Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
There are new forms of radio - DAB, for example - which offer multiple benefits over FM, and still don't require data.

An FM receiver still needs power!

And it matters because the longer we cling onto dying technology, the longer it takes to get a newer, better standard. Think about VHS. I don't know about the US, but in the UK we have now turned off analogue TV signals, and I think the only thing stopping us turning off analogue radio signals are car stereos.

There is a very good reason to keep FM or similar standards around, in the event of emergency you can broadcast information out without requiring the device receiving to talk back.
 
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.



Hackers can get into iPhone and steal your data .... but no hackers can jailbreak for FM radio on the iPhone ... cause Apple is in control ????


Something is very wrong with this picture ... to my blind eyes.

:cool::cool::cool:
 
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.
Carriers certainly have a good amount of input into various things that go on with iPhones/iOS. The whole 100 MB limit on downloading from the App Store when not on WiFi is certainly a limitation and something that has been attributed to carrier requirements in relation to that. Carriers also can control as to whether or not you can disable various bands on your phone, as in if you can disable LTE, or 4G, or 3G. There's definitely a number of things that carriers have some control over or a good amount of input into or influence over.

In any case though, as for the rest of it, like I said before, if we are going to deny the available information from articles about this and basically say they can't be trusted, then it seems like there's really no information that can really be trusted since it would come in an article form of one type of another. Like you said, all I had to do was link to the articles about it. Whether or not some choose to believe or doubt them is a different and separate from that.

At this point, given everything so far, it really doesn't seem like there's much to discuss along those lines then since it all just keeps on being turned into a moot discussion.
 
Last edited:
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.

Why's that ?

The radio in the Nano has a superb front end. It gets reception in places where other radios don't. Wife uses one in her office. Other portable radios failed to work. Some of her coworkers went out and bought Nanos, just for the FM radio. It's a ten out of ten. Apple has already proven themselves.
 
In any case though, as for the rest of it, like I said before, if we are going to deny the available information from articles about this and basically say they can't be trusted,

Actually, that's not what's happening here at all. It appears that what is being said has been distorted... both what *I* have said AND what the articles are saying. Again. So, I'm going to have to point out your misinterpretation of the facts and set the record straight... again.

I didn't say the articles are not to be trusted. I'm pointing out that you're claiming these articles substantiate a fact when they do not. None of them say that the carriers are complicit in some grand scheme to bankrupt radio stations and ensure data overage profits by colluding with phone manufacturers to disable FM radio in their hardware. They DO wonder aloud why some carriers don't answer the question, or cooperate with broadcasters on this. But that alone doesn't prove collusion or conspiracy.

then it seems like there's really no information that can really be trusted since it would come in an article form of one type of another.

If these articles first actually said what you're claiming they say, then I might agree with your viewpoint. It might also help if, in fact, the articles could quote someone - anyone - with knowledge to assert the fact.

But they don't even get to that point. The articles just say "hey, there's this thing in your phone that would turn it into an FM radio... wouldn't it be great if we could use it? Oh yeah, there's this app you can get, and as broadcasters we really want to make carriers force vendors to install that app by default. Why oh why won't the carriers do this for us?"

That's pretty much all these links do. That's a pretty far cry from the smoking gun you say they are.

Like you said, all I had to do was link to the articles about it.

Yeah, and you didn't. You linked to opinion pieces, basically.

At this point, given everything so far, it really doesn't seem like there's much to discuss along those lines then since it all just keeps on being turned into a moot discussion.

Not my fault you can't substantiate your claims. But you're right, you can keep beating a dead horse for only so long.
 
Last edited:
Actually, that's not what's happening here at all. It appears that what is being said has been distorted... both what *I* have said AND what the articles are saying. Again. So, I'm going to have to point out your misinterpretation of the facts and set the record straight... again.

I didn't say the articles are not to be trusted. I'm pointing out that you're claiming these articles substantiate a fact when they do not. None of them say that the carriers are complicit in some grand scheme to bankrupt radio stations and ensure data overage profits by colluding with phone manufacturers to disable FM radio in their hardware. They DO wonder aloud why some carriers don't answer the question, or cooperate with broadcasters on this. But that alone doesn't prove collusion or conspiracy.



