“Mark Cuban is a loser,” says Donald Trump |
Another good day to be a Sirius subscriber with one billionaire slamming another billionaire.
This morning Howard Stern’s guest was billionaire Donald Trump and there were some juicy quotes. Trump did credit Mark Cuban, who is currently enjoying a stint on the TV show Dancing with the Stars, for being a good dancer, but wasn’t impressed with his business acumen adding that if Cuban could make a billion anybody could. Trump seemed annoyed that Cuban who rents an apartment from him was in the beginning nice to him and saying nice things and then changed and started talking badly about him.
Don’t cry for Cuban, he seems to love the attention and this seems to be a case of history repeating itself. On December 21, 2006 Mark Cuban wrote on a blog post titled ‘Trump the Chump‘:
Every couple weeks I get emails from people asking me if I heard what Donald Trump said about me on some radio or TV show. From Howard Stern to Donnie Deutch to just this week while promoting The Apprentice. I have to be honest, I LOVE IT when he rips me. Its been 3 seasons since The Benefactor tanked, but Donald still couldn’t find something else to rip on. It always gives me a good chuckle knowing that he thinks of me so often.
Cuban’s tongue lashing from The Donald was mild compared to others like President Bush whom he deems the worst president ever. Can’t disagree with him there. Trump is friends with both the front runners in the 2008 President election, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani and while Howard pressed to find who Trump would be voting for, he sidestepped. Trump did add that whomever supported the war in Iraq was “going to lose and lose badly.”
Rose O’Donnell whom Trump has been trading barbs also earned was bashed worse than Cuban, so don’t feel too badly for Mark. Lest we forget that Trump is known for being boisterous, especially when the camera and microphones are hot, so not sure we can take much away seriously from his quotes. Come on, Donald, start telling us what you really think.
If the Sirius merger with XM is ever approved there will be even more reasons to love satellite radio. Never tried satellite radio and enjoy solid radio entertainment? You’ve got to give it a try. A little over a year ago I joined the satellite radio movement and remain a happy subscriber. It’s playing in the background as I type this post.
Did this post make you go hmm?
(3 votes, average: 2.33 out of 5)
Loading ...Maybe Related Posts (plugin generated)
- Forbes richest 400 Americans 50% of top ten Wal-Mart heirs
- Uncensored Howard Stern coming to Sirius in 2006
- Cuban + EFF + Grokster vs. MGM
- Mark Cuban turns off commenting on his blog
- Bad idea: advertising on NBA uniforms
- $82.9 million bonus for Sirius subscriber growth awarded to Howard Stern
Once they merge I will convert, until then no… I need ALL sports and right now having some on one and some on another is unacceptable. That’s why Dish network was never a serious contender to DirecTV for me.. (Been a DirecTV subscriber since 1992).
Comment by FranciscoIV — October 10, 2007 @ 6:33 am PST
Once they merge? You’re pretty certain it’s going to go through? I’m leaning toward it will go through, but there surely is a lot of drama around the merger, isn’t there?
Comment by TDavid — October 10, 2007 @ 6:40 am PST
TDavid, there certainly is a lot of concern surrounding the merger. It’s an issue of whether the merger would form a monopoly. XM and Sirius execs are arguing that they face competition from a number of sources: terrestrial radio, TV, etc… But by that logic, it’s tough to see who they don’t face competition from. Is the Internet, elevator music, or my grandmother calling me on the phone competition?
The truth is that they’re the only two players in satellite radio, and a merger would constitute a monopoly. Ask yourself this: do you think it’s better for one industry to have one monolithic company, or to have choices? I’ve done some work with NAB, and we have a web site detailing some facts about this proposed merger. Check it out if you’re interested at [see signature]
Comment by Mark — October 10, 2007 @ 7:38 am PST
Mark - I’m hoping you are stopping by for a conversation on this and not just link dropping. If you are here for a conversation, great, welcome, let’s have one. The following is my take, which I’ll gladly follow-up on in greater detail if you return and show interest: I do not see the Sirius + XM merger as a monopoly. I sold my SIRI stock last month, so besides being a customer I have nothing else to gain or lose from this opinion.
As for this: “Ask yourself this: do you think it’s better for one industry to have one monolithic company, or to have choices?”
Your question isn’t framed in the right context in this particular situation because radio fans have a ton of choices. Every time I climb into my car I have multiple choices what I want to listen to, most of which are free.
Comment by TDavid — October 10, 2007 @ 8:10 am PST
Although I haven’t explored it I keep hearing radio commercials while driving about HD Radio, wouldn’t THAT be a serious competitor to Satellite Radio?
Comment by FranciscoIV — October 10, 2007 @ 8:19 am PST
Haven’t explored the wonders or spoils of HD Radio either (I’ll admit some interest in checking it out), but looking over Mark’s website has me shaking my head ‘no, no, no’ to some of their reasons for why this would be a monopoly.
