quote: XM Satellite Radio posted big subscriber growth Thursday, but its losses continue to widen.
The Washington, D.C., pay radio broadcaster reported a fourth-quarter loss of $188.2 million, or 93 cents a share, on sales of $83.1 million. Those results compare with a year-ago loss of $163 million, or $1.12 a share, on $33.5 million in revenue. ...
These Sat radio providers spend more to make more, but at the end of the day they show a greater loss. Some analysts feel this is because of XM and Sirius having to fight each other so hard for subscribers. Sooner or later one of them is going to have to give in to the other.
Posts: 1673 | From: Suwanee, GA, USA | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which company now has their systems being factory installed in new automobiles? Does anyone know? I think that will be the company that will win in the end? Look what it has done for OnStar with over 3 million subscribers.
I sampled both over the internet and I think XM gives a better music selection. However the NFL and Howard Stern are both with New York based Sirius.
Which one would you invest in?
Do you see one over taking the other?
What's funny to me is that XM reports that revenue is up, but their losses are more. The bottom line to me is that you're still losing a whole lot of money...sounds like the NHL to me...
Posts: 73 | From: Delaware (A little closer to Philly than BMore) | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(For the record I'm not considering buying Sat radio at all. Just giving what might be the most worthless 2 cents on this subject there is.)
XM has a deal with Chevy already. You can get a new truck like a TrailBlazer with XM pre-installed. I think XM will win in the end. It seems they have more money behind them. After this earnings report XM's stock went up, after Sirius reported a loss their stock went down. XM's investors have more faith in the company IMHO.
So I do see XM taking over Sirius one day. Because of that if I were to invest in either one I'd buy some shares of Sirius maybe after their next earnings report that might be down again. Because then maybe more investors will be dunking their shares, it will be a cheap buy and and if XM buys them it will give Sirius stock holders a nice boost via shares of XM.
Posts: 1673 | From: Suwanee, GA, USA | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In time I think satellite radio will be ok as momentum continues to build in terms of subscriptions. I personally have two XM subscriptions ( a Delphi boombox for the office, and a permanent pioneer unit for my SUV).
This is the way to go for urban radio challenged areas the mountain and western states. The urban choices are plenty including a black talk channel. They also have an online subscription (music channels only) which you can check out for free for a limited time only. Check out the XM website for additional info.
You can also check out Sirius for free for three days.
Posts: 203 | From: Richmond (Houston), Texas | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, for those that have read my opinions on this matter in this very forum then you know what my feelings are: it is inevitable that XM will buy out Sirius (until their debt burden becomes too high). For those that may not be familiar with the reasons why satellite radio has such a high over- head there are three main reasons besides the av- erage costs of doing business as a "broadcaster". 1. Costs of building, launching and maintaining (station keeping) satellites in geo-synchronous orbit. 2. Costs of operating seperate studio facilities and/ or DAW's for each and every channel that is carried by the operator (bad idea). 3. Costs of maintaining the many terrestrial re- peaters that are neccesary in order to fill-in ar- eas where their satellite signals are shadowed-in by many tall buildings, as well as areas were the satellite signals are marginal for whatever reason . The systems used by both operators are very simil- ar (though incompatible) uses of technology and its application thereof from the mid-80s to mid- 90s. If I were to design a system for similar use I would do it differently than it has been done, especially with the hindsight of ten more years of technology behind me. To sum it up, both systems are very capital intensive. Finally, there is simply not enough room for two to play this game and as things stand, XM would probably be the better choice as far as an invest- ment is concerned. But when all is said and done, neither of the services may survive. After all, they don't operate in a vacuum which makes both of them (XM and Sirius) subject to what occurs out- side of their orbits (sorry, couldn't resist it).
DC Bailey Century Broadcasting
Posts: 78 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
