iPod 'Customers just don't want radios on their iPods' - I do

[MacDawg]

I bet it is and thanks for explaining it so well to me.

Against my better judgement, I will feed the troll...

What you said was a load of crap, and since you want an explanation, here it is...

First of all, your post made no point about the merits of a radio with the iPod... zippo... nada (of which there are legitimate arguments). Instead, you flame baited with your comments.

theres a simple explanation for that: they're fanboys.

Example #1 - name calling, an old and familiar gimmick when there is no substance to one's argument, or when one is too lazy to actually debate a point

A feature only becomes desirable ONCE apple says it is and adds it to the ipod. If an FM tuner is added sometime in the future i'm sure all these clowns will stand up and celebrate the innovative way steve jobs has managed to integrate an FM tuner.

Example #2 - accusing someone of an opposing opinion of being a mindless boob, while incorporating a smattering of name calling to boot ("clowns").

I also love these excuses. Makes you wonder if they're as critical of TV. Maybe they all got PVRs at home

Example #3 - belittling an opposing argument as a 'straw man'. None of these so-called 'excuses' are actually cited, only referred to in an incidental way as though they should be dismissed out of hand.

That's why I said the response was a load of crap. Instead, I should have just passed it by since I knew it was nothing more than flame bait.

There are legitimate reasons for wanting a radio for some. I stated my reasons for not wanting radio functionality above. I prefer NOT to have it. If it was there, would I refuse to by an iPod because it had it? Certainly not. Would it diminish the iPod in my opinion? Yes. I don't want my iPod to be a radio, I'll by a radio for that if I should ever want one. Apparently that is the majority opinion. Guess that makes us all 'fanboys'.

Woof, Woof – Dawg

 

[jiv3turkey748]

i would love to have a radio on my ipod theres been so many times when ive been listening to my ipod and wishing i had a radio on it, just so i could listen to something other than the songs on my ipod

 

[thejakill]

i got an ipod mostly because i was SICK of radio.

if there was a huge demand, apple would have already put a radio into the ipods. for my money, if they are going to add to the ipod, make it bluetooth instead. i already have 3 radios i don't listen to anymore.

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

I just sent this email to Apple:

Hello,

In a recent article, I came across a pair of discouraging quotes from Apple:

Jobs said: "The problem with Bluetooth headphones is that it's not just recharging your iPod, you have to recharge your headphones too. People hate it. There are quality issues - the bandwidth isn't high enough, and even if it does get there some day, people don't want to recharge their headphones."

Jon Rubinstein, head of the iPod division added that, in Apple's experience, customers just don't want radios on their iPods. "Believe it or not, we don't get a lot of requests from customers" for a radio, he said. "We're very hesitant to add new features unless we feel a significant portion of the customer base want it."

Those quotes can be found in this article:
http://hardware.silicon.com/storage/0,39024649,39152441,00.htm

Please allow me to use this opportunity to voice my disagreement as a consumer. I don't use the radio very often, but I use it enough (esp. for NPR and Paul Harvey, in addition to the occassional sports broadcast) to miss it when all I have is my iPod. This doesn't need to be built directly into the iPod, per se, but I'd like to see it as part of the standard feature set. The ability to record radio broadcasts would be huge, but is technically difficult, so I'm willing to let that one go.

I also recently came to own a pair of Logitech's "Wireless Headphones for iPod" and have been very pleased with them. My biggest gripe, rather than having to charge them, is having to deal with the Bluetooth attachment that connects to the iPod. It's a great example of an aftermarket solution that's "good enough" but would be much better as an integrated part of the standard feature set.

If I can do anything to help clarify/focus these requests, please let me know.


Thanks,
Chris Brightwell

 

[All]

Against my better judgement, I will feed the troll...

What you said was a load of crap, and since you want an explanation, here it is...

First of all, your post made no point about the merits of a radio with the iPod... zippo... nada (of which there are legitimate arguments). Instead, you flame baited with your comments.



