Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FCC Urges Apple to Protect Safety of Americans by Activating FM Radio Chip in iPhones [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I never understood why Apple disabled the FM function... yes, it's often not the best quality. Once you move the headphone cable you might get high noise levels... we all know that. But when exactly was FM "high quality"? It has always been ******. What did Apple fear? People complaining that the FM audio is not lossless? Well... considering iTunes quality a few years ago they can certainly not play the audio quality card... IMHO Apple should really pull their head out of their *** when it comes to certain standards at which the iDevices completely fail (and by that I mean lack support entirely). That's FM, Bluetooth SPP, local storage (getting there slowly), USB-C on mobile devices (advertised as the holy grail on the Mac) -additional to Lightning if they want to keep that (could charge over USB-C and use Lightning Headphones!)-, ditch iTunes only Music sync, standard Push-Mail (IMAP IDLE), and so on...
B2T: Here in Europe radio is now shifting towards DAB+ and the discussion regarding loss of emergency broadcasting on FM is still ongoing, as literally everyone has easy access to an FM receiver, but not DAB+, since people do not necessarily buy new radios. So, I think an FM-Band (incl. DAB) wouldn't be such a bad thing...
Anyway, if you're living in certain areas, having satcom backup (actually not expensive) or any other long range communication device that doesn't rely on very local infrastructure (=a cell phone tower in vicinity) is probably a good idea. If you can afford an iPhone every one or 2 years, you certainly afford e.g. a satcom once every 10 years. Still, having an FM receiver in all mobile phones would ensure that everyone is able to receive broadcasts -at no extra cost.
LTE, however, will soon use also low frequency bands as well (450/600MHz) which will boost its range significantly, but provide rather low throughput. In the US only you can also get 900MHz WiFi chips, but these are non-standard.
B2T: Here in Europe radio is now shifting towards DAB+ and the discussion regarding loss of emergency broadcasting on FM is still ongoing, as literally everyone has easy access to an FM receiver, but not DAB+, since people do not necessarily buy new radios. So, I think an FM-Band (incl. DAB) wouldn't be such a bad thing...
What if I told you that there's something like Diesel generators, solar panels or simply ANY other form to get you electricity. Having FM is NOT about electricity, but having connectivity.
Anyway, if you're living in certain areas, having satcom backup (actually not expensive) or any other long range communication device that doesn't rely on very local infrastructure (=a cell phone tower in vicinity) is probably a good idea. If you can afford an iPhone every one or 2 years, you certainly afford e.g. a satcom once every 10 years. Still, having an FM receiver in all mobile phones would ensure that everyone is able to receive broadcasts -at no extra cost.
Seriously? In Austria this is limited to "fixed installation" radio devices within your home (i.e. not the car radio) -internet only households are exempt as well. Probably double check on that...
Yes and no. Common WiFi uses 2,4 GHz and 5,x GHz with very limited range. In numbers: that's less than a mile even for a tower mounted omni antenna. Any sort of sector antenna with high power amps will be limited by the low transmit power of the remote device. Point-to-Point links, however, can easily bridge beyond 10miles using stuff like this: https://www.ubnt.com/products/#airfiber
LTE, however, will soon use also low frequency bands as well (450/600MHz) which will boost its range significantly, but provide rather low throughput. In the US only you can also get 900MHz WiFi chips, but these are non-standard.
After Sandy and Katrina, carriers have spent hundreds of millions hardening cell sites, and adding propane powered generators that could last two weeks.
However, the US is huge and there's still wide swaths of vulnerable areas. Plus generators don't help if the backhaul or centers are gone.
Those planes aren't actual cell sites. They're just pretending long enough for cell phones to try to hook to them, and reveal their ids and location.
if they were truly concerned, they'd do much much more than "you're safe now!! we got Apple to make iPhones receive FM radio signals!!"
They didn't say we'd be safe if phones supported FM. But we'd be safer.
The point is (and every Boy Scout knows this) it's always better to have multiple / backup plans in place.
Moreover, an FM receiver in a phone is an incredibly cost effective addition to safety plans. Anyone against massive government spending or control of phone company alerts should be a huge supporter.
FM HD is digital....
[doublepost=1506701332][/doublepost]
Yep, this is the path of Apple. Making more of their devices useless....
[doublepost=1506701596][/doublepost]
Your post seems to make sense, but consider 1. it's a natural disaster. Who's going to protect a dumpy FM radio device more than their phone. Likely the phone will be there the radio might not be. 2. You can get power so many ways, not just from a wall plug. Like the solar battery device I have. 3. it just makes sense to get the most out of a device that it can offer, but you know Apple these days, they'd rather reduce the ability of a smartphone than add.
I remember one of the iPod Nano models had AM/FM built-in. Apple's software for listening to the radio was pretty slick too. It allowed for you to flip back 10-20 seconds and re-listen to things. I thought it was the coolest thing and have never understood why that feature never showed up in any other Apple product.
All of the iPod Nanos have an FM receiver, including the latest gen. To bad Apple killed the product.
Perfect for leaving in my car.
