From Music Business Worldwide:
Americans really don't want to pay for music in their carsQuoteThe Holy Grail for the future of the music business, we're told, is billions of people around the world paying a monthly subscription fee for digital audio services.
But new data out of the US suggests that nation's motorists just aren't ready to play ball. And that's a worry. Because according to estimates, there's more than 210m of them.
According to research from trusted pollster Ipsos, an overwhelming majority of American drivers still prefer listening to free AM or FM radio in their cars instead of digital services such as Pandora, Spotify and Sirius XM.
FULL ARTICLE HERE (http://markholtz.info/170)
What a weird spin on poll results. "Only" 27.3 MILLION subscribers to SXM.
Of course a lot of people are never going to pay for SXM. A lot of people have a single musical taste or talk radio taste that is satisfied for free on FM or even AM. More are happy with their own music, either on their cell phone or an "old fashioned" CD. A lot of people don't listen to the radio at all. And a lot of people would like SXM, but simply cannot afford it. And a lot of people spend a very small amount of time in their cars on a regular basis.
"Only" 27.3 MILLION subscribers? What did they expect? Something like cable/dbs with near ubiquity? Never was the plan.
In five or so years, when built in (a lot of people don't want aftermarket stuff) SXM radios and Bluetooth type connections for cell phones and other players have been homologated throughout even used cars, we will see where the industry matures. Probably about 35M or so. Which is great.
If I were made of money, I would probably subscribe to SiriusXM. The problem is that in this day and age, I'm already paying an internet bill and a cell phone bill that I didn't need to pay twenty years ago (in addition to a dramatically more expensive cable bill and a Netflix bill), and that cuts significantly into a lot of people's incomes.
There's only so many monthly automatic bills for technology a person wants to see come out of their paycheck, and in-car audio has got to be the lowest priority for most, since there are significantly better free alternatives to satellite radio than there are to not having a cell phone or not having the internet.
With limited resources, people have to balance what they spend money on, and selling satellite radio as a "need to have to function in society" item is tough to do. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and if I can get 95% of the enjoyment from my audio player by listening to the radio and my MP3 player as I can from listening to satellite radio, it's not worth it.
I hate the fact that I have to pay for TV. But nowadays, if you want to watch your favorite shows, you will pay for it whether it be cable or Hulu or Netflix. I do not need pay-for radio nor will I get it. I also don't allow any company access to my bank account for bill drafting. I will put a check in the mail with an envelope that they provide, send it to them via USPS and they can wait until it gets to them so that they can give someone a job to process it and take it to a bank. :nod:
I pay for satellite radio because I travel a lot and hate to have to constantly fish for channels as I drive. My car also doesn't have an AUX port or Bluetooth so I can't even listen to my phone. I bought an FM transmitter to try to remedy this but it did nothing to help me.
I do hate that SiriusXM doesn't allow you to cancel online. You have to call them and cancel. I assume it's so they can try to convince you to keep their service.
I'm totally happy with my iPod and its 9K or so files (just over 25 days to play them all straight through). And the way that I have things rigged up in my car means that I can play the radio (listening to a game, news, discussions, etc) while the tunes from the iPod are playing in the background.
:cool:
Mike
Quote from: cjk374 on May 03, 2015, 11:50:45 AM
I hate the fact that I have to pay for TV. But nowadays, if you want to watch your favorite shows, you will pay for it whether it be cable or Hulu or Netflix.
Well, they don't usually become your favorite shows unless you first pay for them.
Why the hell would I pay a subscription fee for satellite radio were someone else makes the playlist, so it's likely to contain a lot of songs I do not like anyway. I'd rather listen to my playlist on an iphone or ipod so I only have to hear songs I like.
It seems like they are intentionally making free radio stations shitty so that more people will get satellite radio. Back in the old days (not too long ago), free radio was pretty good. Now, around here anyway, it's putrid, despite the fact that there has been a decent amount of good music coming out recently.
What really sucks is that there are no true soft rock stations anymore.
Quote from: Brian556 on May 03, 2015, 06:56:36 PM
What really sucks is that there are no true soft rock stations anymore.
Isn't that called country?
Quote from: Brian556 on May 03, 2015, 06:56:36 PM
Why the hell would I pay a subscription fee for satellite radio were someone else makes the playlist, so it's likely to contain a lot of songs I do not like anyway.
Because you may learn of new music you like, even if you don't like everything they play.
