On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Christopher Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not trying to 'call you out' or anything, but I note in a January article on > Grauniad (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jan/23/digitaltvradio.radio) > that, > > *The number of digital radios is up nearly 50% on the 4.4m sold by the > fourth quarter of 2006.* > > So which figure is the correct one for 2006 sales - 4.4m or 5.5m? (just > curious). If I'm missing something, please point it out to me. > Just as I hoped that the "1 set sold" figure was clearly rubbish, so my figures weren't researched. You're entirely correct to question them. Had I bothered to research them, then my answer would have quoted the DRDB's figures from a press release on 22 January 2008: *More than 550,000 DAB radios were sold in December alone, up 22% on December 2006. Best sellers were portable kitchen radios, MP3/DAB personals, DAB hi-fi systems and, with a particularly strong result, DAB clock radios. At one point in December, John Lewis reported selling six DAB digital radios a minute (compared to five iPods a minute). The DRDB (Digital Radio Development Bureau) says figures from GfK put cumulative sales of DAB sets at 6.45 million at the end of 2007, up from 4.4 million in 2006. This is in line with the DRDB's forecast figure of two million set sales in 2007.* So, there you go... perhaps the point is rather better, with a two million jump. Hazlitt's comments back in February were interesting too... > > "Hazlitt thinks the latter. "DAB is not an economically viable platform > for us. Other radio operators may think differently and that is entirely > their prerogative," she said today. > "What we look at is consumers and they are saying it is not a big platform > of choice for them. It does not provide an experience that is sufficiently > better quality than what they have on FM." > > The first para is the claim is that the high transmission costs are currently making DAB unviable for commercial broadcasters. Many DAB stations are earning a profit - including, I understand, Planet Rock and the Jazz - but nowhere near the kind of profit margins that commercial radio's used to. Fru needed to add to the profit-to-earnings ratio that Fru's shareholders expected at the time to stave off a takeover. Removing the DAB stations assisted her in this. Note that none have actually closed as yet. Note, too, that no other radio group has joined Fru in her talking-down of DAB; and note that nobody has claimed that FM is dead now she's selling three XFMs. Secondly, her claim on quality is absolutely correct. It's why DAB is sold on choice, not quality. The parents still don't have a digital radio, exactly because they know that > the spec will change at some point in the future. > Well, I hope the parents didn't buy a Sky analogue receiver (useless after ten years), an analogue mobile phone (now useless), a Rabbit phone, an early OnDigital box, or an original PlayStation. Technology changes. I know it's unusual for a radio, but it's kind of the way technology works these days. > What worries me is that digital radio is almost still in a state of flux; > in the space of three years, an industry-changing redefinition of the DAB > standard is released and it causes all sorts of headaches and potential > problems for manufacturers and broadcasters. > On the contrary - digital radio is in no "state of flux" here in the UK. No broadcasters in the UK have any plans to change to AAC+. The additional codec is an addition, not a mandated replacement. Note, too, that AAC+ does not mean better sound quality; it means more efficient compression. It means commercial radio can significantly cut their transmission costs; not significantly increase audio quality - don't forget, you pay by the bitrate on commercial multiplexes. AAC+ will not immediately mean better quality audio. -- http://james.cridland.net/ | http://www.mediauk.com/ Media UK is a Not At All Bad Ltd production. http://notatallbad.ltd.uk/legal_info/