Was just responding to comment about having to pay a fee if Apple were to enable FM reception. Do you pay a fee to listen to FM radio in your country?
The article said Apple removed the FM capability from 7 on up. Great. But I bet they have some real nice apps YOU CAN BUY to do what the phone could do for free. And I bet it is just a coincidence that it happened right after this group started pressuring them.
Easy. The solutions I posted earlier in this thread: A hank crank charger (super cheap on the internet) or solar chargers.
But the point you are missing is that you might be out and about somewhere away from your house radios and away from your car when a disaster hits. Perhaps your car is even destroyed in whatever disaster there is. I'm not understanding why anyone here would actually want to limit thier choices in communication. That makes no sense to me. You are actually limiting your preparedness by not wanting this ability. And for what reason?
i'll make the bet..
how much $ are we talking ?
(as in-- there are no apps you can install that will enable FM receiver capability on an iPhone.. you'd need to do modifications to the hardware)
True. I rushed with my conclusion. If there's nothing connected to the FM antenna input, the signal strength won't be nearly good enough with all the casing around the circuit board.
damned if you do, damned if you dont i guess
not saying it wouldnt be a good thing, but i live in these areas and most prepared families (that i know anyways) have NOAA radios for emergencies - amongst other more important things. it would help im sure, but it would be the last thing on my mind. when batteries die, FM dies. Unless your radio has a crank (like most emergency radios)
If the energy generated here & @Apple to defy the problem would have been focused to get things moving, it would have all been solved by now !
Do you think its just a switch? That if you flip the switch all the sudden the hardware works and software can do something with that hardware?
The plea in this article is ridiculous.
Way to go Apple, piss off the FCC.
I wish Apple had something I'd like to buy. Went to the store and *nobody* was in line to get an 8 or 8+, *nobody* was looking at the new 4k Apple TV, *nobody* was buying a new 8 or 8+. Everyone there was either bring back broken stuff to get fixed or just looking at the stuff and walking away. Too bad.
I wish Apple had something I'd like to buy. Went to the store and *nobody* was in line to get an 8 or 8+, *nobody* was looking at the new 4k Apple TV, *nobody* was buying a new 8 or 8+. Everyone there was either bring back broken stuff to get fixed or just looking at the stuff and walking away. Too bad.
This is one of those things where both sides have rational arguments. However I believe Apple misses one important point, it is far easier to get a radio station online after an emergency than it is an massive array of cellphones. That is one reason the emergency broadcast system was setup, one full power FM station can cover a wide area and be ran off of an generator if need be. Cell towers require that every single one be rebuilt or restarted.
Instead of the "National Association of Broadcasters" pushing this, the civil defense groups, like FEMA, should be demanding that legislation be put in place demeaning the feature in all cell phones. I don't like the idea of administrators creating "law" this is something that should be debated and mandated through Congress.
If Apple is currently using chips without the ability to do FM then they will be force to correct that in some manner. It is pretty clear looking at what is happened to some of the islands int e Caribbean that cell phone communications just isn't that reliable.
[doublepost=1506740571][/doublepost]
No it isn't a switch but it isn't something that is incredibly difficult to implement as many cellphones have implemented FM reception. It is a good back up to carrying a radio around with you which is something highly recommended in any preppers handbook. Even the government highly suggest having a portable radio for emergency use. It is the simplest way to keep in touch with what is happening when SHTF.
Frankly if Apple really cares about its users they would have gone this route long ago.
Instead of the "National Association of Broadcasters" pushing this, the civil defense groups, like FEMA, should be demanding that legislation be put in place demeaning the feature in all cell phones. I don't like the idea of administrators creating "law" this is something that should be debated and mandated through Congress.
If Apple is currently using chips without the ability to do FM then they will be force to correct that in some manner. It is pretty clear looking at what is happened to some of the islands int e Caribbean that cell phone communications just isn't that reliable.
[doublepost=1506740571][/doublepost]
No it isn't a switch but it isn't something that is incredibly difficult to implement as many cellphones have implemented FM reception. It is a good back up to carrying a radio around with you which is something highly recommended in any preppers handbook. Even the government highly suggest having a portable radio for emergency use. It is the simplest way to keep in touch with what is happening when SHTF.
Frankly if Apple really cares about its users they would have gone this route long ago.
your second argument (blue) is a complete argument against your first argument (red).
I'm not sure if you are serious or not, if you are serious you really are grossly out of touch with reality of what a disaster is. Say you are living down stream from a dam about to fail, wha tis the best way to get the message out when all other forms of communications are gone? (this should sound familiar if you are keeping up with the news).
If there is a nuclear event radio is the most useful way to keep people informed about fallout and where it will require that you take cover.
Actually two way communications is important but it isn't a useful way to get a message out to a large number of people. You see you are looking at a totally different need here, that is to spread known information to the widest number of people possible.
You do realize that cell tower hardening is a recent development pushed by the FCC. Frankly for some of the reasons you expressed. However cell towers do nothing for one to many communications especially if things are changing rapidly. However there is a limit to how hard you can make cell towers and frankly some where wiped out, Florida got lucky too as the storm pretty much had burnt itself out by the time the mainland got hit. You can't assume that a more powerful storm would have left all those towers in operation.