There are thousands of songs on my iPod, all put there by one person who has already heard them all. Often I want my horizons broadened beyond them.
This explains why the car companies are trying to remove the radios entirely. If Americans don't want to buy these services because there's a perfectly good free alternative, the solution in the eyes of companies is obviously to remove the free alternative rather than make the service better.
Quote from: cjk374 on May 03, 2015, 11:50:45 AM
I hate the fact that I have to pay for TV. But nowadays, if you want to watch your favorite shows, you will pay for it whether it be cable or Hulu or Netflix. I do not need pay-for radio nor will I get it. I also don't allow any company access to my bank account for bill drafting. I will put a check in the mail with an envelope that they provide, send it to them via USPS and they can wait until it gets to them so that they can give someone a job to process it and take it to a bank. :nod:
Your bank doesn't have online bill pay? I pay almost all of my bills online, but none of the companies have my bank account info. I have two billers that go to my credit card, not because I want to do business that way, but because of other reasons (Verizon requires it unless you have more than one service, and E-ZPass NY refunds the $10 deposit if you do).
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 03, 2015, 07:30:39 PM
Because you may learn of new music you like, even if you don't like everything they play.
There are thousands of songs on my iPod, all put there by one person who has already heard them all. Often I want my horizons broadened beyond them.
Also, sometimes the mood for something different strikes. It's much easier to flip to a different SXM channel than it is to download new songs and fuss with a playlist while on the road.
Also if I want a news fix when I'm in an area with spotty cell service....
I don't want to pay for radio. I don't even listen to free radio any more, because of the huge blocks of commercials that can last my whole drive across town, or half my drive to another town. I listen to music I have stored on a digital player. I don't even like free streams; I prefer my own playlist of music I like. My musical preferences are broadly varied, but very specific. I don't like genres or bands; I like specific songs, so streams and stations don't work well for me. When I hear something new, or old, that I like, I add it to my collection and put it in circulation.
QuoteThis explains why the car companies are trying to remove the radios entirely. If Americans don't want to buy these services because there's a perfectly good free alternative, the solution in the eyes of companies is obviously to remove the free alternative rather than make the service better.
Is this something that is actually happening? I hadn't heard at all about it.
I know lots of people that get their music for free by using the Youtube (YTD) Downloader. Why pay for something you can get for free?
Quote from: corco on May 03, 2015, 08:47:22 PM
QuoteThis explains why the car companies are trying to remove the radios entirely. If Americans don't want to buy these services because there's a perfectly good free alternative, the solution in the eyes of companies is obviously to remove the free alternative rather than make the service better.
Is this something that is actually happening? I hadn't heard at all about it.
So the dude breaking into my car
really did work for Honda?
Quote from: US 41 on May 03, 2015, 09:03:36 PM
I know lots of people that get their music for free by using the Youtube (YTD) Downloader. Why pay for something you can get for free?
Because it's illegal and unethical?
Quote from: vdeane on May 03, 2015, 07:46:06 PM
This explains why the car companies are trying to remove the radios entirely. If Americans don't want to buy these services because there's a perfectly good free alternative, the solution in the eyes of companies is obviously to remove the free alternative rather than make the service better.
Quote from: cjk374 on May 03, 2015, 11:50:45 AM
I hate the fact that I have to pay for TV. But nowadays, if you want to watch your favorite shows, you will pay for it whether it be cable or Hulu or Netflix. I do not need pay-for radio nor will I get it. I also don't allow any company access to my bank account for bill drafting. I will put a check in the mail with an envelope that they provide, send it to them via USPS and they can wait until it gets to them so that they can give someone a job to process it and take it to a bank. :nod:
Your bank doesn't have online bill pay? I pay almost all of my bills online, but none of the companies have my bank account info. I have two billers that go to my credit card, not because I want to do business that way, but because of other reasons (Verizon requires it unless you have more than one service, and E-ZPass NY refunds the $10 deposit if you do).
I don't pay anything online. I don't put my debit card number out there in cyberspace. Technology gets hacked, identities are stolen, and then life is hell for a couple of years. Thanks but noooooo thanks.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 03, 2015, 04:12:01 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on May 03, 2015, 11:50:45 AM
I hate the fact that I have to pay for TV. But nowadays, if you want to watch your favorite shows, you will pay for it whether it be cable or Hulu or Netflix.
Well, they don't usually become your favorite shows unless you first pay for them.
