Consumers want HD Radio in mobile devices

[Carmine5]

This from RBR:

iBiquity Digital unveiled the results of a recent comScore study that validates consumer demand for HD Radio Technology as a handset feature.

68% of consumers surveyed are “interested” or “extremely interested” in mobile phones that include HD Radio Technology.
$42 is the value premium consumers attribute to HD Radio Technology in mobile phones.

"This important research underscores the high consumer demand for HD Radio Technology in mobile devices,” said Bob Struble, iBiquity CEO."

Could have fooled me. Of course, the question to ask here is: are survey respondents confusing HDR with satellite or web radio?

http://www.rbr.com/media-news/research/22689.html

 

[audioguy]

Why would people supposedly want HD radio in a mobile device with its iffy, undependable reception and poor quality sound, when they can get quite good reception streamed over the web -- wherever they are!

I think this data is flawed: people are getting this confused with radio apps that you can install for free on your iPhone or iTouch. The average person doesn't know diddly squat about HD radio, no do they care.

 

[hubcity]

I think the average consumer won't want it until they don't have to think about getting it. (And it had better not confuse them or they won't use it.)

 

[mmnassour]

Absolute Garbage from IBiquity.

1. The average consumer doesn't know WHAT it is. Ask the first ten people walking by outside IBiguity's HQ building and not one of them will know what HD radio is.

2. Even if people knew, there's nothing to listen to, since the mega-conglomerators destroyed local radio.

 

[TheBigA]

2. Even if people knew, there's nothing to listen to, since the mega-conglomerators destroyed local radio.

This is just plain wrong. 220 million people listen to local radio every day. And if they don't like what's available on commercial stations, they have thousands of non-commercial options. That's where you can find the most unique content for HD.

But I agree that people don't know about it, and that's why the content needs to be made available through any means possible. It's not that they want a certain type of technology. They'd say they want more stations on FM if that could be done.

I really don't think any manufacturer can fit an HD radio into a cell phone, and certainly can't do it for $42. One way to help would be for iBiquity to offer to eliminate any manufacturer royalty, or offer to cut it to $1. But we know that won't happen.

 

[Carmine5]

Why would people supposedly want HD radio in a mobile device with its iffy, undependable reception and poor quality sound, when they can get quite good reception streamed over the web -- wherever they are!

I think this data is flawed: people are getting this confused with radio apps that you can install for free on your iPhone or iTouch. The average person doesn't know diddly squat about HD radio, no do they care.

I agree, and I'd like to see how the question in that survey was phrased. I'll bet it wasn't clear just what kind of 'digital radio' was being discussed. In fact, I'll bet more people have heard the name 'Rio Tinto' than have heard about HD Radio.

I found it especially galling that, at a time when the broadcast TV industry is fighting for its life, Struble steals an OTA TV talking point and uses it to shill for HD Radio. "Adding HD Radio technology into mobile handsets helps reduce the usage overload on the network," he said. A real class act.

c5

 

[TheBigA]

Struble steals an OTA TV talking point and uses it to shill for HD Radio.

What do you honestly expect him to say? Come on!

 

[KeithE4]

This is just plain wrong. 220 million people listen to local radio every day. And if they don't like what's available on commercial stations, they have thousands of non-commercial options. That's where you can find the most unique content for HD.

But I agree that people don't know about it, and that's why the content needs to be made available through any means possible. It's not that they want a certain type of technology. They'd say they want more stations on FM if that could be done.

Unless the FM band is expanded, or stations convert to 100% digital with multiple channels like DTV does (NOT the current HD system!), it can't be done. We're stuck with 80 commercial + 20 non-comm channels, and the band is already over-full. Tain't no room for more stations on the current FM band in most areas.

I really don't think any manufacturer can fit an HD radio into a cell phone, and certainly can't do it for $42. One way to help would be for iBiquity to offer to eliminate any manufacturer royalty, or offer to cut it to $1. But we know that won't happen.

IIRC, analog FM tuner chips already exist and are installed in some cellphones. I think they're the same ones that go into MP3 players. The problem is the antenna. An MP3 player can use the earbud wires as an antenna and have fair-to-decent performance. A cellphone is restricted to something about 2" long at most, and an FM antenna would have to be compatible with the cellular antenna that's already there. A 2" antenna is 1/4 wavelength at about 1400 MHz, and won't work very well at 100 MHz. It would be worse for HD than analog FM due to the already lower signal strength.

 

[TheBigA]

Unless the FM band is expanded, or stations convert to 100% digital with multiple channels like DTV does (NOT the current HD system!), it can't be done.

Yes I know. And the FCC isn't interested in having radio convert to real digital.

IIRC, analog FM tuner chips already exist and are installed in some cellphones.

