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.
why no FM radio for iphone?
- Thread starter ThereGoesJB
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
When I don't have power, I can't charge my phone. I'm wasting massive amounts of energy to power a screen and CPU that are completely unnecessary for the operation of an FM radio.
OR, I can put a AA battery in an FM radio. And save the phone for when cell networks are restored and I can reach out to family and loved ones with it.
----------
iPod nanos don't run iOS.
Ultimately, I suspect the issues are practical ones: if you enable the FM radio, you'll get numerous complaints about the poor experience, the bad reception, the lousy audio quality, and smartphone vendors just don't want to deal with it. In an emergency, I'd rather use a radio that isn't tied at all to a fragile, expensive, breakable, non-weatherproof, power-hungry smartphone.
Smartphones also emanate a lot of RF that can get picked up (read: interference) by FM radios, if the receiver is close enough. Being inside the device is about as close as you can get. Performance and reception absolutely will suffer. Those built-in radios the NAB are trying to sell on people as being saviors in a national crisis could actually be a false security blanket.
While I won't argue that Apple might have a revenue-based motivation to not enable the FM radio, I can also say that the broadcaster's appeals aren't altruistic, either. The last time the NAB tried to push this, it was argued not because of policy, or public safety... but because of ratings.
Last edited:
That's all great, and people can make their own choices as to what works better for them and what they want to do, but it doesn't really provide much validity for not having an already existing feature enabled on a device.
I suspect that it would not be possible to get the FM radio feature to perform equally to the rest of the iPhone. A poorly performing FM radio would not add to the overall value of the iPhone and could be seen as a black eye.
It would be similar to putting an old Delco AM radio in a new car. Yes you could make it work but .....
It would be similar to putting an old Delco AM radio in a new car. Yes you could make it work but .....
Why on earth not? It would be simple and besides, you can argue that the rest of the phone is hardly a slice of perfection these days.
If you consider the rest of the phone to be a 10/10, the FM radio would be a 1 or 2/10 at best without an external antenna.
If the EarPods were used for an antenna it would bring the radio up to a 2 or 3/10. And then there would be the complainers that would be critical of the requirement for the EarPods to enable reception. The other day I saw a post critical of the antennas currently on the iPhone because they were unattractive.
If Amazon or ATT can turn on the FM chip .. then you can jail break it ...
turn it on your self .. make an app and make it work.
There are external devices such as this.
http://www.amazon.com/VicTsing®-Wir...6976&sr=1-2&keywords=fm+radio+for+iphone+jack
that will transmit your iPhone to your car stereo .. and that same thing can work the other way .. and catch FM and toss it into your iPhone.
Still the best FM antenna on a car or a truck is about 40 inches long and on the vehicle right now ...
Such an antenna is needed for the iPhone to really work as well.
iPhone can plug into the Satellite Antenna on the vehicle or the AM/FM antenna through the USB port for better access to the internet. ON-STAR uses it ... for talk ... iPhone can use it for data and talk.
The old Pocket Radio of the 50s to now .. you can buy one new.
Those are line of sight and in a car, they don't work ..unless you hold them outside the window .. or put them on the dashboard right up on the windshield. The antenna is usually coiled up in the back of the case or had a pull out or whip wire like on police transmitter/receiver ones.
but then drive into a tunnel . and dead air .. no reception what so ever.
Still it is CLEAR SIGNAL that makes the speakers last long.
Having those scratches and pop that comes though on bad reception .. breaks speakers FAST ...
iPhone always as real good speaker reception from iTunes that is spot on clear to the iPhone reception that is pretty good or fades out.
That hiss and white noise you hear on FM or AM .. is a signal.
It is from the Big Bang, the back ground radiation and energy field that is always on.
When you come across dead air in the transmission field, that is a signal telling the speakers to be quiet.
Otherwise AM FM is always something going on in the signal ... for the speakers to say something.
Turn on the AM/FM chip in the iPhone ... likely not work for spit for most of the time you are indoors or in a vehicle or an airplane .. etc.
On the beach ... lousy sound quality as the speakers are tiny.
Ear buds ... white noise and crap to listen to as you dial about.
Headache ...
iTunes are best game in town .. or buy a plug in that has a better system.
I want a AMP battery pack AM/FM speaker memory thingy ...
