April 5, 2009 2:24 AM
updated: April 6, 2009 11:29 PM
NA9D said: j609z said: daVille, are you aware of what Sling's doing to owners of their older hardware? they're not supporting us for their iPhone app, but instructing us to go buy new slingboxes! I call it karma that AT$T was gonna give them the big FU right back, of course not on principle, but for their own greedy a$$e$. I'm glad ATT changed their mind as well, but now the spotlights back on to Sling and their greedy motives. You're sleeping w/ the enemy if you support Sling and will likely be in OUR (unsupported slingbox owners) boat within a few years when Sling turns their back on you. Everything they tell us (please moderator, chime in as I've read you do in other threads) is just as applicable to YOU in a couple of years.
Why are you sleeping with the enemy? Do you like to make money? I'm sure you do and if you could make more money, I am sure you would jump at the chance. It's hypocritical to blame Sling's profit motives for obsoleting the old boxes when we all want more money. They have to do something to grow sales. Do I like the move? No. Is it a smart move? No. Did they handle it well? No. Are they somehow unethical or wrong for wanting to make more money? No. The thing people forget these days is that companies need to make money in order to expand and employ people. I don't blame Sling at all for wanting all of us to buy more of their hardware. I'm hardly sleeping with the enemy if I upgrade to a new box.
Point taken on wanting more $, of course we all want more of it. Unethical motive... no, of course not. Unethical execution seems to be the debate. They have other options than what they chose to do. Not every household has a slingbox, target that market. Happy customers showing off their fancy schmancy iPhones w/ TV is likely going to translate into far more sales, I won't kick that horse anymore.
They got creative after the original; there's a SOLO with bare essential features at a fraction of the cost of the original. Kudos, they captured a lower price/feature bracket of a market that they didn't have prior to that. They also took advantage of ACTUAL technological advances that were becoming more prevalent and offer an HD version of slingbox. Just the other day announced the HD DVR. It's understandable that due to technolgical innovations, new hardware is warranted for these features. Now, it's time to think of something NEW we'll want to spend our $$ because I already own a slingbox.
When CD players first came out, people with tape decks in their cars didn't replace their cars if they wanted a CD player. Nor did anyone make CD players intentionally not work w/ 3-4 year old cars for the purpose of selling more cars. Nor did anyone say that you have to buy a new car (Cd player sold separately) that really hasn't any new features over your old car (eh, shinier,) in order to have a CD player. Nor did anyone actually carry out these tasks, for these results on the basis of allegiance to a car dealer. They might have gone to their car dealer to buy their CD player out of alligiance to them. Also, since I don't know everyone, anyone might be too strong, but u get the point. And I know that a car is not in the same price scope as a slingbox, but neither is my disposable income relative to other members-- it's the principle I'm after.
Sling was acquired for $380 million http://www.slingmedia.com/get/pr-echostar-slingmedia.html, so they must not be doing too bad for someone see that sort of value in them. I suppose if you have $380 million kickin around to acquire a company, how poor can ya be?