It wasn't always like that. Think back to the days or aerial antennas on the side of the house. Good times.
I've been listening to Pandora a lot more often these days...most radio stations play nothing but the same limited playlists, and while there is a rather large and eclectic variety on my phone, it's just easier to go to my Pandora app instead.
I'm too cheap to pay for a paid account, though, so I get a thirty-second ad every so often...but it's not so annoying that it'll get me to actually pay to make those ads disappear.
Quote from: cjk374 on May 03, 2015, 09:12:59 PM
I don't pay anything online. I don't put my debit card number out there in cyberspace. Technology gets hacked, identities are stolen, and then life is hell for a couple of years. Thanks but noooooo thanks
Good plan. Just as long as you never bought anything at Home Depot, Neiman Marcus, PF Changs, Albertsons, UPS, Dairy Queen, Jimmy John's, or Kmart, or had health insurance from Anthem, or attended school at UMD or South Carolina or Auburn or UC Riverside. Or interacted with any of the countless other companies who have had their data compromised. You're literally doing nothing to improve security by not buying online.
Quote from: dfwmapper on May 03, 2015, 10:15:01 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on May 03, 2015, 09:12:59 PM
I don't pay anything online. I don't put my debit card number out there in cyberspace. Technology gets hacked, identities are stolen, and then life is hell for a couple of years. Thanks but noooooo thanks
Good plan. Just as long as you never bought anything at Home Depot, Neiman Marcus, PF Changs, Albertsons, UPS, Dairy Queen, Jimmy John's, or Kmart, or had health insurance from Anthem, or attended school at UMD or South Carolina or Auburn or UC Riverside. Or interacted with any of the countless other companies who have had their data compromised. You're literally doing nothing to improve security by not buying online.
Also why it is important to have a credit card (that is used responsibly) in this day and age. I auto-pay everything but my electric bill onto a credit card and make all online purchases with a credit card and review those charges. That adds an extra layer between my checking account and the purchase, so that if there is a billing error or fraud I'm not screwed out of actual money. There's going to be a lag of at least a couple weeks between the time I make a credit card transaction and the time I have to pay the credit card company, and in that time, if there is an issue, I can work it out either by working with the vendor directly or by disputing the charge with the credit card company.
I agree that you should never, ever use a debit card online.
Quote from: corco on May 03, 2015, 10:23:27 PM
Also why it is important to have a credit card (that is used responsibly) in this day and age. I auto-pay everything but my electric bill onto a credit card and make all online purchases with a credit card and review those charges. That adds an extra layer between my checking account and the purchase, so that if there is a billing error or fraud I'm not screwed out of actual money. There's going to be a lag of at least a couple weeks between the time I make a credit card transaction and the time I have to pay the credit card company, and in that time, if there is an issue, I can work it out either by working with the vendor directly or by disputing the charge with the credit card company.
I agree that you should never, ever use a debit card online.
Agreed - and I don't use a debit card at all - only a credit card - for exactly the reason above. The bank thinks I'm nuts when I demand only an ATM card with no credit card logo. The bank account stays "offline".
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 03, 2015, 07:30:39 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on May 03, 2015, 06:56:36 PM
Why the hell would I pay a subscription fee for satellite radio were someone else makes the playlist, so it's likely to contain a lot of songs I do not like anyway.
Because you may learn of new music you like, even if you don't like everything they play.
There are thousands of songs on my iPod, all put there by one person who has already heard them all. Often I want my horizons broadened beyond them.
This.
You aren't born with a playlist of songs in your head. You have to learn about new songs somehow and often that comes through listening to the radio.
We had SiriusXM for six months, and enjoyed it - for a while. The choices are much more varied than anything you'd find on AM/FM, and it's clear as could be. With about 15-20 presets, it was tough to be bored, and there weren't any annoying DJs there to fill commercial voids.
But after a while, it too starts to get repetitive. The same songs are just played again and again, but just a few days apart. I get the same experience from renting a car with satellite radio - you find a few favorite stations, and you're set for a few days, until repetition sets in just before its time to hand the car back.
I think lots of people don't want to pay for something they can largely get for free, which record companies have been trying to work with for 60+ years. As corco said, I think most folks roll their eyes at another subscription-based bill, and I think folks who enjoy a varied tapestry of musical tastes probably "own" a lot of their music and some form(s) of portability to replay it. So SXM finds itself in a curious niche; still...8% sounds like decent market penetration for something that's long been thought of as a freebie.
