To: Michael Hart who wrote (372 ) 5/2/2003 10:14:57 AM From: i-node Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 8420 Ultimately the superior technology succeeds but usually under the umbrella of another company via aquisition, merger etc. Soooo....as an investor it is always wise in these times of early markets to pay attention to the technology leadr.... Mike, I think it makes sense to look at the entire technology picture before concluding which of these companies has the superior technology. The "product" is not merely signal; it is customer service; it is advertising and distribution; it is chipsets, receivers, etc. XM's internal systems are of higher quality -- the website, account management, customer service, etc., all are excellent. Their studios are first rate facililties -- with 2 million online tracks (vs. SIRI's 500K online tracks). XM's newly released PC-based system is something SIRI can only dream about. Early reports are that sales for the PRC are good. One can accept the argument that the higher angle of SIRI's sats is a positive thing. However, XM has put repeaters where necessary and the consensus is the coverage is excellent. Having owned an XM since its inception, I've yet to encounter an area where reception wasn't perfect. The one place where I once experienced dropouts lasting a couple of seconds apparently now has a repeater and doesn't suffer from this problem. The point being that "technology" is more than just the satellites, and while SIRI's elliptical orbits may have some redeeming qualities, it is not a forgone conclusion that that, taken alone, offsets the technology advantages XM has in other areas. I believe SIRI will survive long-term and even be strong competeition for XM. My concern right now is just the fact that they haven't executed. If I see a couple of quarters of performance from SIRI I'm sure I'll get back into it.