Example #1 - name calling, an old and familiar gimmick when there is no substance to one's argument, or when one is too lazy to actually debate a point



Example #2 - accusing someone of an opposing opinion of being a mindless boob, while incorporating a smattering of name calling to boot ("clowns").



Example #3 - belittling an opposing argument as a 'straw man'. None of these so-called 'excuses' are actually cited, only referred to in an incidental way as though they should be dismissed out of hand.

That's why I said the response was a load of crap. Instead, I should have just passed it by since I knew it was nothing more than flame bait.

There are legitimate reasons for wanting a radio for some. I stated my reasons for not wanting radio functionality above. I prefer NOT to have it. If it was there, would I refuse to by an iPod because it had it? Certainly not. Would it diminish the iPod in my opinion? Yes. I don't want my iPod to be a radio, I'll by a radio for that if I should ever want one. Apparently that is the majority opinion. Guess that makes us all 'fanboys'.

Woof, Woof – Dawg

i'm not trying to disprove or prove the relevancy of an FM tuner in an ipod. i'm simply trying to expose the absurd logic behind a lot of the hardcore apple fans (better?) opinions.

like i said in my last post, which you failed to quote, the powerpc cpu was probably the second coming of sliced bread compared to intel in many HAF minds. How about now? i'm rarely here, but its safe to say that no is complaining.

what are the HAF opinions on other non-ipod functions? such as voice recording, swappable batteries, etc?

"what am i gonna record with a voice recorder?"

"having swappable batteries just causes unnecessary headaches, plus i'll probably lose them anyways."

???

 

[balamw]

I personally do not want a "convergence" radio in my iPod. Most of what I used to listen to on the radio is now podcast/audible (mostly NPR), or I am near a better radio if I want to listen to something "live". I am so used to timeshifting thanks to my TiVo that I rarely watch TV live either.

Nevertheless, I fail to see why (in theory) a circuit for DAB radio should really compromise a circuit for playing MP3s/AAC.

I think there is one big difference which should not be completely ignored. The iPod is primarily an outout device it has music, photos, contacts, calendar, notes etc... stored internally, and will present these to the appropriate output device.

A radio's primary function is quite the opposite, take signals from the air and convert them to bits. (Even in the case of AM/FM, the audio just ends up as bits these days.) As such a radio doesn't have quite as much synergy with an iPod as it would with a mobile phone, which is already designed to pluck signals from the aether and process them appropriately.

As such if an FM radio fits into a converged device, it should IMHO be a mobile phone, not an iPod. That doesn't rule out the possibility of integrating iPod like function into a mobile phone as well, but the ROKR demonstrates that that is not an easy task.

B

 

[solvs]

I guess people missed where I pointed out the FMXtra. Version 2 is supposed to be even better. They're like $20. You want one, go buy one. They're just as good as the built in ones on other players. That is to say, not so good. But they exist.

Adding radio would diminish what the iPod stands for, whereas things like photo viewing do not. And though I wish there was an easier way to record voice notes, especially at higher qualities, I understand why it isn't there. I don't want a brick with all those features, none of which work well.

 

[Jon'sLightBulbs]

Bleah, eh, and meh. I would like a radio. Stop following the word of Jobs blindly. Since when is additional functionality a bad thing?

And give me a break. If a radio tuner had been included in the last revision without a concommitant size increase, none of you posers would've been complaining. Oh yeah.

Bleah, meh, and eh.

 

[dops7107]

I personally do not want a "convergence" radio in my iPod. Most of what I used to listen to on the radio is now podcast/audible...

I mean, just look at that. A podcast? How ultimately ironic. Here we have radio shows available for download so you can listen to them on your iPod *because* you don't have a radio! Marketeers are brilliant. It's almost a backward step... recordings came before broadcasts, not the opposite (I think )

I think there is one big difference which should not be completely ignored. The iPod is primarily an outout device it has music, photos, contacts, calendar, notes etc... stored internally, and will present these to the appropriate output device.