And we’re both satellite customers, shouldn’t we be the ones complaining about this merger, FranciscoIV? I don’t need or want the NAB to do it for me. Let’s not forget that the NAB was originally against cell phones in cars. Since when are they the master arbiter for what’s best for consumers?
Comment by TDavid — October 10, 2007 @ 8:35 am PST
TDavid, I’d love to stay and talk. You’re saying that you have many choices when you climb into your car. But XM and Sirius, the only two satellite radio providers, offer a unique product.
They require a paid subscription that offers bundles of nearly 1,000 channels. And they have a national geographic reach. These characteristics are unique to satellite radio and are distinct from the alternatives you’re talking about.
It’s also extremely difficult to enter the satellite radio market. It is very, very expensive and there a high regulatory hurdles. So, for a consumer standpoint, it makes sense to block a monopoly of this industry.
As Consumer Reports analyst Mark Cooper said, “Only head-to-head competition delivers relief from anticonsumer, anticompetitive pricing.”
Comment by Mark — October 10, 2007 @ 8:43 am PST
Hmm… let’s see. If the government will allow the AT&T and BellSouth merger, then I don’t see what XM and Sirius merger would have any less weight. The fact that it’s expensive to enter the market doesn’t really mean anything. Truthfully, this “monopoly” doesn’t seem high on the radar list as other types of corporate mergers.
Of course this is a battle of perspectives. So the real story is…. who would the FCC go with? I’d say that in light of the recent merger type approvals, Sirius and XM would be a shoo-in compared to others. Just my opinion though… and no I don’t own any of their stock (either).
Comment by darkmoon — October 10, 2007 @ 8:55 am PST
Good to see, Mark.
“But XM and Sirius, the only two satellite radio providers, offer a unique product.”
Some of the content they offer like the Howard Stern show is unique content, yes, but a lot of it is not. Commercial free radio? Not unique. Reruns of old radio shows? Not unique. NFL games? I can listen to the Seahawks game for free here every Sunday. The other games the NFL has a deal with Yahoo that is only available outside the U.S. If I want to listen to MLB games I can and do subscribe over the internet and also can listen to local games for free. The fact that Sirius brings this together for a relatively low cost is a benefit to me, but doesn’t mean I couldn’t get most of the content they offer through other means. I don’t disagree though that satellite does provide some unique aspects.
“They require a paid subscription that offers bundles of nearly 1,000 channels.”
Wrong. Sirius has like 150 channels and XM is comparable. Where are these other 700+ channels you’re talking about?
“And they have a national geographic reach. These characteristics are unique to satellite radio and are distinct from the alternatives you’re talking about.”
I haven’t mentioned the #1 competitor to free radio and satellite: internet. With my EV-DO connection and laptop I can access tens of thousands of commercial free radio stations, listen to talk radio, podcasters and much more. When internet is omnipresent — and it will be eventually — traditional radio and satellite radio are both doomed.
So to suggest that because the only two satellite players merge it’s going to mean bad things for the consumers seriously disregards the many personal choice options competing for our listening time.
“It’s also extremely difficult to enter the satellite radio market. It is very, very expensive and there a high regulatory hurdles.”
That’s why both XM and Sirius are losing money. The proposed Sirius+XM merger isn’t like Rupert Murdoch adding Wall Street Journal to his growing media conglomerate, it’s two struggling companies trying to join forces to stay financially viable for a little while longer
(and make no mistake, their days are numbered)
Mark, the reality is if the merger goes through and Sirius+XM raises their prices substantially or alters their programming — and they’ve outlined their pricing structure and programming already for the coming years as a merger and it’s not a substantial increase — but if they did raise those prices substantially, I’d just cancel. And so would many other customers. We’d find other things to listen to, not be forced to put up with it.
Monopolies only work when we are forced to do something because no other option exists.
Guess what, if I want Howard Stern, I’m already forced to choose Sirius over XM. I like MLB but the only way to get that is to choose XM over Sirius. What if I want MLB and NFL? I have to buy both anyway. Having both under one umbrella, I’m not forced to choose one over the other. This gives me more choices without having to buy separate receivers and have additional contract. Tell me how the way it is now is better than the way it could be under a merger? Higher prices? Less innovation? Again, I’ll vote with my feet and choose other options. Maybe I won’t get Howard, but I think it’s only a matter of time before the NFL streams games over the internet to people in the U.S and Howard keeps talking about retiring at the end of his contract.
I’m in favor of the merger and I don’t think it’s a monopoly given the looming big dog in the arena: the internet.
Comment by TDavid — October 10, 2007 @ 9:12 am PST
Worldspace is the new competitor to XM and Sirius. According to wikipedia, they provide service to about 170,000 subscribers in eastern and southern Africa, the Middle East, and much of Asia with 96% coming from India. Other than this paid satellite radio, the free radio, especially FM is having a good grace among public in India. I agree that the satellite radio companies are losing money due to the internet and other advancements in technology.
Comment by Simon — October 4, 2009 @ 7:57 am PST