Quote from: gilpdawg on May 03, 2015, 09:09:15 PM
Quote from: US 41 on May 03, 2015, 09:03:36 PM
I know lots of people that get their music for free by using the Youtube (YTD) Downloader. Why pay for something you can get for free?
Because it's illegal and unethical?
FYI, I buy all of my music (usually CDs at Walmart). I agree with t being unethical. It's basically the same as stealing. This was just an example of some people I know and what they do.
Quote from: US 41 on May 03, 2015, 09:03:36 PM
I know lots of people that get their music for free by using the Youtube (YTD) Downloader. Why pay for something you can get for free?
Because it's someone's job to make music and they deserve to be paid for their work. If the public consensus became that your work should be done at your expense, but still required hundreds and thousands of hours for you to do it, would it be ethical? It would not, but people would surely take it given a cloak of invisibility like the internet affords music takers.
Musicians have told me services like Spotify pay them about two cents a play. There is very little economic incentive for anyone to try to make music for others to listen to. So when people complain about the low quality of music these days, maybe a diminishing pool of suckers willing to work for free has something to do with it.
Quote from: Brian556 on May 03, 2015, 06:56:36 PM
It seems like they are intentionally making free radio stations shitty so that more people will get satellite radio. Back in the old days (not too long ago), free radio was pretty good. Now, around here anyway, it's putrid, despite the fact that there has been a decent amount of good music coming out recently.
Where are these free radio stations? If you're talking about the normal FM band, that would be the complete opposite of the truth. Those stations are hoping to keep you listening, so that advertisers will pay more.
If you're talking about free music on the internet, there's a lot of legalize stuff that deal with music. Broadcasters can't simply take someone's music and broadcast it for everyone to hear - they have to pay the artists for that music. If you're not liking what you're listening to, chances are it's because that's the only music the artists are allowing the broadcaster to play, maybe in the hopes that you'll buy their music later on. And if you're listening for free, and the broadcaster isn't making much or any money (or losing money), there's no incentive for the broadcaster to play good stuff to allow you to listen...again, for free.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2015, 08:50:00 AM
Quote from: Brian556 on May 03, 2015, 06:56:36 PM
It seems like they are intentionally making free radio stations shitty so that more people will get satellite radio. Back in the old days (not too long ago), free radio was pretty good. Now, around here anyway, it's putrid, despite the fact that there has been a decent amount of good music coming out recently.
Where are these free radio stations? If you're talking about the normal FM band, that would be the complete opposite of the truth. Those stations are hoping to keep you listening, so that advertisers will pay more.
Shitty and popular are not mutually exclusive.
Quote from: US 41 on May 04, 2015, 06:49:09 AM
It's basically the same as stealing.
Stealing means that the person you stole from now lacks something they actually had. Think about it.
Quote from: NE2 on May 04, 2015, 09:57:19 AM
Quote from: US 41 on May 04, 2015, 06:49:09 AM
It's basically the same as stealing.
Stealing means that the person you stole from now lacks something they actually had. Think about it.
Since the great majority of music now has no real worth other than to those that throw away time and money making it, there is also no value being taken. This means by extension that musicians' lives are worthless, which could make for an interesting murder defense.
Quote from: NE2 on May 04, 2015, 09:57:19 AM
Quote from: US 41 on May 04, 2015, 06:49:09 AM
It's basically the same as stealing.
Stealing means that the person you stole from now lacks something they actually had. Think about it.
There's more to that, if you're being honest. There's also the theft of intellectual property. This property is copyrighted for a reason so that the artist or author who made the work gets some sort of compensation for his/her work.
Yes, SPUI, it is stealing, just not the same as burglary or shoplifting.
Spotify is free if you don't wanna pay premium. So you deal with a shuffle playlist and a couple commercials every 30 minutes, big deal :awesomeface:
Quote from: gilpdawg on May 03, 2015, 09:09:15 PM
Quote from: US 41 on May 03, 2015, 09:03:36 PM
I know lots of people that get their music for free by using the Youtube (YTD) Downloader. Why pay for something you can get for free?
Because it's illegal and unethical?
Illegal, meh. Unethical, that is your opinion.
