Quote:
Originally Posted by strombad
But we're talking about a whole product here. Subjectively, one might be better than the other, objectively, no, it isn't.
You can't say "Well would you listen to commercial free radio if you didn't have to pay" because it's not what Satellite radio is. It's commercial free because you pay for it, so if you don't pay for it, you get commercials.
The music is the same. Station by station the only difference is how they make bank. You either shell out your own money or you listen to commercials. Everything else is the same. As I said earlier, the only measurable difference between the two is selection. That's it.
Neither is better, they, like most things, each have advantages and disadvantages. I get that some people need to justify how they spend their money to everyone by qualifying their purchase over other options, but it's just not how everything works. Not everything is necessarily better than something else. Sometimes things are just different. Objectively, that's often all things are.
|
I think we are aguing semantics now. When I compare to things I compare the feature set, determine which is the better product, then evaluate the value proposition for the better product. I think it is two separate issues: Which is better and which has more value. You appear to evaluate all at once which is fine as well.