMS to improve the interface. But planning "obsolence" of their hardward would be foolish, and only put off profitability even longer.
The only benefit to pushing new hardware on existing subs would be to lock them into a long term contract similar to what the phone companies do. Maybe that would be a strategy, but so far I think subs like the flexibility that Sirius XM offers in terms of contract length.
I'm glad to read that a new company will step in to make the XMp3 FW. It's in need of a major upgrade. I also hope XM will release newer versions of the XMp3 or similar portable. Like Apple and most cellphone companies do. Keep the product line fresh!
ive had the stiletto for over 2 years, good radio but would be nice to have more features.
I disagree. I think they should take a hint from the folks they love comparing themselves to when it's beneficial, cable, and provide a device for free. I guess that is their strategy with the coming-soon apps, but in the meantime...
There are many differences between Apple and Sirius. Among the most noteble is that Apple is making money and has a rock solid balance sheet with billions in cash. Almost everything Sirius does is driven by their difficult financial position. They just can't afford to drive innovation into the category. Their cohesive evolutionary strategy is called survival.
Oh by the way, what is more important, the equipment or the content?
Apple is a cool company, and for 12 years I was one of its biggest supporters, owning only Apple computers. But two years ago I changed to a Windows-based PC for the first time just because of Apple's redirecting of its PCs as largely "media" devices, and the early obsolescence of many of its high-priced computers.
I have long thought that retail satellite radios should be marketed differently and should come with the first-year subscription packaged into the price, with cash renewals available with cards sold at retail outlets. Many potential subscribers are put off because they hate the idea of another monthly bill.
The thing about retail satellite radios is that they make up a small portion of the equipment out there, since the company has put nearly all of its eggs in the OEM basket. How many people would even be affected by any attempt to ratchet them up to better retail radios, when most are listening on OEM car radios? But, having said that, almost any viable retail strategy would be an improvement over what they're doing now, which is essentially nothing except put the equipment out there and hope people buy it, which they're not doing.
As others have noted, it would also help if they did not destroy the programming people signed up to get, as they did with their "channel merger." Unlike cell phones, a product that the public has accepted as a necessity, satellite radio is viewed as optional, and it will only be retained if it offers a perceived value that's significantly higher than what's available elsewhere at no charge.
The only added features satrad could add to their receivers would be album art, but its not that important. I think sirixm should release a satrad only head unit for aftermarket and oem. Start with a cd(dvd)rom, have aux inputs and make it Ipod and zune compatible. Powerful built in amp with pre amp outputs, all the current "dvr" style controls, give it a handful of gb's for storage and a touchscreen. Add the xm navigation with traffic and weather reports and eliminate fm and hd radio altogether. They(xm and sirius) were beta testing live video feed for the talk shows, they could stream that on the screen, maybe music videos or sporting events. I'm not sure if any of this is technically possible, I'm just making it up as I go. Any other future Ideas for sirixm?
The OEMs would never go for a receiver with no AM/FM broadcast bands, even as an option, because it locks the vehicle's owner into paying a fee, or else have no radio at all. Other than that, sounds like a great idea. Cadillacs have a setup with some of these features, such as the DVR-like pause/playback, on their OEM XM units.
The iPhone is doing well because of the stronghold they have with the iPod. No one wants to carry their player and a phone with them. Convergence is what is making it successful. I was a strong Palm supporter for years because they had all the features the iPhone has, plus more - but I still have to carry a cellphone. I can't sync iTunes with my palm, but I can with an iPhone.
I'm with Jack on this - it should be about the service. My service was worth it when I could have it with me anywhere (at home, office and in the car). My portable inno helps, but since they took away the internet feed, I can't listen at home. (My home dock is used at work, and no, I do not want to buy another one)
All Sirius cares about is getting people subscribed to a service -- they do not care if we ever actually listen to it.
I own a Stiletto but never really use it anymore. The problem is--who wants to carry around all these different devices for different things? My pockets aren't big enough and I don't own a purse.
With the iPhone, pretty much everything you need is on one device. This is why I'm holding out on my SiriusXM subscription decision until the new iPhone app comes out. If the app works well, I may stay w/ SiriusXM. If not, then I'm gone. I'm trading in my iPhone for my Stilleto. The Pocket Tunes app on the iPhone is okay but not user-friendly. It takes forever to change channels, plus it drops the signal a lot. If the forthcoming Sirius XM app is the same, I will become solely a Slacker & Pandora user. Both Pandora and Slacker work very well on my iPhone and they're free (for now). I'm also able to plug my iPhone into my car stereo, so no separate radio needed there either.