Quote from: bugo on May 04, 2015, 01:50:41 PM
Quote from: gilpdawg on May 03, 2015, 09:09:15 PM
Quote from: US 41 on May 03, 2015, 09:03:36 PM
I know lots of people that get their music for free by using the Youtube (YTD) Downloader. Why pay for something you can get for free?
Because it's illegal and unethical?
Illegal, meh. Unethical, that is your opinion.
As long as you also work for free, I see nothing unethical about it.
I consider charging $20 for a CD with 2 good songs and 8 shitty songs to be unethical. I also consider the record companies getting most of the money from music sales and the artists getting screwed.
I'm a wannabe musician and if somebody downloaded my music, I'd be stoked that somebody actually liked my music enough to download it.
Besides, artists don't make much money off record sales. They make most of their money on touring and selling merchandise. I'm sure bands have made lots of money off of somebody downloading their music and going to shows or buying a shirt. They wouldn't have known their music without the "illegal" downloads and therefore wouldn't be spending their money on the band's merchandise or going to one of their shows.
Quote from: bugo on May 04, 2015, 03:42:53 PM
I consider charging $20 for a CD with 2 good songs and 8 shitty songs to be unethical.
Usually cheaper as a download - you can listen to parts of an album first.
QuoteI also consider the record companies getting most of the money from music sales and the artists getting screwed.
Entirely debatable, unless you're a 1960's Motown artist. Otherwise, most employees don't own the ideas they've put on someone else's medium, so that's a bunch of legal tough-noughie that's always held up in court.
QuoteI'm a wannabe musician and if somebody downloaded my music, I'd be stoked that somebody actually liked my music enough to download it.
Not everyone feels the same about copyright, but that's why the law is there. I say that as someone who's had tons of his Creative Commons photos reused (mostly with attribution), so some site can generate ad revenue. Personally, I think patents, copyrights, and intellectual property rights should be the same number of years; 17-20. The 120-year corporate authorship law, which was modified in the late-1990s is total horseshit.
I think a musician has a right to earn some intrinsic valuable for what they do if they're releasing music or if it's broadcasted, unless explicitly said otherwise; if you released a song, but a cover band immediately re-wrote it and modified it, and then made scads of money on what was your work, then you'd probably be a little annoyed if you weren't acknowledged and/or getting some sort of royalty for it. So the copyright is to also protect that from happening, although courts have interpreted that in various ways: a straight-up parody is totally okay, but re-using a five-second sample of a 15-year-old song is not...go figure.
For the few times a song of yours might be replayed by a complete stranger, probably not a big deal. But how many strangers does it take until it does matter to you?
Quote from: formulanone on May 04, 2015, 04:47:48 PM
Quote from: bugo on May 04, 2015, 03:42:53 PM
I consider charging $20 for a CD with 2 good songs and 8 shitty songs to be unethical.
Usually cheaper as a download - you can listen to parts of an album first.
That's something that has only been available for about a decade and could disappear just as quickly.
Quote
QuoteI also consider the record companies getting most of the money from music sales and the artists getting screwed.
Entirely debatable, unless you're a 1960's Motown artist. Otherwise, most employees don't own the ideas they've put on someone else's medium, so that's a bunch of legal tough-noughie that's always held up in court.
I know some professional musicians and they have all confirmed what I said. They make very little money from royalties.
Quote
QuoteI'm a wannabe musician and if somebody downloaded my music, I'd be stoked that somebody actually liked my music enough to download it.
Not everyone feels the same about copyright, but that's why the law is there. I say that as someone who's had tons of his Creative Commons photos reused (mostly with attribution), so some site can generate ad revenue. Personally, I think patents, copyrights, and intellectual property rights should be the same number of years; 17-20. The 120-year corporate authorship law, which was modified in the late-1990s is total horseshit.
I think a musician has a right to earn some intrinsic valuable for what they do if they're releasing music or if it's broadcasted, unless explicitly said otherwise; if you released a song, but a cover band immediately re-wrote it and modified it, and then made scads of money on what was your work, then you'd probably be a little annoyed if you weren't acknowledged and/or getting some sort of royalty for it. So the copyright is to also protect that from happening, although courts have interpreted that in various ways: a straight-up parody is totally okay, but re-using a five-second sample of a 15-year-old song is not...go figure.
For the few times a song of yours might be replayed by a complete stranger, probably not a big deal. But how many strangers does it take until it does matter to you?
If 50 fans download the album and 5 of them show up to a show, then it wouldn't matter to me. Money is money.