In a nut shell you miss the most important feature of radio reception and the tis one to many communications that can't be accomplished any other way.
[doublepost=1506742146][/doublepost]
That is being kind!!!
Yep and the one to many abilities of radio broadcasts are the only way to do it. This is especially the case in poor locations like the Caribbean. It is a avenue of communications for people that don't even have a cell phone.
Yep and frankly it is accomplishing something while the rest of the area rebuilds.
[doublepost=1506742238][/doublepost]
My god man do you ever leave your mother basement? Maybe throw on a backpack and take a hike you know to experience life.
so all other widely used communications are gone.. no TV, no cellular, no landlines.. ok, but why is it being taken as fact if a disaster wipes out all communication, that FM will somehow still remain? or why is it being assumed that if all communication is down, that the dude sitting behind the mic in a FM broadcast booth 30 miles away has the relevant information.. in the event you've outlined, the broadcaster is not going to warn you to get out.. no, he'll tell the living in about 4hrs from now that you have drowned.. she's reporting info that she has limited access to (the same limits you've been given).. definitely not warning you of any immediate dangers other than what she may see with her own eyes two counties over..
but ok, i'll play along..
what is the best way to get a message out? the freaking dam warning system.. e v e r y b o d y will know about it then.. not those that just happen to be tuned in to FM radio at that time..
or are we to just assume everybody (or even the majority of) would be huddled around FM radios in the event of emergency?
further-- you're coming up with such an unlikely scenario.. odds being maybe a once-in-10,000 year event where you're downstream from a failing dam while all communcation other than mouth-to-ear is gone due to disaster, the warning system has also failed, except FM radio which remains fine and the broadcaster has the relevant info?
it's just so completely unlikely, right?
but hey, just so we're clear.. if i happened to be in this event, i'd be glad if i could tune into FM.
again, a highly (highly!) unlikely scenario..
one that involves being in a nuclear event... you're already in an area where one nuke wiped out communication (except FM), you're still alive... and thankfully, you have FM radio to know that you should take cover?
i'm sorry but these are very very weak arguments.
to get the message out to the widest number of people possible, you would use cellular.. because your phone doesn't need to be awake and tuned in to get a message out.
with a cell phone, nearly every single person with an active phone will get the message..
with FM enabled cell phones and an FM based message... maybe.. maybe, 5% of people will get the message.. those who have the phones awake and tuned in.. (but tbh, i think it would be f a r less than 5%)
(or in localized areas, you'd use loud speakers.. probably will work the best to communicate a message to the most amount of people.. like, this is how emergency messages are being done in Puerto Rico.. but if the comparison is only cell or FM.. then cel)
make them hardened_er..
deploy mobile towers in event of emergency..
launch drones with internet/cellular transmissions.
seriously, if you're so concerned about these disaster scenarios, you should want more modern communication than was available in the 40s.. yes, keep FM around.. i don't think you'll find anybody in this thread saying otherwise.. it's possible you're not quite clearly understanding others' points because i feel it's come down to a simple cellular internet vs FM radio argument..
and if this is the case then i'll quit discussing now.. FM vs cellular is so much of a one sided argument that it would be ridiculous to partake in such comparison.. cellular/internet is clearly superior to FM as a means of communication.. clearly.
FM can do a tiny bit of a support role towards internet.. yes, keep it around.. let it be what it is.. but if you're going to improve upon something for disaster scenarios.. definitely improve cell/wireless data/etc.. it will be f a r more beneficial.
i'm not actually sure what feature was meant to be brought to my attention through your post but...
why in the heck are people sitting around here trying to describe what FM radio is?
do any of you all actually think anybody in this thread doesn't know what FM is, how it basically works, etc? i think it's safe to say, you can quit pointing out the benefits of FM radio... everybody already knows about it.
Last edited:
not quite sure what you mean by this in relation to what you quoted me as saying.
can you clarify?
Yeah, but you will have to pay that tax, even without any radio. Soon every citizen will have to, after the new law comeing into force. Unless you live in a passers by....
Why have a transmitter in your phone a device with very limited battery. An emergency radio that uses 2 AA batteries would have a battery life 5+ times the life of a cellphone that requires cables and such to charge. Better solution is to become a ham radio operator and get an inexpensive radio. Exam is 15 bucks and radios can be had for 25 bucks.
I would like someone to do a teardown of the chip to see if Apple is really lying about this, because it seems on the surface that they are. It would be more expensive for Apple to request that a chip process be changed and a piece of the chip be removed than to take the off the shelf part. So I would like to find out once and for all, and Tim Cook needs to answer about this if they are lying right to Macrumors face about this.
Also there's no reason wired headphones even through the lightning port couldn't be the antenna. The lightning port is connected to the audio chip for playing music, and so is the modem chip.
I'd like to know the real reason Apple doesn't want this turned on.
Also there's no reason wired headphones even through the lightning port couldn't be the antenna. The lightning port is connected to the audio chip for playing music, and so is the modem chip.
I'd like to know the real reason Apple doesn't want this turned on.