FM radio for iPhone!, FM radio for iPhone!

as workarounds go, pretty pricey... my comment was directed to snerious, who said "thanks but that wont work for me i want to listen to radio when i have nonservice or wifi. Its actually the ONLY time i need it probably. "

@ = $15.79

@ = $149.00*

*and up

a workaround for when an iPhone that has no service or wi-fi access? = no brainer

**not directed at this little part of the overall conversation**

As for an iPhone add-on device such as an FM-antenna (no receiver?), an antenna/receiver combo, etc. - one would still need to tote the contraption around somewhere... pocket, purse, gizmo pouch or briefcase. I guarantee such a doo-dad would cost much more than $16 !

another alternative is to read a book... ya know, the thing with paper pages bound together?

Yes, the iPhone has a built-in FM receiver. No, you can't access it, it's turned off at the hardware level. They prefer you stream data, and the phone companies have a vested interest in ensuring you do so, so they don't care if it's on or not.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2015/04/16/400178385/the-hidden-fm-ra dio-inside-your-pocket-and-why-you-cant-…

National Public Radio... All Tech Considered is a show I would listen to on my SmartPhone!

cepheus42 has uncovered a real jewel in this article - reputable sources, I'd say, including the National Association of Broadcasters

The article has a few less Comments than this thread = 154 - but think about the audience.

The first Comment is a spot on retort to the phone industry representative's statement, All Things Considered.

ÇÇÇ

That article, and most of the comments, miss the fact that the FM chip cannot be just activated and everyone would be happy. There's no antenna connection to it in the phone. And you would need an external 30 inch antenna to make it work. So while it would be possible to implement FM in a future product, it is impossible for a phone currently in use. There would also be a huge cost and time delay getting the device certified by the FCC. For every complex problem, there is a simple solution - and its wrong.

I'm really disappointed that NPR did not do their research. They are usually better than this.

with respect, Lawrence... {please pardon my righteous indignation}

where is the 30" antenna in this little ditty?

The headphone cord? (likely)

I'll bet that Sprint and the makers of the phones that DO offer chip activation would beg to differ.

I am thinking that "future product" is all one could ask for - and one should get it.

Are you suggesting that iPhones are not regulated by the FCC already? Lets see, GPS, cellular, Wi-Fi, BlueTooth (what am I missing?)

Yes, the solution is simple to a simple problem - don't withhold an existing technology (the chip set is already in the iPhone) and don't lie about the reasons for it - $$ to be made for NOT

My bet is that NPR and the NAB have done their homeworkbest regards as always, amigo and deemed the antenna issue a, well, NON-issue.

best regards as always, amigo

ÇÇÇ

ChitlinsCC wrote:

with respect, Lawrence... {please pardon my righteous indignation}

where is the 30" antenna in this little ditty?

The headphone cord? (likely)

I'll bet that Sprint and the makers of the phones that DO offer chip activation would beg to differ.

I am thinking that "future product" is all one could ask for - and one should get it.

Are you suggesting that iPhones are not regulated by the FCC already? Lets see, GPS, cellular, Wi-Fi, BlueTooth (what am I missing?)

Yes, the solution is simple to a simple problem - don't withhold an existing technology (the chip set is already in the iPhone) and don't lie about the reasons for it - $$ to be made for NOT

My bet is that NPR and the NAB have done their homeworkbest regards as always, amigo and deemed the antenna issue a, well, NON-issue.

Mobile FM radios use the headphone cord as an antenna. This could work for a smartphone also, except for those of us who use BlueTooth headsets.

It's not a question of regulation. The FCC requires every device to undergo extensive testing to verify that the device is not susceptible to interference, and does not cause interference. This testing takes months, and is costly. When you add a new radio device it extends the test cycle. And, BTW, it is highly likely that the cellular signal will cause interference to the FM receiver. My cell phone causes interference to the FM radio a couple of feet from it.

The failure of NPR's fact checking is that the story implies that it is a simple process to make FM work in existing devices, when it is actually impossible without hardware changes. And it should mention the fact that it would only work with wired headphones. Plus the fact that at its best FM sound quality is abysmal, compared to even CD quality; if you listened to an FM station compared to a stream of the same station (I've done this) you would never listen to FM again. FM frequency response is not as wide as digital sources, and FM stations compress the dynamic range of music so it all comes out at the same level. If all you listen to is hard rock you probably won't notice because its all at the same level anyway, but for most other forms of music it's really obvious.