So bottom line for me is that Sirius XM's equipment isn't the problem at all. They've already lost to Apple. People want to streamline and simplify and that's exactly what the iPhone allows them to do.
Sirius is a Razorblade Co. first and foremost. They should work out a way to provide the receiver in a manner like the cable companies do. Siri could even charge a rental fee for the receiver. Sirius' big product is the monthly service charge for their content. The cost for the point of entry has to be as low as possible. The web app is a good idea , but there is a lot of online competition , and much of it is free.
Ryan,
I have to disagree. Sure the new Iphone is sexy, and Apple should be commended for its marketing across the board, Iphone, Ipod, etc. BUT there are just a SMALL handful of users in the Sat Radio Community that absolutely have to have the "latest and greatest". The biggest selling point of all is the service not the radio. XM made that mistake and became a gadget company, and forgot about the media.
Having said that SiriusXM should take a marketing page from Apple. There are probably a lot of people out there listening on old Visor units or the like, that have NO idea there is a unit like the Stiletto.
I am still using the SkyFi2 as my main receiver. It is by far IMO the best most reliable unit that has ever been produced. It would be nice if it were a bit smaller however. Love the ability to pause and rewind live broadcasts, and have the very strong original FM transmitter. If the expressRC was more durable, I might consider upgrading. But it just seems a bit flimsy in comparison to the SkyFi2.
What is more overrated, the Orlando Magic, or the iphone? Or O & A and the iphone? I say they all suck!
I'm part of the silent majority, a sports fan with a long commute who's been very happy with my sat radio for 5+ years now. It beats my regular radio and my ipod, and the price is very reasonable. Anyways, here's my point that supports this post - I check this site out every few weeks to see if there's anything new going on with XM. I don't swing by to grip, or come up with niche solutions to my individual wants, I'm just curious to see if there's a new show or product I might be interested in and this seems to be one of the only places to find that out. Usually there isn't anything new to find out though. And there should be, because if XM introduced a new radio with a neat feature or two, I'm likely to think about buying it (same way that if they change channels around more often I'd be likely to listen to the new ones, maybe even listen for longer periods per day). But there's been absolutely nothing innovative or even new-feeling from this company in eons. I don't think thats a bad thing (keep broadcasting music, Cubs games and Dan Patrick and you'll hear no complaints from me) but you have to think they're missing out. I don't think they've ever come close to tapping the full potential of the average customer, especially compared to the way Apple does (a company who I've also happily given more than their fair share of $).
If SiriusXM made more of an effort to get their service on more devices (ala the Duke Nukem Forever.....I mean SiriusXM iPhone app) they might be operating from a better position of strength. Pandora had their traffic go up by 2 million when their iPhone app hit. SiriusXM could stand to do the same. And they don't necessarily need advertising to do it. How many pandora ads do you see on TV or radio?
I agree its the service not the radio. I think the stiletto is important, but palm app, blackberry app, and s60 app is a MUST. I can get shoutcast streams on my Nokia E63, I need sirius on my phone.
I have to diagree with this. People will choose a cell provider based on the phones they offer, there is a choice of providers. SatRadio has no true competition, so its not the radios that need to innovative its the service itself that needs to be second to none..not the hardware. This was a clumsy attempt at best to put together a story.
A stronger mobile device presence couldn't hurt Sirius XM, for certain, but people expect practically everything online to be free. I have seen no data on this, but my hunch is that the vast majority of people who listen to Sirius XM online are people who subscribe to the radio service and use the online access to get their favorite channels when they don't have access to a radio.
Given this, what they need to do is bring in more non-subscribers by offering a very extensive free online service and use that to promote the pay radio and online services. Compared to the likes of Pandora and Slacker, Sirius XM has more programming people, so (presumably) has access to more expertise in developing these kinds of audio services.
Obsolesence? Not sure Melvin planned siriusxm's Obsolesence by his "merge" MONOPOLY scheme but what we got out of Melvin's scheme is siriusxm's Obsolesence.