This is timely: http://www.digitaltrends.com/music/longtime-free-music-streaming-site-grooveshark-shut-down/ (http://www.digitaltrends.com/music/longtime-free-music-streaming-site-grooveshark-shut-down/)
And no one actually buys albums much anymore. You can download a song for .99 for crying out loud.
OR
You can do what I do, I have a subscription to Amazon Prime, which doesn't cost much AND gets me a ton of free music and TV shows and even free shipping. I have 500 songs of my iPhone, all legally obtained and available for offline use because of Amazon Prime. It pays for itself pretty quickly and it's legal.
Quote from: corco on May 03, 2015, 08:47:22 PM
QuoteThis explains why the car companies are trying to remove the radios entirely. If Americans don't want to buy these services because there's a perfectly good free alternative, the solution in the eyes of companies is obviously to remove the free alternative rather than make the service better.
Is this something that is actually happening? I hadn't heard at all about it.
There's chatter about it: http://blog.motorists.org/the-end-of-amfm-radio/
Quote from: cjk374 on May 03, 2015, 11:50:45 AM
I don't pay anything online. I don't put my debit card number out there in cyberspace. Technology gets hacked, identities are stolen, and then life is hell for a couple of years. Thanks but noooooo thanks.
I don't think you're familiar with online bill pay. With the exception of E-ZPass (due to the deposit required if not automatically replenishing), Verizon (due to corporate policy that I have no say in), and State Farm (which I still pay by check because they don't send electronic statements), everything is done via First Niagara's online bill pay interface. I simply enter the BILLER's information (NOT mine) once, and then every time I get a bill, I only have to enter the amount and click "submit". The biller never gets my bank account or credit card info at all. Meanwhile, all checks include your bank account info, so you're essentially giving them direct access (in fact, State Farm never even cashes the checks I send them; they just use the info on the check to automatically debit my account when they receive them).
I wouldn't use a debit card anywhere, online or off. That's just asking for trouble if someone gets hacked.
Quote from: bugo on May 04, 2015, 03:42:53 PM
I consider charging $20 for a CD with 2 good songs and 8 shitty songs to be unethical. I also consider the record companies getting most of the money from music sales and the artists getting screwed.
I'm a wannabe musician and if somebody downloaded my music, I'd be stoked that somebody actually liked my music enough to download it.
Besides, artists don't make much money off record sales. They make most of their money on touring and selling merchandise. I'm sure bands have made lots of money off of somebody downloading their music and going to shows or buying a shirt. They wouldn't have known their music without the "illegal" downloads and therefore wouldn't be spending their money on the band's merchandise or going to one of their shows.
The 'Grateful Dead' business plan.
:nod:
Mike
Quote from: vdeane on May 04, 2015, 10:17:46 PM
Quote from: corco on May 03, 2015, 08:47:22 PM
QuoteThis explains why the car companies are trying to remove the radios entirely. If Americans don't want to buy these services because there's a perfectly good free alternative, the solution in the eyes of companies is obviously to remove the free alternative rather than make the service better.
Is this something that is actually happening? I hadn't heard at all about it.
There's chatter about it: http://blog.motorists.org/the-end-of-amfm-radio/
Given that the source is a blog rather than an genuine article regarding
Vehicle Manufacturer X to drop AM/FM radios as standard equipment; I wouldn't put too much stock in such... at least not yet.
Although it's worth noting that there is one rather scathing comment in that blog (no, I did not write it):
Quote from: seenmuchCar makers really don't think anyone other than those who have connected themselves. their lives to a smart phone count which tracks our every move and thought.
But what they forget is that still at least a third of us have no use for these toys, which really do nothing new in our daily lives....Very expensive monthly fees, data limits which make these things nothing more than decoration once the data limit is reached.
I along with a lot of us still get along perfectly fine with a dumb phone, a Garmin GPS, a paper map( US/Canada street.highway/freeway atlas), a WINxp equipped computer for browsing the internet for purchases and cable or sat connection to watch our programs....
We still spend a lot of money and should not be forgotten so easily by those in charge less they do something which removes us from consideration of their new product.
Removing the CD player for right now at least is a very short sited move, and taking the am/fm or at least for now the fm radio out is a really short cited move.......
Give new cars these new smart phone and media connections, but leave the old options in there so as not remove them as a option for regular people who don't have an extra $300 a month laying around to waist on a smart phone and really high speed internet networks...........