Sorry, I don't see the relevance of this at all. A TV is primarily an output device, but you can use it to send information as well, nowadays. An iPod is a one-way (output) device for entertainment, as is radio, surely?

Yes, at the moment we have gadgets that are primarily one thing: camera, PDA, phone, mp3 player - which dabble in other things as well. That's probably for the best. But I don't think there are many PDA/phones out there that are overtly out-performed by a dedicated mobile phone. Convergence can be made successfully. I think the phone/camera thing is a little absurd in some ways - they seem rather incongruous technologies - but an iPod coupled with a radio is not. Walkmans have had radios for years.

 

[witness]

Here in the UK we have some good commercial free radio. I'd be more than happy to have an iPod Nano with digital radio built in. In fact my wife won't let me buy one until they do have radio built in. I guess that I'll be in for a long wait.

 

[eXan]

http://www.apple.com/feedback/ipod.html

Let them know!


The source for that extract is here:
http://hardware.silicon.com/storage/0,39024649,39152441,00.htm

Radio is crap. Even if I wanted to listen to it on my iPod could easyly get some accesories from 3rd-partys

 

[NicP]

I mean, just look at that. A podcast? How ultimately ironic. Here we have radio shows available for download so you can listen to them on your iPod *because* you don't have a radio! Marketeers are brilliant. It's almost a backward step... recordings came before broadcasts, not the opposite (I think )

I dont really know where you are pulling this from because podcasting was not started by apple they just jumped on the bandwagon.

As i see it this is not a backwards step but a step fowards, its a way of getting internet radio on a portable device, and not only that but it can be listened to as many times as you want, whenever you want.

 

[MacDawg]

i'm not trying to disprove or prove the relevancy of an FM tuner in an ipod. i'm simply trying to expose the absurd logic behind a lot of the hardcore apple fans (better?) opinions.

like i said in my last post, which you failed to quote, the powerpc cpu was probably the second coming of sliced bread compared to intel in many HAF minds. How about now? i'm rarely here, but its safe to say that no is complaining.

what are the HAF opinions on other non-ipod functions? such as voice recording, swappable batteries, etc?

"what am i gonna record with a voice recorder?"

"having swappable batteries just causes unnecessary headaches, plus i'll probably lose them anyways."

???

First of all, I didn't quote your second post because it wasn't the one in question...

Second, the issue of the thread was and is radio, not other enhancements and features. Saying that one doesn't want a radio does not preclude wanting other enhancements, etc.

Third, the issue of ppc v. intel is not even on the radar in this thread. There are plenty of threads on that issue if you care to search.

Fourth, you say that your are "simply trying to expose the absurd logic behind a lot of the hardcore apple fans opinions". That, in itself is absurd, because you address none of their actual points and opinions, you again use hyperboles like "the second coming of sliced bread", and straw men arguements like "I'll probably lose a battery" and such.

Bottom line... your attitude and behavior is trollish, as evidenced by your first statement, "i'm not trying to disprove or prove the relevancy of an FM tuner in an ipod". Read the thread... that is what is being discussed.

Woof, Woof – Dawg

 

[dops7107]

I dont really know where you are pulling this from because podcasting was not started by apple they just jumped on the bandwagon.

I'm not saying they invented it - in fact I didn't mention Apple in my post - but where did the name "podcast" come from? Surely a reference to the most popular portable music player.

As i see it this is not a backwards step but a step fowards, its a way of getting internet radio on a portable device, and not only that but it can be listened to as many times as you want, whenever you want.

hmm - okay I was being a bit facetious - I know podcasts have their advantages. But to say that they're brilliant because they let you listen to radio is like saying electric cars are fabulous: they let you go from A to B like never before! Nothing very novel has been invented. I believe an iPod would be enhanced by the addition of a radio. The problem is that different countries use different technologies (DAB is useless in USA), FM is limited in content, and that sales of iPods aren't going to shoot up if Apple shoe-horned a radio in there. I think "it is a truth universally acknowledged" that the iPod is not the most technically superior product out there - but face it, we love the style, the fashion and the fact we're suckers for exceedingly good marketing.