The churn away from siriusxm is mind blowing, it won't be too much longer till siriusxm is just a bad memory, and it's management a lesson of what not to do when trying to run a subscription based media service.
Paying for radio is for newbs and suckers.
FU Melvin.
SiriusXM's problem is not its receivers...it's the people running it.
Create all the neato must-have whizbang gadgets with intuitive interfaces that you want...but if you don't give your customers what they ask for, you're dead. They really will leave and listen to iPods or static-laden AM signals if it comes down to it.
The problem here is that Mel is a former terrestrial radio guy. He's hired a lot of other former terrestrial radio guys to run things, and the reason they're former terrestrial radio guys in the first place is that they ran the industry into the ground. That's why the previously deep and diverse playlists sound a lot like familiar radio formats now. These guys couldn't make the "12:00" stop flashing on their VCRs, much less program a radio station.
If SiriusXM wants to survive, it knows what it has to do, and who needs to go. You kill the head vampire and all the other vampires die too. It's too bad no one has the guts to do it.
You'd think that Sirius could offer up a free "preview" channel on the internet...music and bits of the talk shows with promos between the songs. It would be a lot like the preview channel currenty on the receivers but with songs thrown in. It would serve as free advertising and wouldn't cost them much. It would make a lot of sense...which is probably why they'll never do it.
Beginning June 16th an XMRO/SIR application will be available at the Apple iTunes App-Store on the iPhone and the iPod Touch. All Premium XMRO/SIR Subscribers will be able to download the XMRO/SIR application from the Apple iTunes App-Store for FREE on their device and access the service at no additional cost. This includes Trial, $2.99, and Standalone XMRO/SIR users. Subscribers who are listening to the Basic Online Service for free must first upgrade to the Premium Online Service for $2.99 per month to access the application on the iPhone or iPod Touch.
Yes, and I'd go farther than that if I were them, offering a suite of free online channels. The easiest to implement would be to feature ad-supported versions of some of the existing channels, replacing a song or two an hour with a couple of commercial spots plus a promo for the paid service. Maybe also have a featured commercial-free channel, which would rotate each week.
Also, use the website to promote an "exclusive for online listeners" offer to get a radio free with a one-year contract commitment, or for $99 with the first year of service included in the price.
Subscribers who are listening to the Basic Online Service for free must first upgrade to the Premium Online Service for $2.99 per month to access the application on the iPhone or iPod Touch.
Not gonna happen, Mel. You'll get no extra nickels out of this subscriber for anything that used to be included in the XM subscription price, including Internet service (which is what this is, iPhone trappings notwithstanding), especially when you've been so hard at work dumbassifying XM and when other listening options on the same device are free.
Good luck with your future endeavors.
Signed,
Your adoring public.
Planned obsolescence is a means to create demand for replacement products by designing and selling goods or services that become inoperable or inadequate earlier than anticipated or earlier than necessary. You might want to have another look at that Wikipedia article on it that you cited.
Is my first-generation iPhone inadequate? Has it failed? I was using it just yesterday to place calls, browse the web, and listen to baseball broadcasts. Is it obsolete today because I'm aware of the new features, higher performance, and larger storage capacity of the later models?
No, of course it isn't. Unless "planned obsolescence" is your accepted term for all forms of demand creation, Apple doesn't practice it. They seem to be successful in designing and marketing products that people are willing to pay for, even when they already have goods in hand that meet their basic needs. How do they do it? That seems like a good topic for discussion.
I agree that whatever Apple is doing, a counterexample to it would be Sirius XM, which has been taking steps to render their product inadequate for many of its subscribers, especially XM subscribers, causing them to seek replacements in record numbers. We might call that planned obsolescence, but I rather doubt the outcome was planned.
I think this reaction will be typical of that of many people. Some try to trivialize these price increases by comparing them to the prices of other things, but people will resist paying more for something that isn't as good as it was when it was less costly.
please show me this free listening options that are better otherwise GTFO.
is not a price increase is extra functionality that has nothing to do with with the online listening that you get for free if you were able to lock into those benefits.
Now my opinion is that if you feel is overpriced dont use it and dont pay for it and don't complain about as it should not affect you at all and isn't something that is part of the scope of you subscription and sirius is giving you a freebie so that you use it on you pc, stilletto, internet receivers and you IPHONE if you think that all that funcionality isnt worth 2.99 then just pass but dont think your word is gospel and spare us the crap because there's value to be had with the SIR+.
