Upgradeability --was-- Re: [BC] HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right!

[Cowboy]

On Monday 17 October 2005 12:32 pm, Phil Alexander wrote:

>While I agree with Cowboy and you about making what we have play, and I
>believe we are too far down the IBOC/HD road to make substantial changes
>now, your point above shows up the biggest single flaw in Ibiquity IBOC.

>That flaw is the LACK OF SIMPLE UPGRADE CAPABILITY.

>If we don't get this part of it right, two possibilities are apparent:

>	B.	We can declare radios to be essentially the same as computers,
>		needing replacement every five years or less, and eventually
>		(more or less at 10 year intervals) scrap the system and start 
>		over.
>
>Ibiquity seems determined to force the market into the second option.
>To me, this seems like it is a long way from "getting it right."

 And flat won't work.

 It works for computers for a couple reasons.....
 1. M$ quite deliberately requires massively greater and greater hardware
 in terms of operational capabilities, and storage capacity.
   If you want the "content" XP offers, you MUST buy a new machine.

 2. M$ has already established themselves according to one of Bill's credo's
 "Make 'em think they need you, then you've got 'em !"
  People think ( mostly wrongly ) that they need Micro$oft.

 Why do people buy it ?
 Content ! ( or the perception thereof )

 With HD, radio seems to be doing #1 above.
 With all of radio, radio seems to be actively working to squash #2.

 As RM keeps hammering, what does radio deliver to the end listener that
 makes them think they need us ?
 That alone, is why we can not just assume the population at large will
 continue throwing money into receivers forever, and certainly not on
 the same short-term cycle as home computers.

 That being said, we still MUST do the best we have with what we're given
 to work with.
 We simply must.

-- 
Cowboy

http://cowboys.homeip.net

"It's not Camelot, but it's not Cleveland, either."
		-- Kevin White, mayor of Boston