 

[balamw]

I mean, just look at that. A podcast? How ultimately ironic.

Not ironic, a sign of the times. Traditional broadcast media suck for me because I can't listen/watch when I want to. I have a 2-3 hour daily commute and would like to be able to listen to what I want to listen to during that time, and not what the program director thinks I want to listen to. TiVo and iPod/podcasts allow me to do exactly that.

Sorry, I don't see the relevance of this at all. A TV is primarily an output device, but you can use it to send information as well, nowadays.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but my TVs have always been designed to do more than one thing. They have a TV receiver that takes radio signals from the air or cable and convert them to baseband composite signals, and they have a video monitor that displays these signals. Since it already has a radio receiver, converging other radio functions into it makes sense to me. If it don't have those two functions it ain't a TV, it's a monitor. What kind of information does your TV send?

An iPod is a one-way (output) device for entertainment, as is radio, surely?

Nope, radio requires two components as TV, a receiver and an output device.

But I don't think there are many PDA/phones out there that are overtly out-performed by a dedicated mobile phone. Convergence can be made successfully. I think the phone/camera thing is a little absurd in some ways - they seem rather incongruous technologies - but an iPod coupled with a radio is not. Walkmans have had radios for years.

It would seem clear to me that any camera phone will be bigger and have a shorter battery life than that exact same phone designed without an included camera. Since size and battery life are key indicators of phone "performance" they would outperform the phones with cameras.

The main bits of the phone that are reused for use as a camera are primarily the screen, and the CPU/DSP and memory that are already present in the phone. The optics and CCD/CMOS sensor are all new.Note that phones have cameras and polyphonic ringtones because the providers want to create a revenue stream from data transfers, not because it makes technical sense.

Walkmans have radios, (IMHO) because you only had 90 minutes of playtime (carrying one cassette) and radio was an obvious way of extending the actual usefulness of the device for extended use. Don't forget that a walkman is technologically a very different beast, since the cassette and AM/FM radio are both analog technlogies they scale differently than digital electronics.

Everything in an flash based iPod is digital bits until it hits the ADC and comes out the headphone/audio out contacts. The hard drive units still have to spin the drive, which isn't strictly bits (even though it probably amounts to telling a power supply to go on or not).

B

 

[NicP]

I'm not saying they invented it - in fact I didn't mention Apple in my post - but where did the name "podcast" come from? Surely a reference to the most popular portable music player.



hmm - okay I was being a bit facetious - I know podcasts have their advantages. But to say that they're brilliant because they let you listen to radio is like saying electric cars are fabulous: they let you go from A to B like never before! Nothing very novel has been invented. I believe an iPod would be enhanced by the addition of a radio. The problem is that different countries use different technologies (DAB is useless in USA), FM is limited in content, and that sales of iPods aren't going to shoot up if Apple shoe-horned a radio in there. I think "it is a truth universally acknowledged" that the iPod is not the most technically superior product out there - but face it, we love the style, the fashion and the fact we're suckers for exceedingly good marketing.

i agree with you except i dont think the ipod is the most technically superior product out there, its the best all round product but if it was the most technically superior it would have gapless playback and support for more formats (FLAC, OGG)

I guess thats just my opinion though

 

[Linkjeniero]

i agree with you except i dont think the ipod is the most technically superior product out there

Uhh... did you actually read what he said?

On the subject: I wouldn't mind a radio in iPods, as long as it didn't affect price, size or aesthetics. Otherwise, it isn't worth it.

 

[dops7107]

Not ironic, a sign of the times. Traditional broadcast media suck for me because I can't listen/watch when I want to. I have a 2-3 hour daily commute and would like to be able to listen to what I want to listen to during that time, and not what the program director thinks I want to listen to. TiVo and iPod/podcasts allow me to do exactly that.