Having to pay extra for something that was once included in a package of services constitutes a price increase. Using your logic, if Sirius XM said that the service would be cut to 30 channels for $12.95, and each additional channel would cost a dollar, that wouldn't be a price increase. I think most reasonable people would disagree.
please show me this free listening options that are better otherwise GTFO.
My view of the merits of Sirius XM in comparison to other listening options and yours may reasonably differ. However, I didn't compare the free listening options to Sirius XM. I said only that they exist, implying but not stating the obvious point that when competing with free services it's up to the premium service to demonstrate superiority, not the other way around.
Go ahead and pay the premium for Sirius XM on the iPhone if you like. It's your money, that is until you give it away.
Included? it was something that you were able to get for free for a limited time. show me where it was stated that you will have free online listening forever unless you had a lifetime plan? so if and item is for sale and it has a freebie included for a limited time for early buyers it means that when that freebie is no longer available thats a price increase? Ok I see your point but it makes no sense. so if mcdonalds doesnt give you a toy with every burger is a price increase as well?
The online listening free of charge was a freebie that you could get with the subscription as an early adopter and the fact that isnt offerred anymore doesnt make it a price increase it means that you missed out on it for being a late adopter or for not locking in the benefits that you seem to care about.
The 2.99 for the SIR+ are for an especific user not for everybody so if isnt for you what are you going to do? just express your opinion and move on Intead of acting all mighty saying that everybody, sorry you said the majority will think the same way as some guy on a internet blog comments. thats idiotic.
my opinion is that many Iphone users will find value in this and that for 2.99 extra if they dont pay for it already will find value in this proposition.
nice way of avoiding the answer to a direct question.
GTFO with you Bullcrap.
I am not much of an Iphone app guy, but is there an app that offers mlb, nhl, nba, nascar, irl, nfl, howard stern, o&a, and numerous music channels with exclusive programs brought to you by the artists themselve? To me this would seem to be the premium service demonstrating its superiority. I dont mean to come of as being sarcastic, but if there is a service offering this, do they offer it the car and home? I would love to upgrade to a simpler service. I am so sick of giving my money away for nothing.
Using your logic, the company should continue to give away a service that costs millions to maintain, when its not used by every subscriber. If I'm correct, thats how both of these companies were unable to show a profit. Cutting channels and charging the same base price for less satellite radio is a price increase, removing a costly bonus to satellite radio and charging a small amount to the people who actually use it is called smart business. Something neither of these two could call themselves before this merger. I know you will bring up the Lee abrhams music programming, that also was part of the non profit organization previously called XM. Time to adapt or move on.
I am not much of an Iphone app guy, but is there an app that offers mlb, nhl, nba, nascar, irl, nfl, howard stern, o&a, and numerous music channels with exclusive programs brought to you by the artists themselve?
I've been an XM subscriber since 2003, I'm still a semi-regular listener, and I'm calling bullshit on that question.
1) No, of course there is no such iPhone app, and when the Sirius XM iPhone app is finally released there still won't be, unless when naming all those sports you're referring to channels such as "MLB Home Plate" and "NHL Home Ice" that cover the sports but don't offer play-by-play in their Internet incarnations.
The question is, does Sirius XM offer coverage of sports via its streaming service that's so far superior to streaming terrestrial sports stations that people will sign up and pay? I don't think so, and I've never seen an argument that suggests otherwise. Make one, if you can.
Don't get me wrong: I like MLB Home Plate, but it is what it is. My local AM sports station does a better job of covering the teams I follow. I listen to MLB play-by-play on XM, but that won't be available via Sirius XM on the iPhone, as I'm sure you already knew before you asked your loaded question.
2) O&A and Howard? Are O&A exclusive to Sirius XM again? -- Sorry, but I'm not really motivated to keep track. But sure, if nobody else can get you through the day, I guess you need to turn to Sirius XM for Howard at least and maybe the other guys too.
But aren't all of you signed up already? It's great that your little clubs are so loyal to their figureheads, but unfortunately for Sirius XM there weren't enough of you for the company to meet its debt obligations earlier this year. No impartial observer is expecting a surge in membership; I think those guys can cancel the order for the extra kegs at their first listening party after the release of the iPhone app. The one they've been working their way through since 2007 will continue to suffice.