But I'm used to reading the New Yorker, which is probably the best fact-checked journal in the world.

You are out of your league debating this with Lawrence.

I agree that NPR did a poor job with this one and Apple doesn't need to "explain" why they don't offer it just like Samsung does not need to explain why they no longer offer it on the Galaxy in the U.S. I seriously doubt Mr. Jobs anticipated Beats would be formed someday in the future and would have a paid streaming service and Apple would buy them. Otherwise they had no stake in streaming revenues.

I'm not sure what the Sprint reference is about, they can't activate the FM receiver on the chip. as to the antenna read a bit in the Nano forum and all the people who want to used BT headsets or speakers with FM. If it was to be added to the iPhone in the same manner I'm sure there would be more posts about that.

One final note, on the Nano FM is a battery drain. The only thing I ever use it for getting the audio feed for TV at the gym. Reportedly battery life figured into Samsung's decision to drop FM. That and little interest.

While I won't argue the likelihood that the primary issue is due to lack of consumer interest (and would add that there is a vested interested by the phone carriers to dissuade phone producers from including a functioning FM receiver because they prefer we use streaming data, as the article shows), there is no technical limitation to this with the iPhone, with the caveat of using wired headphones as the antenna as other phones do. The hardware already includes the FM receiver, and it is merely turned off and rendered non-functional during production. They could quite easily turn it back on if they had a pressing incentive to do so.

Whether or not I would use it I'm not sure. Almost the only time I listen to radio these days is in the car, and I have a perfectly fine Panasonic tuner for that. But some folks posting here need to stop sharing false claims about the existence of an FM receiver within the iPhone hardware and laughing at the idea that some folks might actually want this feature. They may not get it, but they certainly have a right to question why its not activated if it already exists on the phone.

cepheus42 wrote:

The hardware already includes the FM receiver, and it is merely turned off and rendered non-functional during production. They could quite easily turn it back on if they had a pressing incentive to do so.

That is the point that is consistently missed. Suppose you turned it on. With no antenna connection to the chip how would you receive FM signals? No, you cannot "quite easily turn it back on" no matter what the incentive. You could design the feature into new phones if there was sufficient demand, but you can't add it to existing phones.

I think there's a conspiracy theory here that is non-existent. It isn't enabled because manufacturers didn't think anyone would want it, or those that did would be a tiny minority. Then they would have to deal with the millions of complaints that "my FM sounds terrible!" Because it would. There's a reason that there were cell phones a few years ago that had FM radios, and the feature was discontinued. Most likely because it didn't work well, and caused more trouble than it was worth.

No, they don't have a right to question the reason here. In fact that is a violation of the Terms of Use we both agreed to. And the article doesn't "prove" anything. Again, why would Apple or Samsung, or other phone makers care? You need to re-read Lawrence's post on the details of doing this it isn't as easy as the article portrays. Apple has not offered FM radio for 8 years, others have followed suit and it hasn't affected their sales. Why increase the cost and complexity of a device that few will use? And what about AM. Or HD Radio?

Can I get shortwave? a 30ft antenna would be really useful (wouldn't have to stay near the phone) and I can get radio from all over the world, medium wave too, nice dance music.

It does not "increase the cost and complexity" of the device because it doesn't change the device. The feature is already there and turned off. I've read all the posts, and too many folks are saying "you can't add it", but it's not ADDING something. And sorry Lawrence... but you posted too many times stating "they don't include an FM receiver as part of the device" to suddenly suggest you know anything about how its wired. Considering Apple was testing with it in the past trying to develop their own FM app, I feel the likely fact is it is properly wired in and all that would be needed is wired headphones to act as the antenna.

There's been no documentation about why they gave up, but the features are there, are most likely properly connected properly and are merely turned off on the chip Objections that state otherwise are either false or lack any factual knowledge that shows otherwise. There are other phones that do provide FM functionality, so it's not too complex, it's not too hard, it doesn't massively raise the cost of the device. The only viable reasons to not do it are "no major consumer push for it" and/or "we want you to stream data so we can charge you more." Every other reason listed on this forum is bunk.