OK - see a post earlier I made conceding this. I still think podcasts are a gimmick, however.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but my TVs have always been designed to do more than one thing. They have a TV receiver that takes radio signals from the air or cable and convert them to baseband composite signals, and they have a video monitor that displays these signals. Since it already has a radio receiver, converging other radio functions into it makes sense to me. If it don't have those two functions it ain't a TV, it's a monitor. What kind of information does your TV send?

I was referring to digital services - interactive telly and that sort of thing. That is, sending of data. I agree it is not the television per se that is doing this, but it is part of the whole TV exerience nowadays. OK, so I now understand the two functions of your radio/TV: reception and display. By this analogy, an iPod only "displays" information fully within it. Let's pretend you could cram lots more memory into a mobile phone at a reasonable price, so it could conceivably be used as a portable music player. Are you suggesting that the fact that it is also a phone might detract from its playback capabilities? It may be bigger (though don't forget that a phone has to be a minimum size to be useful) and it may draw more power, but it does do several things in one box. That in itself has performance value.

It would seem clear to me that any camera phone will be bigger and have a shorter battery life than that exact same phone designed without an included camera. Since size and battery life are key indicators of phone "performance" they would outperform the phones with cameras.

Well perhaps so, a difference in mass and battery life would be measurable, but we're not talking noticeable on a day-to-day basis. In the case of camera phones, the camera is intrinsically flawed because the lens/CCD can only be so large. My example however was a PDA phone versus just a phone. They both function as a phone pretty much equally as well - perhaps there is a battery trade-off as you say, but my ability to make phone calls is not significantly troubled, and I get all the other uses into the bargain. Interesting that the trend for increasing complexity - in the mobile phone market at least - is driven by the companies wishing to make more profit. In the case of a radio iPod, there would be no profit derived by Apple I suppose.

But look realistically at what incorporating a radio would cost in terms of size and battery life, your parameters for measuring performance. A radio that is off would draw negligible power; the antenna is in the headphone cord, and the electronics are surely so well established by now that it could all be fitted on a small circuit board. Perhaps it would be a tight squeeze in a nano, but if it can get into most mobile phones why not an iPod?

 

[dops7107]

Uhh... did you actually read what he said?

er, yeah... but I guess the not could be missed pretty easily. NicP is forgiven!

 

[yoak]

I´m all for a radio, even mentioned it in another thread.
Maybe due to the fact, that like the UK, Norway have a lot of great radio stations free of ads.
I find the radio the best way to be introduced to new music, and that can´t be bad, period.

After I got my Ericcson K750i phone with radio, I have found myself more and more often (on shorter trips) leaving my ipod at home, using the radio on the phone instead. Less to drag around

 

[balamw]

OK - see a post earlier I made conceding this. I still think podcasts are a gimmick, however.

So did I until I started listenting to a few that I really like. Of course many of these podcasts I already enjoyed as local radio programs, they just weren't on when I wanted to listen to them. Podcasting for me is like a TiVo Season Pass for a show I enjoy.

I was referring to digital services - interactive telly and that sort of thing.

OK. This may be a sign of fragmentation of the global market. Interactive TV is a non-entity in the US, as is decent (i.e. non ClearChannel) radio. Even SMS/text messaging on mobile phones is not as big in the US as it in in Europe.

Let's pretend you could cram lots more memory into a mobile phone at a reasonable price, so it could conceivably be used as a portable music player. Are you suggesting that the fact that it is also a phone might detract from its playback capabilities?

My example however was a PDA phone versus just a phone. They both function as a phone pretty much equally as well - perhaps there is a battery trade-off as you say, but my ability to make phone calls is not significantly troubled, and I get all the other uses into the bargain.