A Battery you can easily replace .. and Data slot for endless video and data expansion with Smart Disk ... have the speakers for better sound .. and get radio as well with a better system since it will have a bigger antenna to pull out if you like.
my warmest regards ...
Alan
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Perhaps they should have "disabled" iOS 8.0 and 7.0 versions and updates as they certainly were far from 10/10 or even anywhere close to that. Or Apple Maps, at least in the initial version. Seems like Apple isn't new to having things that aren't perfect or even just good in various aspects and areas, so this wouldn't really be that much of a change there. Not to mention it seems that the implication is that the carriers are the ones that are keeping it from being enabled and not Apple themselves.
I would imagine that most of us have something that we feel is lacking and could be removed until improvements are made. I find the camera to be extremely poor. If we dump enough poor features the size could be reduced back to Razr size.
I live in London.
Where I live, if you tune into the local BBC radio station via DAB or the internet radio, you cannot listen to football commentary due to licensing issues.
If you tune in via FM radio, you can.
For this reason, I love having an FM radio on me. Why stop me using it?
Where I live, if you tune into the local BBC radio station via DAB or the internet radio, you cannot listen to football commentary due to licensing issues.
If you tune in via FM radio, you can.
For this reason, I love having an FM radio on me. Why stop me using it?
Yes they can, and so can phone manufacturers.
I guess it all depends on who's judging the validity and what their motivations are.
My old Nokia from 8+ years ago had an FM radio and it used the earphones cable as an antenna. In fact it only worked when the earphones were plugged in, and the reception was every bit as good as a kitchen radio. An FM signal is generally much more dependable than a cellular based internet radio when out and about, and free to use. Therefore I can't see what technological difficulties are involved here. Apple or the carriers just don't want people entertaining themselves for free.
Yup, so from a consumer point of view (this being basically a consumer forum essentially) it seems that there's not much of a rationale to disable an already existing feature in a device that we paid all this money for. That way those of us who care about using it at some point can do that, and those that don't simply won't, thus not changing anything at all of them.
... except for one little fact: consumers in this forum were not "paying all this money" for FM radios. They were buying smartphones. Apple never advertised FM radio capability on their smartphones, and that's not an expectation you had when you first got it out of the box.
Further, there's a difference between "disabling" a feature, and never building your device to make use of it in the first place. The hardware for receiving FM signals may exist on an iPhone, but the bridge circuitry necessary to take that signal and convert it into something usable for apps and piping it through the speakers may not exist.. meaning no amount of software programming or hacking will coax it on. It was simply a bolt-on to an existing chip that had other features smartphone vendors were interested in.
Funny how some people suddenly care about things they never knew existed, until some lobbying firm puts it in their head that this is a great thing to have, but for some shady conspiracy on Apple's part.
Well, now you're on notice: the never-advertised FM "feature" on iPhones doesn't work, and is a likely "won't fix." If that chaps your hide, vote with your wallet, and don't buy an iPhone.
So because we still chose to go with the iPhone we therefore shouldn't care that's something that is there is disabled simply because the carriers wish for it to be disabled? Funny indeed.
As I recall ... the FM radio in the Nano iPod was mainly for short range reception in exercise gyms in order to pick up the selected TV audio while you were on a treadmill or other equipment. There would be several TV displays to view and you could select which one to listen to by tuning the radio to a certain frequency.
Perhaps they envisioned a phone or watch as serving the same functionality?
Perhaps they envisioned a phone or watch as serving the same functionality?
Don't put words in my mouth.
What I said was: If it's that important to you, your most effective vote is with you wallet. If you feel an FM radio is a must-have feature in a phone, then you should purchase a phone which has that feature.
No greater an example of this exists than with the iPhone 6/6 Plus, where the big-screen crowd will hoot and holler about how lagging iPhone 5/S sales motivated Apple to make the screens bigger. And paradoxically, the small screen contingent are now saying the exact same thing.
I have no doubt that if having a working FM radio is that important to enough people, then it should show in sales numbers, and similarly motivate Apple to respond.
And again: You can't "disable" something that was never an advertised feature to begin with.
No words were put anywhere as what I mentioned was part of what was said (at the every least it came off that way, even if somehow it wasn't meant in that sense).
As for the rest of it, it doesn't have to be a must-have feature for consumers to want it being enabled if it's already there (and is only disabled because of carriers). It also doesn't have to be desired by many people or affect sales for it still not to be right or good that it's disabled when it's already there because carriers feel like it.