Above-incorrect hononyms aside (
waist instead of
waste,
cited instead of
sighted), I generally agree with the commenter. Allow for the ability for the new technology but don't completely do away with the long-standing existing technology.
It's worth noting that it wasn't until the 1970s or even the early 1980s, at the latest, that
all vehicles came equipped with a factory radio. Some entry-level models that had an AM radio listed as standard equipment had a
Delete For Credit listing that could be checked off when ordering.
At a car show a year or two ago; I saw a nicely restored 1966 Ford Custom (entry level model in Ford's full-size line-up) 2-door sedan that indeed did not come equipped with any radio. It had a matching
factory trim piece with the letters
F O R D placed where the radio would have been if so equipped.
What sucker pays $300/month for a smartphone? I stream quite a bit, but still would only pay only about the same $90 if I didn't have unlimited data.
I only pay $50 per month for my phone. I use Straight Talk which is reasonably reliable. My data does get throttled at 2 GB so that can be somewhat problematic for streaming purposes.
Quote from: bugo on May 04, 2015, 05:21:17 PMThat's something that has only been available for about a decade and could disappear just as quickly.
Also, depending on which service you are using, you don't actually own the copy of the song on your device and it can disappear even though you've paid for it.
Let me add something to this too. 99% of music downloaded is music from successful musicians. They are all probably millionaires. I doubt people downloading their songs is really affecting their profits a lot. If someone downloaded music from the 70's and 80's it doesn't matter too much either. Heck half of those people are dead anyways. Also I read an article once that said that people who download music illegally are also the ones that buy the most music. I would tend to agree with that.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 05, 2015, 01:05:19 PM
What sucker pays $300/month for a smartphone? I stream quite a bit, but still would only pay only about the same $90 if I didn't have unlimited data.
I pay $60 for 20GB.
Quote from: bugo on May 05, 2015, 08:05:00 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 05, 2015, 01:05:19 PM
What sucker pays $300/month for a smartphone? I stream quite a bit, but still would only pay only about the same $90 if I didn't have unlimited data.
I pay $60 for 20GB.
Even further underscoring the point.
Any cell phone company that charges $300/month for cell service deserves to go out of business.
Quote from: corco on May 03, 2015, 08:47:22 PM
QuoteThis explains why the car companies are trying to remove the radios entirely. If Americans don't want to buy these services because there's a perfectly good free alternative, the solution in the eyes of companies is obviously to remove the free alternative rather than make the service better.
Is this something that is actually happening? I hadn't heard at all about it.
I've heard that this is a possibility, but I'm not sure if it's seriously in the works to not put in dash radio in new motor vehicles. This is pretty much what I was able to find.
http://jalopnik.com/will-am-and-fm-radio-really-be-eliminated-on-new-cars-453849045 (http://jalopnik.com/will-am-and-fm-radio-really-be-eliminated-on-new-cars-453849045)
Quote from: corco on May 03, 2015, 08:47:22 PM
QuoteThis explains why the car companies are trying to remove the radios entirely. If Americans don't want to buy these services because there's a perfectly good free alternative, the solution in the eyes of companies is obviously to remove the free alternative rather than make the service better.
Is this something that is actually happening? I hadn't heard at all about it.
In short: no. Not yet anyway. But it did come out a couple years ago that car companies were seeking to do it in the future.
Market reality is that a lot of people don't listen to radio the old fashioned way anymore. Usually their either stream a station online, or use a service like Pandora. In response to this, what car companies wanted to do was eliminate the AM/FM tuner and give the car a built in mp3 player/online streaming device. Because, they argued, this is what people are already doing just with their smartphones instead of the car itself. After all, by this method you could stream any station from anywhere, rather than only the ones in range of your current location.
But then once word got out, it proved less popular than expected, so the industry has backpedaled.
The chief concern is that radio signals are far more reliable than cell signals, and thus are much more useful for broadcasting information in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency. Radio signals are also better at reaching rural areas. Currently you can still pick up radio just fine in lots of places where cell service is nonexistent.
That, and of course, lots of people are not willing to part with their radios. Or worry about paying for a data subscription since that cell receiver isn't going to have permanent free access to the airwaves.
I do admit to streaming radio from places that I'm either moving to or have lived in the past and miss. Hearing local ads and radio personalities is a nice way to connect to or feel connected to a place. You can learn a surprising amount about a place just by consuming media.