Apple Nano FM

[TheBigA]

OK, I've been complaining for the past few days that there hasn't been a new AM/FM radio introduced on the market since the Walkman.

Leave it to Apple to do it: http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/features.html#fmradio

Conventional wisdom was that Apple hates FM, and has no reason to promote a system it doesn't own or control. But apparently that's wrong.

Of course, there's no AM, but we knew that.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

OK, I've been complaining for the past few days that there hasn't been a new AM/FM radio introduced on the market since the Walkman.

Leave it to Apple to do it: http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/features.html#fmradio

Conventional wisdom was that Apple hates FM, and has no reason to promote a system it doesn't own or control. But apparently that's wrong.

Of course, there's no AM, but we knew that.

You're a little late to the party, the previous generation of the iPod nano also had an FM radio built in.

I think it's more like why put in a feature (FM Radio) that few are interested in?

 

[TheBigA]

I think it's more like why put in a feature (FM Radio) that few are interested in?

Few? Only 259 million people.

The fact is that more people own AM/FM radios than Nanos.

 

[pellmell]

The Sansa Fuze has a built-in FM radio. I own three of them.

 

[Talk_Dude]

I think it's more like why put in a feature (FM Radio) that few are interested in?

Few? Only 259 million people.

The fact is that more people own AM/FM radios than Nanos.

I believe that the reference was to few people buying an iPod to listen to their own downloaded music would want to also have an FM radio built in. If they wanted to listen to music on FM radio, then they'd use the radio they already own, they wouldn't buy an iPod.

However, there is a good answer to Mike's question. The reason to put it in is that on a gadget like that, adding an FM capability only marginally increases the cost of manufacturing, but it provides some reason for people who already own an iPod to buy a new one. They also have the gimmick of being able to "pause" radio programming and pick up where you left off by moving all incoming signal to memory. My guess is that feature is hardly ever used, but has enough theoretical appeal that a shopper considering the new iPod or something else might pick the iPod because the features sound cool.

I don't own an iPod, I bought a generic MP3 player from a company on eBay for $16, including shipping, and it works great. In addition to MP3's, it also includes FM and a digital recorder, and can be used as a USB thumb drive. I bought it because it was really, really cheap. I find that while I use the MP3 capability to listen to music and never tune in music radio programming on it, it is nice to have it to listen to sports play-by-play.

 

[TheBigA]

My view is that people don't buy radios. They haven't for a generation. They buy things that contain radios. This device is one of them. There should be more. But for the most part the electronics industry seems to have a prejudice against radio. I agree with talk_dude. It costs dothing to put it in, it takes no space, and it gives the owner an option to their own mp3s, which are typically fewer than the number of songs in a radio playlist.

The pause feature is great. But what the public really wants is Tivo for radio, so they can time shift morning shows to other times of the day.

 

[KeithE4]

My view is that people don't buy radios. They haven't for a generation. They buy things that contain radios. This device is one of them. There should be more. But for the most part the electronics industry seems to have a prejudice against radio.

Is it the industry leading the way, or are they just following the wishes of the market? They won't manufacture things that people don't want to buy.

I agree with talk_dude. It costs dothing to put it in, it takes no space, and it gives the owner an option to their own mp3s, which are typically fewer than the number of songs in a radio playlist.

Not quite "nothing," but not an arm and a leg either. The tuner chip will take up a little space, as will the circuit that couples the earbud leads to the chip for an antenna. Plus, the software to tune the radio has to be developed as part of the player's user interface. The basics for that were written years ago, but it has to be adapted to each player. This cost still won't be much, though, but it isn't nothing.

 

[TheBigA]

Is it the industry leading the way, or are they just following the wishes of the market? They won't manufacture things that people don't want to buy.

Once again, we're talking about including radios in other devices. Not strictly radios. Although I maintain that the public would buy a new radio if it was really cool or different in some way. So far, no one's made one like the Walkman. It has to be about the device. I bought two HD TVs because of the TVs, not because of any new shows.

The wishes of the market are that 259 million people listen to radios. The other side of that is more than 99% of the public already own at least one radio, and most own several.

 

[streamer]

You're a little late to the party, the previous generation of the iPod nano also had an FM radio built in.

I think it's more like why put in a feature (FM Radio) that few are interested in?

The nano users I know (at it's about 2) use the FM feature only in the gym so they can hear the audio associated with the TV channels. Otherwise it's a not a feature they use much, if at all.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Wait, aren't people going out to buy new radios by the millions so they can hear the wonders of HD?

Adding FM to devices that play music is a smart idea for a lot of reasons. I have a phone that works as a phone, and does a nice job as an MP3 player. If it had FM, I probably wouldn't own a separate MP3 player with FM for when I want to listen to music up until game time, when I switch to FM for the football game. Or, I get tired of what's on my MP3 player, and switch to FM for a little music exploration. Or, I want to hear Car Talk, but I get interrupted, and record the rest of the show instead of going to the bother of downloading the podcast.

FM is an important source of timely programming, especially in case of an emergency. I don't need to buy Internet access for my phone to get that programming, eating up valuable bandwidth, or pay for increasingly expensive bits from my cell phone provider. With the problems that the telecoms are having providing service for 3G & 4G customers, you'd think that they'd welcome FM as a partner. Yeah, your phone isn't going to work well for FM without earbuds, but who listens to music on the crappy little phone speaker anyway? And stereo Bluetooth ain't very common.

Give me one device that does it all. I want a SMARTER smart phone.

 

[Chuck]

Give me one device that does it all. I want a SMARTER smart phone.

I agree. Speaking as a consumer, the only thing I'm really missing on my smart phone is a radio. Oddly enough, that is something I like to have, especially when I travel. I can, and do, listen to Internet radio on it, as well as my own playlist of stored mp3 files. Still, I like to tune in local radio from time to time.


Otherwise an all-in-one device that fits in your pocket is quite handy since it does a good job with everything else. That's assuming I can figure out how to use it.

 

[Mike Sheridan]

Wait, aren't people going out to buy new radios by the millions so they can hear the wonders of HD?

FM is an important source of timely programming, especially in case of an emergency.

Right now HD just doesn't go far enough. It would work better if they just started a digital band somewhere.

Rox, you must have better FM stations in your area. Where I live in an emergency you might hear the EANS but then it's back to the voice tracked hits, especially during nights and weekends. This is one place where a few AM stations do a better job than their FM counterparts.

In an emergency I go to my Ham radio and police scanner.