If it wasn't advertised because it was requested and agreed in to be disabled first, then it was still in fact disabled.
Last edited:
You stated specifically that I said user's shouldn't care if a feature isn't put in, which is absolutely false. If you're going to do that and then deny it straight away, sorry, but I'm gonna call you out on it.
Do you have definitive proof of this claim - that carriers directly influenced phone manufacturers to deliberately disable FM radios in their phones - or is this another fact you're just deciding to make up?
Putting aside the claims you're making without any cited proof, what's "right" is frequently determined by economics. If sales for a product drop in favor of something else, then manufacturers will want to know why. Being able to directly show that the popularity of a particular model of smartphone is based on the fact that it has an FM radio - because hey, people actually want these things - would be a pretty powerful motivator to a vendor to do the right thing.
Citation needed. And for the record, "because the NAB/NPR says so" is not definitive proof that a carrier directlly and deliberately mandated that the feature be disabled, unless they have managed to unearth documentation of this to establish it as fact.
Except I didn't state specifically that you said something. Now who is putting words in someone's mouth.
As for believing that what is right or good is, or should be, determined by commercial sales of something, well, at the very least from the consumer point of view (although even beyond that), that's a rather superficial and poor approach to it all.
And, if we are going to just deny what the articles from reputable sources say about all of this--which is basically the basis of this thread--then it seems like there really isn't much to discuss going down that path. Throwing accusations of making things up in light of what the thread is about undermines it all that much more. Seems like there's nothing to keep going with since denial and accusations already took over taking away from anything meaningful that might actually be there.
Last edited:
Yeah, you did. But, if you're going to continue to deny it, then continuing to argue is meaningless. Can't make progress in a discussion if one side is twisting meaning to suit their ends.
It also happens to be reality.
It's one thing to debate whether it's fair or not, and I'd agree with you that yes, this sucks. But it's fact; it's how companies operate. If you look at how Apple judges performance, it's always about having the "best quarter ever" and talking about how many more iPhones they sold than last quarter, or even last year. This isn't by accident. They are making the case that they are "laser focused" selling exactly what the consumer wants, and that their sales numbers prove it.
By extension: buying an iPhone is making an affirmation that this is the product you want. Or at the very least, the lack of X feature is not important enough to you that you were motivated to buy something else instead. Apple thusly takes that affirmation as positive feedback that they are doing "the right thing."
Again, maybe it's not right. Lots of things in the universe aren't "right." But unfortunately, not everything needs to be "right" in order to be reality.
If this thread were based on such an article, there should be a link to such an article in this thread... but I've looked. There's isn't. Just some opinion fluff from Vermont NPR.
Link me to an article that proves what you're saying. That's all you need to do.
Last edited:
My reply there was in response to of one of the things you seemed to have at the very least implied in your earlier (again, even if perhaps wasn't meant that way, it still came off that way nonetheless). It certainly wasn't putting words in your mouth, and it also certainly wasn't something that I "stated specifically" that you said (now that quote on the other hand would be).
And again, whether or not something is not enough to turn one away from a product completely, doesn't mean that one can't still disapprove or be upset about something in relation to that product. Purchasing and using it doesn't mean that you can't dislike something about it and voice your opinion to that effect. A rather basic concept.
As for the actual news articles about this, a simple Google search does the trick when looking for more details:
http://digital.vpr.net/post/unlock-fm-radio-hiding-your-smart-phone
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2015/04/16/400178385/the-hidden-fm-radio-inside-your-pocket-and-why-you-cant-use-it
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/11/06/your-smartphone-ready-for-radio/T7Yz67q9qXyctxxiviQK9J/story.html
Last edited:
I've never been big on conspiracy theories, and that's what this essentially is. It is a good supposition - of course carriers would like us to use cellular data rather than FM radio... but then, why do smart phones have Wi-Fi and audio players????
Here's another thought... The more useful a smart phone is, the more likely someone will carry and use it, and the more subscribers will be willing to pay for monthly service. If a subscriber doesn't use the cellular bandwidth he/she paid for (by listening to radio, or MP3s and AACs), the service providers are even happier.
It's this simple. FM radio is a function built into a chip. Chip-makers find it cheaper to cram functions into a single chip than to produce several chips for specific functions. Electronics manufacturers prefer a single chip to two, all things being equal, so the more functions they can get into the same footprint, the better.