3) "Numerous music channels with exclusive programs brought to you by the artists themselves" sounds intriguing, but when members of XMFan.com are currently comparing the playlists of Clear Channel stations favorably to those programmed by Sirius XM for depth and the ability to hold listeners' interest for longer than 20 minutes a day, you're going to have to deliver the goods -- not just marketing spin -- to win folks' subscription dollars.
I don't have to point out the existing sources of music listening that are available on the device that Sirius XM music channels will have to compete with, as Ryan does a fine job of covering them here already.
I am so sick of giving my money away for nothing.
I didn't say Sirius XM offers nothing, and neither did I say that the iPhone has alternatives that are equivalent to Sirius XM's offerings in a package that simplifies access to the content. My point is that Sirius XM doesn't offer enough beyond what's available for free for it to gain a large number of subscribers among iPhone users, and if you want to reply to that point instead of setting up some ridiculous strawman that you expect me to abandon my point in order to defend, we can have a discussion.
nice way of avoiding the answer to a direct question.
1) You didn't ask a question.
2) I responded to your request by pointing out its irrelevance.
3) "GTFO"? And not once, but twice? You can't be serious. Even with repeated application this is not an effective rejoinder. It's the textual equivalent of a guy losing an argument who decides to end it by throwing a roundhouse punch at the other guy's face. And missing.
please show me this free listening options that are better otherwise GTFO
it seems like a direct question to me, but if you prefer let me put it different.
please show me this free listening options that are better?
2. the irrelevance you claim is subjective. that's just your opinion not a fact. you should use the content as an objective gauge of relevance.
3.I trying to tell you to spare us the crap as clearly you are trying to present your opinions as facts, leave your FUD out of the comment sections as you are doing a disservice to all of us.
if I may ask how do you reach that point?
I think a company is either a hardware company or a software company. It is difficult if not impossible to be both. If FM stations needed to develop FM radios as well as programming, how good would they have been 40 years ago? Even cable and Sat TV get others to make the set top boxes. Does NBC make TV's? Does Samsung have a movie studio? Sony acquired their software assets so they don't count in my book. I think XM needs to get others to develop the hardware and focus on the software. That is what they bring to the table. It may be already to late to save them. The internet will be the broadcasting medium for everything soon. Phone, TV, newspapers, and radio. Physical broadcasting frequencies paid for at exorbitant prices will loss out to internet bandwidth.
please show me this free listening options that are better otherwise GTFO
Both of these imperatives have already received the responses they deserved.
the irrelevance you claim is subjective.
No; your request is a logical non sequitur. I never claimed that there are free options that are better, and my argument doesn't depend on their existence. I claimed only that Sirius XM isn't sufficiently superior to demand a premium.
You've simply failed to understand what I wrote. I don't know what else there is to say about it.
I know you will bring up the Lee abrhams music programming, that also was part of the non profit organization previously called XM. Time to adapt or move on.
At least when Abrams was around XM's subscriber base was still growing. Is there any evidence that Zellner-style music programming is more profitable? Is there any limit to the number of XM listeners who must "move on" before you begin to express some doubts?
No, the example you gave at the beginning of your post has nothing to do with logic. I know you were just repeating the words I used to mimic me and attempt to come off as clever, but your statement ("the company should 'give away' a service that costs millions to maintain") is simply a belief you say I hold; as it's based on no reasoning, the word "logic" does not apply.
But, in reality, this company has never "given" me anything. I've paid for all services I've received, and having online listening included in the subscription price was prominently advertised at the time I became a customer. Moreover, Mr. Karmazin and other Sirius AND XM executives (no, I do not view XM as blameless) repeatedly stated that the merger would be a benefit to consumers. Let's look at those many benefits we have received: Pay the same price for less service (in the case of online listening); pay more for the same service (in the case of extra radios); pay for essentially nothing (in the case of radio swap fees and cancellation fees).
It's clear, then, that the merger has not been a benefit to consumers, but has been a cost. While it apparently does not trouble you that executives of both companies lied to the FCC, the public, and most importantly to customers, the fact that Sirius XM's stewardship has led to the company's first quarterly decrease in subscribers in the history of satellite radio does challenge your premise that the current management is spearheading a long-awaited drive to profitability.