If these articles first actually said what you're claiming they say, then I might agree with your viewpoint. It might also help if, in fact, the articles could quote someone - anyone - with knowledge to assert the fact.

But they don't even get to that point. The articles just say "hey, there's this thing in your phone that would turn it into an FM radio... wouldn't it be great if we could use it? Oh yeah, there's this app you can get, and as broadcasters we really want to make carriers force vendors to install that app by default. Why oh why won't the carriers do this for us?"

That's pretty much all these links do. That's a pretty far cry from the smoking gun you say they are.



Yeah, and you didn't. You linked to opinion pieces, basically.



Not my fault you can't substantiate your claims. But you're right, you can keep beating a dead horse for only so long.
In your opinion they are opinion pieces, others can decide for themselves if they wish.

And, yeah, the dead horse has been beaten beyond recognition by now.
 
Hackers can get into iPhone and steal your data .... but no hackers can jailbreak for FM radio on the iPhone ... cause Apple is in control ????

You'd have to ask the hackers whey they haven't done it. Maybe they're just not interested in FM radio.

But I really doubt it's because a bunch of men in suits took Steve Jobs (of all people) into a dimly-lit, smoke-filled room, and blackmailed him into disabling FM reception in iPhones.

----------

In your opinion they are opinion pieces, others can decide for themselves if they wish.

Here's what the article itself says:

"Full disclosure: NPR, along with the NAB, has been part of a lobbying effort to require this free radio feature to be enabled. In 2013 they teamed up to create a free app that allows for free FM listening on smartphones."

When the agency publishing the article has a stake in the discussion, and specially when they disclose their position as such, it becomes an opinion piece.
 
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.

This. In extreme circumstances, put that phone away and turn it off. It is a precious tool to be reserved for when the cell network is back up.

For emergency info, get a good battery- or crank-powered multi-band radio. Some even come with integrated flashlights. http://smile.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=crank+radio is stuffed with them, and prices are great.

Toss one of these in the trunk of your car or in your get-out-of-Dodge kit (along with fresh batteries and other emergency items such as waterproof matches, sanitary wipes, gauze and Ace bandages, ibuprofen, water purification kit, snakebite kit, high-caloric snacks, knife, ammo, water, plastic bags and a change of clothes) and you'll be well-informed as Armageddon unfolds.

...Of course, I'm joshing: there are any number of natural disasters that are a matter of when not if, and it pays to be prepared.

For everyday news and entertainment, there are far better options than old-timey FM (which was electronically present in one of the chips of the original iPhone and apparently persists today, but which was never supported for well-considered reasons). And besides the streaming media like iHeartRadio already mentioned, there are podcasts!
 
This. In extreme circumstances, put that phone away and turn it off. It is a precious tool to be reserved for when the cell network is back up.

For emergency info, get a good battery- or crank-powered multi-band radio. Some even come with integrated flashlights. http://smile.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=crank+radio is stuffed with them, and prices are great.

Toss one of these in the trunk of your car or in your get-out-of-Dodge kit (along with fresh batteries and other emergency items such as waterproof matches, sanitary wipes, gauze and Ace bandages, ibuprofen, water purification kit, snakebite kit, high-caloric snacks, knife, ammo, water, plastic bags and a change of clothes) and you'll be well-informed as Armageddon unfolds.

...Of course, I'm joshing: there are any number of natural disasters that are a matter of when not if, and it pays to be prepared.

For everyday news and entertainment, there are far better options than old-timey FM (which was electronically present in one of the chips of the original iPhone and apparently persists today, but which was never supported for well-considered reasons). And besides the streaming media like iHeartRadio already mentioned, there are podcasts!
It's great that there are alternatives and all that, but it bares no relation to providing validity to not having existing functionality enabled if it's simply disabled and nothing more.
 
It's great that there are alternatives and all that, but it bares no relation to providing validity to not having existing functionality enabled if it's simply disabled and nothing more.

Then let me try again:

Apple is all about the consumer experience, and if The Steve decided against enabling (and having to support) the functionality, there was probably a good reason for doing so.

Don't minimize the support aspect. There's a substantial unfunded liability for any feature.

The decision to not engineer this functionality into the original or later iPhones was very likely illuminated by having the feature working in the square-model iPod Nano. Possible reasons have already been advanced in this thread: battery concerns, antenna concerns... add sound quality and reception concerns, the support concerns, and the likelihood that additional circuitry would be needed (for the RF front end, for starters), and then the un-small matter of possible additional regulatory hurdles in each market they were targeting.

With FM radios available for $5 (e.g., http://smile.amazon.com/Mini-Portab...=UTF8&qid=1429740226&sr=1-7&keywords=fm+radio) and even as plug-in additions to the iEcosystem (http://smile.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb...electronics&field-keywords=fm+radio+lightning) there really seems little point.

Not to mention that over-the-air radio broadcasting is kinda doomed by the alternatives the iPhone enabled, such as streaming media and podcasts. At the time the decision was made, it was all about enabling the future, not the past.
 
Then let me try again:

Apple is all about the consumer experience, and if The Steve decided against enabling (and having to support) the functionality, there was probably a good reason for doing so.

Don't minimize the support aspect. There's a substantial unfunded liability for any feature.

The decision to not engineer this functionality into the original or later iPhones was very likely illuminated by having the feature working in the square-model iPod Nano. Possible reasons have already been advanced in this thread: battery concerns, antenna concerns... add sound quality and reception concerns, the support concerns, and the likelihood that additional circuitry would be needed (for the RF front end, for starters), and then the un-small matter of possible additional regulatory hurdles in each market they were targeting.

With FM radios available for $5 (e.g., http://smile.amazon.com/Mini-Portab...=UTF8&qid=1429740226&sr=1-7&keywords=fm+radio) and even as plug-in additions to the iEcosystem (http://smile.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb...electronics&field-keywords=fm+radio+lightning) there really seems little point.

Not to mention that over-the-air radio broadcasting is kinda doomed by the alternatives the iPhone enabled, such as streaming media and podcasts. At the time the decision was made, it was all about enabling the future, not the past.

Not sure there's really actual supported information pointing to it being a specific decision on Apple's side for particular reasons not to enable it. I mean if we were to say that the carrier aspect of it is not really supported, it seems like there's really nothing to really support any explanation then aside from just "opinions" which might or might not be right.
 
How is the sound quality of DAB poor? Unless you have a weak signal, it will be on par or better than FM.

And it's already started in Europe - Norway have announced they're turning off FM. http://www.neowin.net/news/video-killed-the-radio-star---but-norway039s-killing-fm-radio-in-2017

While Norway is shutting down its very few government owned stations, in the USA, the stations are privately owned. Not going away ANY time soon.

DAB is basically MP2, with high compression- 192 kb/s, and sometimes as low as 160 kb/s. The audio quality is not close to being on par with FM. Plus, at least here, using the Ibiquity HD process, FM stations can broadcast 1 signal with up to 4 channels on it, 3 of which are digital.
 
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.

Finally! You sound like you know what you're speaking about. What the heck are you doing in THIS discussion??? :D

Disclaimer: over 35 years in broadcasting.
 
While Norway is shutting down its very few government owned stations, in the USA, the stations are privately owned. Not going away ANY time soon.

DAB is basically MP2, with high compression- 192 kb/s, and sometimes as low as 160 kb/s. The audio quality is not close to being on par with FM. Plus, at least here, using the Ibiquity HD process, FM stations can broadcast 1 signal with up to 4 channels on it, 3 of which are digital.

The stations might be privately owned, but the frequency isn't. If the gov't decide to reallocate the frequency, there's nothing that the private stations can do.
 
With digital radio, FM is an ageing technology.

Why would I want to listen to fuzzy, crackly radio which cuts in and out, when I have synced music, spotify, and internet radio?

I respectfully disagree. In non-urban areas such as the Berkshires where I live, cell coverage is spotty. And even with a phone full of tracks, I still often like to hear live over-the-air radio. Most of the NPR stations around here transmit from multiple sites so their quality-signal coverage area is huge.

----------

The stations might be privately owned, but the frequency isn't. If the gov't decide to reallocate the frequency, there's nothing that the private stations can do.

The only FM broadcast stations that really ever face a loss of frequency are community and college stations and that usually means a forced march to another frequency not of interest to commercial broadcasters. The FCC is never going to tell a Clear Channel station that they have to abandon their frequency.

Low-Power FM LPFM is a growing class of broadcast radio now, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jblagden
The stations might be privately owned, but the frequency isn't. If the gov't decide to reallocate the frequency, there's nothing that the private stations can do.

Nice in theory, but not in reality. Once a station is licensed, unless they break the laws/rules, they have that frequency for the duration of the license, barring a CP to change frequencies.

As well, there are MANY recourses a station would have, from political pressure to the courts. The government isn't about to do this.
 
One reason the FM radio functions aren't enabled on phones is because of antenna requirements.

It's hard to fit an efficient FM broadcast antenna into a phone body. Some devices use the headphone cable as an antenna, but if you remember from your walkman in the 80s and 90s, it doesn't work too well; the signal fades in and out as you move around.

The engineering required to make FM radio work well in such a tiny form factor is a pain, and since so few people demand this feature the phone makers just leave it out.
What about the iPod Nano? It has a built-in radio which uses the headphone cable as an antenna, and it does pretty well.

With digital radio, FM is an ageing technology.

Why would I want to listen to fuzzy, crackly radio which cuts in and out, when I have synced music, spotify, and internet radio?
Limited data plan. Unless you have an unlimited data plan, you're probably not going to want to burn through your data plan streaming music from Pandora or iTunes Radio.

With digital radio, FM is an ageing technology.

Why would I want to listen to fuzzy, crackly radio which cuts in and out, when I have synced music, spotify, and internet radio?
Data plan

There are new forms of radio - DAB, for example - which offer multiple benefits over FM, and still don't require data.

An FM receiver still needs power!

And it matters because the longer we cling onto dying technology, the longer it takes to get a newer, better standard. Think about VHS. I don't know about the US, but in the UK we have now turned off analogue TV signals, and I think the only thing stopping us turning off analogue radio signals are car stereos.
DAB isn't in use in the US. It's used in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, China, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, the UK, and Vietnam. So, it looks like it's in use in roughly 70% of the world, but it's not used here in the US.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DAB isn't in use in the US. It's used in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, China, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, the UK, and Vietnam. So, it looks like it's in use in roughly 70% of the world, but it's not used here in the US.

Why did you feel the need to quote 3 posts of mine in a 3 month old thread :s
 
DAB isn't in use in the US. It's used in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, China, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, the UK, and Vietnam. So, it looks like it's in use in roughly 70% of the world, but it's not used here in the US.
Hey I'm sure we will get around to it. I mean Chip cards were invented in 1991, and we now have it here in 2015!
 
FM needs to be activated! For emergencies. What if the power goes out and internet/phone service access goes with it? Natural disasters happen and having FM radio access to hear emergency and news updates would invaluable. Think beyond your daily activities people!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jblagden
Nope you are wrong dude .. and messed up in the science of it.

FM is line of sight .. and walls do stop the signal pretty well .. cell signal goes through walls slightly better. As you know when you talk on the cell phone inside your house but your FM radio do not work inside your house without an antenna.

I am sure you have done some scientific testing on that your self if you have any sight on the matter.

Also .. there are FM lightening jack attachments that you can plug into the iPhone right now .. some real nice ones that are very small .. they use the battery power of your iPhone to make it work.

Here is one .. that is the pits .. but it does the job ...

http://www.geekymart.com/fm-receiver-attachment-design-for-iphone-ipad-ipod-series

Some one could make an AMP Audio like power case that has FM circuits in it as well as speakers .. with a lightening jack ..

and Apple people will buy that right now .. I will.

If it has a Mirco USB port in it ... nope nope nope those are crap for the iPhone or iPod, etc.

Alan

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


All signals FM band and above are line of sight. Cell signals do not pass through walls very well. They often pass through openings like windows. All radios need an antenna but they can be very small at microwave frequencies.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.