^I might rebuttal by saying that HBO was thought to be a stupid cause only a few years ago.
"Hoo hoo, nobody will pay for TV stations, tell him Fred." Some of the biggest ventures begin by establishing a base, and in the meantime piss away huge amounts of money. Think about MS spending on the X-Box, for one example. A few years ago, most of us laughed at Bill Gates making a game console. Now a shit ton of us on here have one, if not both of his consoles, and they are established pretty strongly in the console market. The blew gobs of money doing it on the first one, but it has worked. Now, whether they can make money off the next generation of consoles is the real question.

Back on topic though, found this little chart:



Kinda nice little side by side comparison. The last line says Losses BTW, since that stupid graphic is in front. Either way, they both lost a shitload of money, though Sirius blew about $50 mil more on the year. Their cost per new sub is WAY up there, and though its not on the image there, the full year SAC (subscriber acquisition cost) was $139/sub, or almost double XM's on the year.

One other question. Howie's 34.4 million shares of stock were announced on Jan. 9th and issued at that time. So they won't be on until next quarters statement. Will this be a bad thing (flooding the market with new stock) or a good thing?

[Edited on February 17, 2006 at 8:52 PM. Reason : ]

2/17/2006 8:48:00 PM

it is a risky investment, but thats what makes it a potentially good one. tech stocks were great for making an assload of money while it lasted. you have to be willing to lose that money if it comes to that though and/or know when to get out.

2/17/2006 8:49:54 PM

After this news from both companies, might be a good time to buy some cheaper stocks. Most places are still saying XMSR is undervalued, esp. after the recent news. Might be a good time to pick some satellite radio up "on the cheap" for either one. SIRI hasn't tanked as much yet, but I think Mel picked Friday to announce to kinda get investors to forget about it and cool off some before they came back to trading on Monday.

2/17/2006 9:05:10 PM

Quote :

"Now, my question is, why would you invest in a company that doesn't make any money? Investing like that is what caused the whole tech bubble fiasco"

not quite the same thing. sirius has over 3 million subscribers, and that number has been growing exponentially over the last few quarters. not to mention their churn rate is only 1.5%. once the subscribers outgrow the fixed costs (which they will), they'll be well in the black.

2/18/2006 10:24:07 PM

Quote :

"Hoo hoo, nobody will pay for TV stations, tell him Fred." Some of the biggest ventures begin by establishing a base, and in the meantime piss away huge amounts of money. Think about MS spending on the X-Box, for one example. A few years ago, most of us laughed at Bill Gates making a game console. Now a shit ton of us on here have one, if not both of his consoles, and they are established pretty strongly in the console market. The blew gobs of money doing it on the first one, but it has worked. Now, whether they can make money off the next generation of consoles is the real question."

For those of you reading the thread and skipping long-winded comments, all he said is "gotta spend money to make money. e.g. microsoft x-box."

Quote :

"Kinda nice little side by side comparison."

Kinda biased; sirius receives more money per subscription. Who is "Doggy"?

2/19/2006 10:08:26 AM

My car came with a 3 month trial of XM. I would never pay money for that crap.

2/19/2006 10:26:53 AM

^^The main reason that they have higher revenue right now is that they have been pitching the unlimited lifetime deals quite strongly. That helps in the short term, but in the long-term it is NOT good for them, as these people now our subscribers that generate no new revenue.

BTW how do you figure that they make more per subscriber??? According to the figures up there, if you divide subscribers by revenue, (obviously this doesn't figure in ad income, etc.) you get $73.3/subscriber for the year, whereas XM did about $94/subscriber on the year.

Sorry the little Doggy company is Sirius. Look at their logo.

[Edited on February 19, 2006 at 12:31 PM. Reason : ]

2/19/2006 12:25:42 PM

^



[Edited on February 19, 2006 at 7:00 PM. Reason : I'm an XM fan though, but i like Sirius' logo better]

2/19/2006 7:00:11 PM

Quote :

"Back on topic though, found this little chart:"

where did you find that chart? i thought XM's cost per aquisition was much higher than that

2/19/2006 7:39:45 PM

I saw it on another message board discussing the two reports. It was a simple consolidation of the info. Nothing special.

2/20/2006 7:04:57 AM

SIRIUS

2/20/2006 10:41:25 AM

I AM A SPAMMER

[Edited on February 20, 2006 at 2:05 PM. Reason : gone]

2/20/2006 12:48:05 PM