• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Will subscriptions be a detriment to HD Radio ?

P

PocketRadio

"Now on HD Radio: Subscriptions, Pay Per Hear, and More"

http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/04/now_on_hd_radio.html

I ran across some very interesting comments, concerning the newly announced HD Radio subscriptions, with harware-enable HD radios due out this Fall:

"iBiquity to introduce HD Radio subscriptions"

"Who's going to pay for that sh*t? You can can already get censored vanilla radio for free..."
"Oh great, they're gonna nickel-and-dime us for mediocre concerts and content."
"what? no time shifting yet? You bet its gonna be in there .. they are just keeping their mouths shut."
"So does that mean it competes with sat radio? Another example?"
"Just when I was about to purchase an HD Radio tuner now they want to charge for a subscribtion? I am putting my purchase plans on HOLD!"

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/ibiquity-to-introduce-hd-radio-subscriptions.html

Even though subscriptions are supposedly only for select channels:

1) Consumers may think that subscriptions will apply to all channels.

2) Consumers may think that the free channels will be just more of the same (i.e., not worth listening to), if there are select subscription-based channels.

3) Even though Struble has stated that HD Radio is for the masses (i.e., to replace analog radio), this announcement may position HD Radio even more with Satellite Radio.

4) The HD Radio Alliance may realize that "free" HD Radio (aside from having to purchase expensive HD radios) will be a failure, so HD Radio needs to resort to subscriptions.

Any thoughts ? :D
 
PocketRadio said:
"Now on HD Radio: Subscriptions, Pay Per Hear, and More"

http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/04/now_on_hd_radio.html

I ran across some very interesting comments, concerning the newly announced HD Radio subscriptions, with harware-enable HD radios due out this Fall:

"iBiquity to introduce HD Radio subscriptions"

"Who's going to pay for that sh*t? You can can already get censored vanilla radio for free..."
"Oh great, they're gonna nickel-and-dime us for mediocre concerts and content."
"what? no time shifting yet? You bet its gonna be in there .. they are just keeping their mouths shut."
"So does that mean it competes with sat radio? Another example?"
"Just when I was about to purchase an HD Radio tuner now they want to charge for a subscribtion? I am putting my purchase plans on HOLD!"
Click to expand...
You post around the net as "Brian". How many of these comments you quoted did YOU post?

The "Mike Hunt" is also a nice touch. Truly a high quality outlet. Still, the issue...

I don't think you will see this come about. However if you do, it will require people to have the radios. If they don't have the radios then they won't be able to do Pay per Hear. Wouldn't you agree?

Which side of the issue are you on? People won't buy the radios or you don't like Pay per hear? Clearly there won't be both. Pick a side and stay with it. This ain't shotgun practice.

"Just when I was about to purchase an HD Radio tuner now they want to charge for a subscribtion? I am putting my purchase plans on HOLD!"
Click to expand...

Yeah this person has credibility...

Clouseau
 
There's more than one person on the Web that uses "Brian" as a posting name. You miss the point - even if subscriptions never happen, it is too late; word is getting out and this will drive consumers further away from HD Radio.
 
PocketRadio said:
There's more than one person on the Web that uses "Brian" as a posting name. You miss the point - even if subscriptions never happen, it is too late; word is getting out and this will drive consumers further away from HD Radio.
Click to expand...
I can see your point. 60 new station signups in 2007. That's over a half a million dollars in licensing fees alone in 3+ months..

Yeah, this is definitely going nowhere.

By the way, you didn't answer the question of how many of the comments you posted. You know you could just lie and say NONE even if you did them all. We'd never know. How many at that of the 5 are you?

Clouseau
 
No, nobody misses the point. The point is that all the people who post these negative things about HD would fit in this room. And it's a VERY SMALL ROOM. It's why I find your "work" (and I use that term loosely) everywhere on the 'net an HD radio is "reviewed" (and I put "reviewed" in quotes, because by your own admission, YOU DON'T OWN THE PRODUCTS YOU'RE "reviewing") Pretty damn sad. I figured that out. WE ALL DID. So who do you think you're fooling?

Hint: if you want to sound like more than one person, you need to come up with some new terminology...using "farce", and "charade" over and over pretty much gives you away. By the way...if I put on a "charade", it means I'm trying to pass an item as something other than what it is. HD claims to be a compatible method of sending digital audio on existing radio spectrum. What part of that is a "charade"? It IS a compatible method of sending digital audio in existing spectrum (there's certainly not a new band), and it DOES work. The sound quality is pretty damn good...in many respects as good as audio (dynamic range is as good as any 16 bit system...including cd).

By the way...subscriptions are an enhancement for HD users, offering content they wouldn't ordinarily get...like CONCERTS! Merlefest, going on this weekend here in Wilkes County (a three day bluegrass/acoustic/folk festival) is an excellent example of premium content that people would gladly pay for.
 
Mike Walker said:
No, nobody misses the point. The point is that all the people who post these negative things about HD would fit in this room. And it's a VERY SMALL ROOM. It's why I find your "work" (and I use that term loosely) everywhere on the 'net an HD radio is "reviewed" (and I put "reviewed" in quotes, because by your own admission, YOU DON'T OWN THE PRODUCTS YOU'RE "reviewing") Pretty damn sad. I figured that out. WE ALL DID. So who do you think you're fooling?
Click to expand...