And consumers always have rights to ask "hey, this feature is part of the product, can you tell us why it's not turned on?" I don't see anything in the terms of agreement that prevent consumers from asking such a question. Posting about how to do it when the manufacturer has specified it not be done would be against the TOS, but that's not what's happening here.

Sorry, but given that I know Lawrence's technical background but not yours I'm going to believe him and not you. And it is not just turning on the existing capability it would have to be done in future models and include an antenna, new firmware, changes to iOS and an app. It would s always "easy" to do these things if you don't have the knowledge, background, and you aren't the one who has to do it.

Re-read your ToU, we cannot discuss Apple policy and particularly as it relates to new products. Use the feedback link that has repeatedly been given in this thread and tell Apple you would like FM.

cepheus42 wrote:

It does not "increase the cost and complexity" of the device because it doesn't change the device. The feature is already there and turned off. I've read all the posts, and too many folks are saying "you can't add it", but it's not ADDING something.

You keep missing the fact that there is no antenna connection. That is a HARDWARE modification that would need to be made. And, yes, I'd guess Lawrence does, in fact, know a great deal about how it's wired. But, that's all academic. Apple has chosen not to included FM radio reception features. Only Apple truly knows why. Only Apple can make a change. Going on about it here accomplishes nothing.

Submit your feedback to Apple here:

http://www.apple.com/feedback

(with respect also to my neighbor to the West, deggie's comments - this is not a debate, but a vigorous discussion and an opportunity for me to learn from my betters)

SNIPped

1. Mobile FM radios use the headphone cord as an antenna. This could work for a smartphone also, except for those of us who use BlueTooth headsets.
2. It's not a question of regulation. The FCC requires every device to undergo extensive testing to verify that the device is not susceptible to interference, and does not cause interference. This testing takes months, and is costly. When you add a new radio device it extends the test cycle. And, BTW, it is highly likely that the cellular signal will cause interference to the FM receiver. My cell phone causes interference to the FM radio a couple of feet from it.
3. The failure of NPR's fact checking is that the story implies that it is a simple process to make FM work in existing devices, when it is actually impossible without hardware changes. And it should mention the fact that it would only work with wired headphones. Plus the fact that at its best FM sound quality is abysmal, compared to even CD quality; if you listened to an FM station compared to a stream of the same station (I've done this) you would never listen to FM again. FM frequency response is not as wide as digital sources, and FM stations compress the dynamic range of music so it all comes out at the same level. If all you listen to is hard rock you probably won't notice because its all at the same level anyway, but for most other forms of music it's really obvious.
4. But I'm used to reading the New Yorker, which is probably the best fact-checked journal in the world.

1. I see your point - begging the question "What 'receiving/transmitting' antennae already exist in these phones for GPS (satellites are a LONG way off), cellular, etc.? and why would these not be sufficient for FM? (the signals are all around us anyway?)
2. I refer you to the NPR article where it states (paraphrased) - "some phone makers already do it and Sprint does too" - already in use seems to make the FCC issue moot?
3. (1st part, see #4) - I think the minutiae about the headphones is a bit of a Red Herring* - the facts are:
   1. the chip set exists in most phones and the iPhone (why is it there, if not usable if the makers and their corporate partners chose?)
   2. Abysmal though it may be, most of the folks here have stated they would only use this in an Emergency - major power outages, severe weather (we are in Tornado Alley where I am), etc.
4. A Fact_checker is someone who checks statements made for truth. I fail to see any "UN-truths" - omissions? may be.
   " ... Typically, fact-checking is an entry-level publishing job at major magazines; fact-checker jobs at The New Yorker are considered prestigious and can lead to higher-level positions, usually at other magazines..." - Yep, the only "controversy" the New Yorker ever has is about Cover Cartoons!👿
   My neighbor to the West may know the only magazine I read with regularity - Texas Monthly

*The whole point of the article is not whether it can be done, but why it is not being done. Customer service vs. shareholder profits <

ÇÇÇ