I agree with you and others (including Bill Gates ) that someone will someday execute this idea well and make a device that is a good enough mobile phone, PDA, music player, camera, web terminal, and yes, probably even radio for most people. However, I think many of the current examples (cough ROKR cough) demonstrate why we are are not ready for that today. Treos/Blackberrys/windows CE smartphones come close, but (IMHO) are too big to be carried around everywhere, and if they made them much smaller they wouldn't work as well for the non-phone functions. I'll stick with my compact non-camera Nokia brick and iPod (BTW the iPod has replaced my Sony Clie for storing my full contacts and calendar, while only the top few are in my phone). This way I can carry only my phone when I want to be in touch and only my iPod when I don't.

Interesting that the trend for increasing complexity - in the mobile phone market at least - is driven by the companies wishing to make more profit. In the case of a radio iPod, there would be no profit derived by Apple I suppose.

Shouldn't be surprising that companies make decisions based on potential profits. Your're right Apple would not profit beyond the first sale of an iPod+radio. I suspect Appple marketing has looked at the numbers and have concluded that the additional sales that might be generated by including a radio are not compelling enough.

But look realistically at what incorporating a radio would cost in terms of size and battery life, your parameters for measuring performance. A radio that is off would draw negligible power; the antenna is in the headphone cord, and the electronics are surely so well established by now that it could all be fitted on a small circuit board. Perhaps it would be a tight squeeze in a nano, but if it can get into most mobile phones why not an iPod?

First I suggested size and battery life as performance metrics for a mobile phone. I think that performance metrics for an iPod may be different. I thnk that the evolution of the iPod is showing that size and bettery life are very important for some users (mini/nano buyers), yet there are others for whom capacity is a more important metric (full size iPod buyers).

You're right I did a quick calculation, and in standby mode the additional cost of a radio chip alone would only degrade the battery life of a typical 1000mAh iPod by 1 hour out of 10 days. I doubt most people would notice.

More importantly, I've been through mixed signal board design and it isn't pretty trying to keep different signals apart without introducing lots more cost and complexity than you initially intend. Mobile phones get this built in to the design from the beginning since they already include a radio receiver.

B

 

[mvamato]

Radio

I'd kinda like a DAB tuner, but as BV said, with the differing type of services offered around the globe, Apple will never include a tuner. If there was one universal method of digital radio available, then I would be bemoaning the lack of such a tuner, but as this isn't the case I understand why Apple won't include it - you'd have to produce country specific models, and thats a lot of money flushed down the drain.

As for ye olde FM, its coming to the end of its life within the next 5 years or so. IIRC the FM transmitters were supposed to be switched of in the UK by 2007, but have since been moved back to 2010. As its DAB or nothing, and due to the points above, Apple will keep the iPods tuner-less for the forseeable future...

Oh, and All - everyone I know with a Photo (only around 8 people) uses the photo function. This ranges from people whose first iPod is the photo to power users.

What if Apple was to work closly with Sirus to make a very thin add on that could possibly be the size of the nano or a little thicker. It could slide onto the back of your ipod and use the ipod's display to operate to keep costs down, then they give people the option. That could possibly draw more people.

 

[NicP]

Uhh... did you actually read what he said?

On the subject: I wouldn't mind a radio in iPods, as long as it didn't affect price, size or aesthetics. Otherwise, it isn't worth it.

obviously not

 

[NicP]

how about we have one of those macpolls, would you like radio in the ipod:

No way!
Only if it dosent increase price/size
Would be nice but not a must have feature
Definatly a must have feature!

 

[rainman::|:|]

it seems like some of these convergence people would be happier with a 12" PB and a radioshark

i love the idea that the iPod must have a radio because cell phones do... that's so pitifully redundant. if i have an iPod and a cell phone (the latter of which most people do), why would I want them to duplicate features? I'd want them to be small and lightweight, so I can carry them. Adding features is for the geek. Removing them is for the chic. if you don't understand functional minimalism, go pimp out a rio or something.