The HD chip is apparently bigger than the FM chip, it draws more battery power, and it requires payment of a royalty. PLUS the antenna you mentioned. They're all major impediments to this happening.

 

[Carmine5]

Struble steals an OTA TV talking point and uses it to shill for HD Radio.

What do you honestly expect him to say? Come on!

I expect him to come up with his own compelling reasons for putting HD Radio in a cellphone. Oh, right--there aren't any. Gotta steal some reasons from somewhere else.

 

[TheBigA]

I expect him to come up with his own compelling reasons for putting HD Radio in a cellphone. Oh, right--there aren't any. Gotta steal some reasons from somewhere else.

There is no requirement for originality or truth in writing press releases.

 

[jhardis]

The problem is the antenna. An MP3 player can use the earbud wires as an antenna and have fair-to-decent performance. A cellphone is restricted to something about 2" long at most, and an FM antenna would have to be compatible with the cellular antenna that's already there. A 2" antenna is 1/4 wavelength at about 1400 MHz, and won't work very well at 100 MHz. It would be worse for HD than analog FM due to the already lower signal strength.

There has been tremendous advance in antenna design over the past few years, driven in large part by hand-held devices needing to be able to both transmit and receive well at a range of different frequencies: bluetooth, WiFi, 900 MHz cellular, 1.9 GHz cellular, GPS, etc. An example of a modern approach is the fractal antenna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_antenna.

I don't buy the story that you need to use the earbud cord as an antenna for FM. Heck, my wristwatch contains a decent antenna for reception at 60 kHz, and that wavelength is a heck of a lot longer than 100 MHz FM.

- Jonathan

 

[KeithE4]

There has been tremendous advance in antenna design over the past few years, driven in large part by hand-held devices needing to be able to both transmit and receive well at a range of different frequencies: bluetooth, WiFi, 900 MHz cellular, 1.9 GHz cellular, GPS, etc. An example of a modern approach is the fractal antenna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_antenna.

Those services are at high-UHF and microwave frequencies, where small antennas are more efficient. Fractal antennas are all well and good, but I don't believe they will work down to 100 MHz. You can't change the laws of electronics, and antenna still need to be cut for the right frequency in order to be effective. Something shaped like a snowflake may be more efficient than a monopole of the same overall length since there's more metal there, but we're still talking about 2" at 100 MHz.

I don't buy the story that you need to use the earbud cord as an antenna for FM. Heck, my wristwatch contains a decent antenna for reception at 60 kHz, and that wavelength is a heck of a lot longer than 100 MHz FM.

Apples & oranges. Ground-wave propagation (like AM radio only more-so) is much different than line-of-sight UHF propagation. Even with a small magnetic antenna (which I'm guessing is what's in those clocks with WWVB receivers in them), that 60 kHz signal will be received in most of the mainland US, southern Canada, and northern Mexico. WWVB runs about 70 kW total into both of its antennas (27 kW when using only one). Think about how far, say, KFI 640 in LA travels with its 50 kW and then triple it (or more).

 

[Carmine5]

Lack of originality and "bandwagoning" aside, one talking point I'm sure we'll never see from Struble, and one cellphone manufacturers are keenly interested in, is power consumption.

If the Zune HD is any indicator, power consumption goes way up when HD Radio is used. Add wi-fi, Bluetooth, MDTV, 3G/4G and you have a phone that won't last more than a couple of hours on a charge. It's these kind of energy budget issues phone manufacturers look at and, frankly, HD Radio is going to lose each time.

 

[TheBigA]

I just bought an iPhone, and even though I only use it for phone and email (not games, music or web), I'm shocked at how often I have to recharge it. Pretty much every 36 hours. My previous cell phone, which was a Samsung that didn't have email, could hold a charge for at least 3 days. That's a big stinkin' deal! The pressure is on to keep these phones small, while also improving features and battery life, and that's tough to do.

 

[audioguy]

My boss has one of those iPhones, and he told me something similar. I think 36 hours is not too bad, actually. But if that were to drop to 3-5 hours due to the radio, that would not be acceptable to me.

I am using a BlackBerry and its battery life varies significantly depending on whether I am using it just for e-mail or making phone calls. The phone takes a lot of power, particularly if I am in a weak signal area.

 

[TVradioguru]

The problem is as with many supposed consumer 'polling' services, Comscore is another one of those commercial organizations that charge a nominal fee to conduct a poll specifically targeted to skew the results. My guess is the survey sample was only of existing HD radio users and chances are good, many of them either. Another tactic of this type of consumer poll is to ask a vague question like; 'if you could have lots of free music channels also included in your phone, would you?' Of course the average consumer would answer affirmatively.

With less than one half of a percent of consumers adopting or even being aware of HD radio, it would be a struggle to find large enough of an adequate sample to even survey without a lot of advance explanation as to what was being asked, which I doubt was done either.