Finally, yes, we are all aware we can "adapt or move on," and many are selecting option #2, so it really does not need to be repeated quite so often as a response to anyone that voices any criticism of this company. This is a private business, and they can do what they want, and I can spend my money here or not spend it. So, now that we've established that, can we just dispense with the "love it or leave it" nonsense and talk about what's actually going on with a medium both of us apparently have some interest in?
I have been a subscriber to both companies since 2002/2003 and I had/have stock in all three. I protested the merge, after the merge I contacted our goverment and complained heavily to both sirius and xm. I reduced My subscriptions by fifty percent. After a couple months, I stopped listening altogether.
Recently, three months or so, I began listening again. The music channels are monotonous, boring and very one dimensional. Although, I have heard many things that I enjoy. I have also heard many songs that had seemed to disappear. Many of the talk programs seem more defined and situated than before the merge.
Most of your complaints are truly getting old, Yes, the company is fucking everyone over by taking away or reducing the qaulity of the on-line service, by turning every channel into a "hits" channel, by continuously playing censored music on Channels that are uncensored, and by recucing their customer service, but you and everyone else here have the same freedom I have, I decided to stay with the company, I also decided to give the constant negative attitude a break. We all know what is wrong here, most of us are still subscribers, why complain about the things we dont like when we can praise the programs we do like? I have already seen a change in the programming. When I say "adapt or move on", I mean it. This is it! they are not going to return any channels under protest! If there is a station that closely resembles a favorite, or if there is a show you enjoy, support it the way you did in the beginning, make requests or suggestions, complain, but not about whats missing, complain about the current programming. There are people that have no problems with the music channels, what about those who dont even listen to the music channels? They call in to their shows and sirixm can track their web visits. We need to show this company that there are people actually listening to the music channels, not just bitching about the way it used to be.
We all know what is wrong here, most of us are still subscribers, why complain about the things we dont like when we can praise the programs we do like?
Your response to Sirius XM's programming gaffes makes a lot of sense for a subscriber who wants to continue to support the company and hopes for improvement.
But as a response to me, in the context of the discussion we were having, it's a misfire. I was talking about the likelihood of success Sirius XM will generate significant new revenue through its newly released iPhone app, and the quality of the programming in comparison to other listening options necessarily arises in that discussion.
As I subscriber I agree that it would be nice for Sirius XM to improve their programming. And I understand that you and others are weary of comments from multiple unhappy subscribers, some now hostile toward the company, harping on its mistakes. But that's not our topic here.
Anyway now that the iPhone app has been released we'll both find out if I'm right. The early response suggests that Sternlessness is going to obscure the true value of the thing, whatever it is. As I write, 268 out of 421 customer ratings at the iTunes App Store are the lowest rating, 1 star. Ouch.
You should first take note that I was commenting in return to XCOUNTRY. As far as my comments in regard to an iphone app, I could careless, if you do not have some sort of plug and play or portable satrad device, you probably arent much of a fan of satrad. A smartphone app is the same as sirius or xm offering its newsletter on twitter or facebook, nothing more than propaganda. If a useless smartphone app draws in customers or satisfies oem users, than so be it. Like I said in my post to XCOUNTRY, I am more interested in passionate users being more vocal to sirixm about the current offerings, I am not weary of your comments, I believe that in the eight months(or so) since the channel merge, you could have found your way to cancelling, it doesnt take much to realize that this is the new company. The highest rated channels on sirixm are talk and top 40, if the company truly caters to the top demo, we loose. They(sirixm) assume most listeners are either tuned into a talk program, or rarely channel surfing, so they play a hit or a favorite song. If we sit back and keep complaining about the loss of formats, you will see the same results as when you complained about the loss of your favorite fm station. Do you see a pattern here. These are radio executives anyway you package it. We are the minority now. This is not the free spirited satrad we all signed up for. I am just willing to give it one last chance.
You should first take note that I was commenting in return to XCOUNTRY.
You're right, I totally missed who you were replying to. Sorry about that.
A large group of subscribers are calling and getting the SIR+ for the 2.99 but it will take sometime to truly see if the users that dont have the service continue to use it after the trial is completed by getting an account to listen on line or a receiver. but until know the response has been good with the exception of a couple of subscribers that complain because isn't free.