But it's not just about the chip. Each on-chip function of this sort needs ancillaries - additional circuit board traces, wavelength-specific antennae, connector contacts, perhaps a couple of external capacitors, resistors, etc. Space (and budget) for which is in competition with other functions. So in the end, it becomes a question of "What do we need to make the most customers happy?"
I remember hobbyist-oriented chips from the '70s and '80s that might have around four discrete functions (clocks, oscillators, op amps, a couple of gates...). It was rare to see a "build your own..." project built around them that used every available function. Seemed pretty wasteful at first, but it meant that an awful lot of stuff could be made from a relatively small parts inventory.
I spent over 20 years in FM, AM, and broadcast TV. I'm as nostalgic as anyone for the good old days. But... 50 Hz - 15 KHz and a 60 Db noise floor is not quite "HiFi." It's just better than AM. Today's broadcasters are using data-reduced formats like MP3 right and left - to save hard disk space in their audio storage systems and/or to get audio to the distant transmitter as cheaply as possible... And while the audio specs of today's FM exciters are very impressive, a) gigo, and b) it's just as likely that the exciter is 30 years old.
Emergency broadcasts in case of power failure? Most stations don't have backup generators to keep the transmitter going.
So, subscribe to weather alerts on your weather apps, and trust that you'll receive the EAS alerts if you're streaming your favorite station.
Here's another thought... The more useful a smart phone is, the more likely someone will carry and use it, and the more subscribers will be willing to pay for monthly service. If a subscriber doesn't use the cellular bandwidth he/she paid for (by listening to radio, or MP3s and AACs), the service providers are even happier.
It's this simple. FM radio is a function built into a chip. Chip-makers find it cheaper to cram functions into a single chip than to produce several chips for specific functions. Electronics manufacturers prefer a single chip to two, all things being equal, so the more functions they can get into the same footprint, the better.
But it's not just about the chip. Each on-chip function of this sort needs ancillaries - additional circuit board traces, wavelength-specific antennae, connector contacts, perhaps a couple of external capacitors, resistors, etc. Space (and budget) for which is in competition with other functions. So in the end, it becomes a question of "What do we need to make the most customers happy?"
I remember hobbyist-oriented chips from the '70s and '80s that might have around four discrete functions (clocks, oscillators, op amps, a couple of gates...). It was rare to see a "build your own..." project built around them that used every available function. Seemed pretty wasteful at first, but it meant that an awful lot of stuff could be made from a relatively small parts inventory.
I spent over 20 years in FM, AM, and broadcast TV. I'm as nostalgic as anyone for the good old days. But... 50 Hz - 15 KHz and a 60 Db noise floor is not quite "HiFi." It's just better than AM. Today's broadcasters are using data-reduced formats like MP3 right and left - to save hard disk space in their audio storage systems and/or to get audio to the distant transmitter as cheaply as possible... And while the audio specs of today's FM exciters are very impressive, a) gigo, and b) it's just as likely that the exciter is 30 years old.
Emergency broadcasts in case of power failure? Most stations don't have backup generators to keep the transmitter going.
So, subscribe to weather alerts on your weather apps, and trust that you'll receive the EAS alerts if you're streaming your favorite station.
I have no citation, so take it for what its worth.
I remember many years ago the terrestrial radio companies in an effort to try and say relevant successfully lobbied the FCC to make cell phone manufacturers put an FM receiver in ever mobile phone.
Why they are allowed to not enable it...I don't know.
I remember many years ago the terrestrial radio companies in an effort to try and say relevant successfully lobbied the FCC to make cell phone manufacturers put an FM receiver in ever mobile phone.
Why they are allowed to not enable it...I don't know.
Clearly you don't get how discussions work. If you're making a claim, you have to cite your sources. It's not up to me or anyone else to make your argument for you.
None of the above substantiate your claim that wireless carriers are complicit in forcing cell phone vendors to disable equipment in their phones. The third link actually implies the opposite: some FM-radio enabled phones do exist and are sold by carriers, such as the HTC One.
The only thing the carriers appear "guilty" of is not forcing the NAB's bloatware as a mandatory install on carrier builds. And that's fine. You can still get the app, at least on Android devices, if that's what you really want. And it's long established that Apple, not the carriers, are in control of what iPhones can and can't do.