FM radio for iPhone!, FM radio for iPhone!

Lawrence Finch wrote:

ChitlinsCC wrote:

I think these points answer the question as to why, don't you? Partnerships, strategic alliances, profit

No, I think THAT'S the red herring. The answer to the question is that no one making phones thought it would be a selling feature. You (and NPR) are overthinking this. FM reception at its best would be terrible. You would hate it.

Again, with all due respect, NPR reported on the issue (disclaiming the fact that they had a vested interest) and the main sources for comments were National Association of Broadcasters, FEMA and CTIA-The Wireless Association

Key among these is FEMA... you know the EMERGENCY folk? who cares if the quality is good if the cell towers have no power? A wind-up charger and Weather Radio bands would be cool then.

FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate has also argued that radio is critical in a crisis. "As more and more people use their smartphones as streaming devices to get news, get radio, get a lot of things like that over their networks, I don't think people realize how vulnerable they get," he says in a video for FreeRadioOnMyPhone.org, a collection of radio organizations that includes NPR.

There are many reasons folks WOULD want it IF it were there. Big Brothers don't always think about all the possible scenarios.

Let's just say, that the CITA guy is the final word on the matter... if enough customers want it, then....

ChitlinsCC wrote:

Let's just say, that the CITA guy is the final word on the matter... if enough customers want it, then....

Do you have any further technical support questions on this issue?

Meg St._Clair wrote:

cepheus42 wrote:

That's the point of the discussion, to encourage Apple to change it if enough folks show they want it.

If you want Apple to know how you feel, why are you wasting your time here? They're not reading this. Use the provided feedback link.

They DO read here, or how else could they know whether to mark a post Recommends or whether Community Specialists need to reply to a stale Question?

DFTT

Pete

Why do you insist on ignoring the correct methods of providing feedback to apple, did you want to be a rebel when you were young?

ChitlinsCC wrote:

Meg St._Clair wrote:

cepheus42 wrote:

That's the point of the discussion, to encourage Apple to change it if enough folks show they want it.

If you want Apple to know how you feel, why are you wasting your time here? They're not reading this. Use the provided feedback link.

They DO read here, or how else could they know whether to mark a post Recommends or whether Community Specialists need to reply to a stale Question?

The Host reading here to run the forum (and even they don't read very much) and Apple engineers reading here for feedback are very different things. Apple recommends, as I understand it, will be based, in large, how many users agree with the answer. The Community Specialists get automatically forwarded posts from certain forums that have gone unanswered for 24 hours. Did you think they plowed through all the posts themselves?

Csound1 wrote:

ChitlinsCC wrote:

Meg St._Clair wrote:

ChitlinsCC wrote:

*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 <

And that is not an appropriate topic of discussion for these forums.

I respectfully disagree.

You don't get to disagree, you already agreed to the Terms of Use, if you no longer agree with them you should stop posting here.

Suspiciously out of context, amigo. I disagree that this is not a technical question, not that I disagree with any Apple policy or decision. Further, you seem to be saying that if I do AGREE with Apple policies, etc. that its OK.

Simple solution to all this is to do what they do - turn it on and let the chips fall where they may in the Public Beta that it would de facto be. It is a consumer choice to use something they paid for - or not. Facts are facts - not "opinion" - Chip set exists, $ for it are included in the purchase price, cannot use it.

Csound1 wrote:

Not particularly, I already see how little you know about radio.

I have likely forgotten more about waveform physics than mos t ever knew. The only cogent points for FM are line of sight, signal strength, wavelength and proper antenna (as the recent instructor stated, no shorter than the wavelength)

That doesn't equate with your earlier enquiries as to why Apple didn't just use the existing antenna's, or your plaintive cry of 'they're all around us'

I'm sorry but I do not find you credible.

As my kids and grandkids say, "What's FM?" not much of the future Apple market lies in FM Radio users, yourself excluded.

Pete

My old FM things always sound better in mono, what's that about, 2 channels is 1 too many?

Meg St._Clair wrote:

ChitlinsCC wrote:

Meg St._Clair wrote:

cepheus42 wrote:

That's the point of the discussion, to encourage Apple to change it if enough folks show they want it.

If you want Apple to know how you feel, why are you wasting your time here? They're not reading this. Use the provided feedback link.

They DO read here, or how else could they know whether to mark a post Recommends or whether Community Specialists need to reply to a stale Question?

1. The Host reading here to run the forum (and even they don't read very much) and Apple engineers reading here for feedback are very different things.
2. Apple recommends, as I understand it, will be based, in large, how many users agree with the answer.
3. The Community Specialists get automatically forwarded posts from certain forums that have gone unanswered for 24 hours.
4. Did you think they plowed through all the posts themselves?

1. My bet is that they read more than you think, especially from troublemakers (myself? - am NOT causing trouble and am careful to conform comments to ToU)
2. On the contrary... the tally method has yet to be demonstrated but Host/Specialist has... here's just one by tt2
   [ Recommended = how do i remove duplicate songs on my ipod and ... | Apple Support Communities ]
3. I am ignorant of the methods and means of notification, but have seen CS responses as late as days of inattention.
4. No

Csound1 wrote:

That doesn't equate with your earlier enquiries as to why Apple didn't just use the existing antenna's, or your plaintive cry of 'they're all around us'

I'm sorry but I do not find you credible.

Plaintive cry? Well, the radio waves are there to be plucked from the ether by the right equipment = fact.

As for credible, the feeling is mutual - " " is spelled " i n q u i r i e s " where I come from ( and my spellchecker thinks so too )

ChitlinsCC wrote:

Csound1 wrote:

That doesn't equate with your earlier enquiries as to why Apple didn't just use the existing antenna's, or your plaintive cry of 'they're all around us'

I'm sorry but I do not find you credible.

Plaintive cry? Well, the radio waves are there to be plucked from the ether by the right equipment = fact.

As for credible, the feeling is mutual - " " is spelled " i n q u i r i e s " where I come from ( and my spellchecker thinks so too )

The U.S. Is not the only place English is used:

http://www.future-perfect.co.uk/grammar-tip/is-it-enquiry-or-inquiry/

It's comments like this that get Americans a reputation for being parochial.

" " is spelled " i n q u i r i e s " where I come from ( and my spellchecker thinks so too )

But not in the country from which the language originated and is named.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/enquiry