Mike, I think you are missing the point. There are Thousands of people in the legion that PocketRadio belongs to. They all use the terms "Farce" and "Charade". Why just on this board we've seen many "PAST" posters use that language.

I'm sure all of the different names you see all over the net posting the exact same message are still problbly different people. ::)

Clouseau
 
Mike said:
The point is that all the people who post these negative things about HD would fit in this room.
Click to expand...

How could you possibly know that, much less prove it?
 
SUPERCASTER said:
Mike said:
The point is that all the people who post these negative things about HD would fit in this room.
Click to expand...

How could you possibly know that, much less prove it?
Click to expand...

A better question for Mike would be to find any newspapaer articles and blogs that have mostly-positive comments about HD Radio. Part of the problem, is that very few are even interested in reading newspaper articles about HD:

"Get in the know about HD Radio"

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kimkomando/2007-03-15-hd-radio_N.htm

This article has a whopping 6 votes and 5 comments (two of which are mine, and one is from USA Today staff).
 
I read anywhere from 10 to 100 articles a day on all sorts of topics far outside of radio and rarely ever click on any "vote" links. I would not be surprised if 99.9% of people reading articles they are not passionate about don't bother to vote on the articles. So, by nature, it's not just "radio geeks" that are the only people reading these articles. It is radio geeks who are the only ones with a propensity to vote for them.
 
Philip J. Smith said:
I read anywhere from 10 to 100 articles a day on all sorts of topics far outside of radio and rarely ever click on any "vote" links. I would not be surprised if 99.9% of people reading articles they are not passionate about don't bother to vote on the articles. So, by nature, it's not just "radio geeks" that are the only people reading these articles. It is radio geeks who are the only ones with a propensity to vote for them.
Click to expand...

These are just your personal opinions - you have not provided proof of these claims.
 
Philip J. Smith said:
I read anywhere from 10 to 100 articles a day on all sorts of topics far outside of radio and rarely ever click on any "vote" links. I would not be surprised if 99.9% of people reading articles they are not passionate about don't bother to vote on the articles. So, by nature, it's not just "radio geeks" that are the only people reading these articles. It is radio geeks who are the only ones with a propensity to vote for them.
Click to expand...

"Newspapers debate online reader comments" April 26, 2007

"Gannett Co.'s USA Today began allowing comments on all stories in March and has seen more than 140,000 comments posted since then."

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8OO38RG0.htm

Yea, I guess Internet users don't post on-line coments, especially to USA Today articles ! :D
 
Pocketradio amusingly writes "These are just your personal opinions - you have not provided proof of these claims."

AND YOU DO OF YOUR CLAIMS???? At least it's HIS opinion (though the logic is obvious...I also seldom bother with "vote" or "comment" boxes). Posting links to OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINIONS in answer to everything has to be worth less than someone POSTING HIS OWN! Posting your own opinion indicates that you've actually given the matter at hand some thought. A novel concept!
 
Mike Walker said:
Pocketradio amusingly writes "These are just your personal opinions - you have not provided proof of these claims."

AND YOU DO OF YOUR CLAIMS???? At least it's HIS opinion (though the logic is obvious...I also seldom bother with "vote" or "comment" boxes). Posting links to OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINIONS in answer to everything has to be worth less than someone POSTING HIS OWN! Posting your own opinion indicates that you've actually given the matter at hand some thought. A novel concept!
Click to expand...

I back my posts up with facts/links.
 
Don't bother. Links to other articles that are grounded in hearsay and rhetoric do nothing more than complete an incestual circle of opinions, whether pro or con.
 
Philip J. Smith said:
Don't bother. Links to other articles that are grounded in hearsay and rhetoric do nothing more than complete an incestual circle of opinions, whether pro or con.
Click to expand...

Newspapers debate online reader comments" April 26, 2007

"Gannett Co.'s USA Today began allowing comments on all stories in March and has seen more than 140,000 comments posted since then."

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8OO38RG0.htm

Right - just like when a particular poster claimed that few people post online comments and vote on articles. Funny, I guess Business Week just posts hearsay and rhetoric ! :D
 
And what's the average ratio of people voting on these articles as opposed to simply reading them? 1%? 0.1%? If it's not presented as an article covering a controversial topic, few people will care.

By the way, I followed your link (count that about the fourth time ever) and it gives almost no objective information about the statistics of how many people vote on articles. In fact, all it really says is that newspaper article reading is on the decline, and that publishers are trying to keep people interested using techniques like online debate. The only statistic at all is from USA Today... They enabled voting/discussion on ALL of their articles since March, and have logged 140,000 total comments. Wow, an entire newspaper online that I'm sure saw a million hits from the Virginia Tech killings alone, and the grand total for ALL articles is 140,000?
 
Oh PLEASE with the Statsaholic link. Don't you even understand how that site operates? Webmasters have to link *through* statsaholic.com, or feed traffic to their backend from their domain(s), in order for it to count. Any URLs which go directly to sites for content are not counted, even the many links you post here. That begs me to ask, why is it that you aren't posting URLs that pass through statsaholic? Don't you have faith in that site's indisputable accuracy? Or, are you doing what nearly all webmasters do, which is just posting direct URLs because it is the most logical thing to do?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom