G
Groove1670
Guest
You are correct, but the app could be modified if Apple worked with the developer (Emmis Communications). The headphone jack is still a issue.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
FCC Chairman Calls on Apple to Turn on FM Reception in iPhones
- Thread starter joebtsflk1
- Start date
You are correct, but the app could be modified if Apple worked with the developer (Emmis Communications). The headphone jack is still a issue.
Emmis has been trying to work with Apple for years, and has gotten nowhere. This is why Pai made his plea.
Read this:
http://www.rbr.com/smulyan-slams-apple-nextradio/
Last edited:
joebtsflk1
Star Participant
Since 1960, the motto of Des Moines' long time Mexican restaurant, Tasty Tacos, has been "Nada Es Imposiblé."
And so it is with engineering an FM radio in a smartphone. Apple just doesn't want to do it.
The kernel of truth in the RBR article above can be summed up in the following:
In an exclusive interview with RBR+TVBR, Smulyan was more blunt — and acerbic — in his criticism of Apple.
“The problem is I’ve got a friend on the Apple board … and they’ve got so much arrogance,” Smulyan said. “We will need the entire industry to put pressure on them to make progress.”
And so it is with engineering an FM radio in a smartphone. Apple just doesn't want to do it.
The kernel of truth in the RBR article above can be summed up in the following:
In an exclusive interview with RBR+TVBR, Smulyan was more blunt — and acerbic — in his criticism of Apple.
“The problem is I’ve got a friend on the Apple board … and they’ve got so much arrogance,” Smulyan said. “We will need the entire industry to put pressure on them to make progress.”
Of course radio industry folks like Jeff would like to have access to people with phones. When it comes to Apple anyway, ain't going to happen, because people who use their phones like an integrated part of their anatomy can care less about receiving FM radio.
The percentage of those might actually care, amount to the same percentage as those who are DX hobbyists.
You're confusing access with usage. All the FCC Chairman is talking about is access. Whether or not people use the chip isn't the issue. Usage is individual.
joebtsflk1
Star Participant
I don't think it's that small, but...
The question then is: Did Apple set out to make radio irrelevant or did radio make itself irrelevant?
Either way, it bodes ill for communications during emergencies.
Apple may be a for-profit company, but the phone part of its business is regulated by the FCC. The FCC doesn't care about making more money for a trillion dollar corporation.
The FCC has changed from making sure communications-related things benefit the public, to finding ways of essentially selling-off spectrum to the highest bidder to those same for-profit companies.
Or what about the rules and responsibilities of regulating noise interference from consumer devices? They turned a blind eye to that responsibility years ago because it's been driven by consumers also.
So much for all the altruistic aspects of the FCC..
Or what about the rules and responsibilities of regulating noise interference from consumer devices? They turned a blind eye to that responsibility years ago because it's been driven by consumers also.
So much for all the altruistic aspects of the FCC..
This particular Chairman seems to be taking a different approach. We'll see how far he goes.
What we know is Apple won't be activating FM chips unless they're forced to.
Think about the new IPAWS/CAP EAS endec units......yes, MOST have built-in radio tuners (or can be added......)...BUT....CAP is an INTERNET-BASED system (ie., IPAWS servers)...
Maybe the "new theory" is.....in the event of the "Big One" (read: nukes.....!), the Internet will be more immune to EMI than radio - even FM....
Those of us old enough to remember Conelrad....know how SEVERELY flawed the plan was from the get-go....even 50kw on 640 or 1240 AM won't go far near "ground zero".....!!!!
joebtsflk1
Star Participant
Think about the new IPAWS/CAP EAS endec units......yes, MOST have built-in radio tuners (or can be added......)...BUT....CAP is an INTERNET-BASED system (ie., IPAWS servers)...
Maybe the "new theory" is.....in the event of the "Big One" (read: nukes.....!), the Internet will be more immune to EMI than radio - even FM....
Those of us old enough to remember Conelrad....know how SEVERELY flawed the plan was from the get-go....even 50kw on 640 or 1240 AM won't go far near "ground zero".....!!!!
To paraphrase Keynes' oft repeated but out-of-context quote "In the long run we are all dead," we could say "In the big one we are all screwed!"
_______________________
Thought I'd check in with Google before I referenced the "long run"quote....Topic drift ahead: my favorite professor in college over 35 years ago taught Economics. He was Hayek before Hayek was cool (not that he ever has been or will be) and was very much anti-Keynesian. He used the "long run" quote to help support his anti-Keynesian stance.
Said prof would have been called out on the carpet today in the Google age. Guess I learned something today. This is worth a read: The true meaning of “In the long run we are all dead”
Last edited:
- Status