http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_ipod/family/ipod_nano?mco=Nzk2MDUyMg
Your thoughts? Good for Radio?
Your thoughts? Good for Radio?
-
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
New iPod Nano gets an FM Tuner.
- Thread starter Roger That
- Start date
I wouldn't consider this a shot against AM. The hardware required to implement isn't exactly svelte. It is a Nano, afterall.
oaktree said:
Where does an AM loopstick antenna go in a device that small?
For that matter, how is good FM reception going to happen in a device that small, with no visible rod antenna? A 3-inch trace on the PC board? That'll be next-to-useless even with a sensitive front end.
The laws of RF have not yet been repealed.
KeithE4 said:
And the front end would just pick up all the emissions from the microprocessor in the Nano.
The point was - AM wouldn't go in an iPod. I get that. But half the stations in the country are still FM. So, if your favorite talker, just sayin', is on a big market AM -- you won't buy the new Nano to do that along with your favorite music library.
Point on the FM -- well taken. I am not a fan of "headphone earbud cords as FM antennas." I think they're awful.
That leaves the real point -- Apple caved in. There is no need to have an FM tuner in a iPod Nano, other than to say, "we can." The Apple brand has done just fine without going into the "tuner" business. And one of the reasons for having an iPod, at least to me, is NOT having an FM -- and getting away from terrestrial radio. I'd rather do programming of my music myself.
I think, too, it was an afterthought, again, or Apple would have included HD, like Microsoft's new Zune, due next week.
Point on the FM -- well taken. I am not a fan of "headphone earbud cords as FM antennas." I think they're awful.
That leaves the real point -- Apple caved in. There is no need to have an FM tuner in a iPod Nano, other than to say, "we can." The Apple brand has done just fine without going into the "tuner" business. And one of the reasons for having an iPod, at least to me, is NOT having an FM -- and getting away from terrestrial radio. I'd rather do programming of my music myself.
I think, too, it was an afterthought, again, or Apple would have included HD, like Microsoft's new Zune, due next week.
oaktree said:
The HD chipset would not fit, and it will drain a small battery like that in the nano in a few hours at most. The Zune is bigger, with a bigger battery... but I think they will be sorry.
The real reason to include FM is to allow off air music to be tagged for iTunes purchase, I think. It's a little built in profit center.
DavidEduardo said:
Now that I think about it, it probably will use the earbud leads as an antenna. With the right devices (a properly selected chip inductor and capacitor that separates the received RF from the audio, for example) it works. To a point.
Just like a Walkman. And about as well. If one is close to the transmitter, it will probably work fine. But more than 20 or 30 miles away, the position of the earbud wires won't be ideal for RF pickup (semi-random, depending on the position of the receiver on the person's body).
The processor chip(s) can be shielded to reduce pickup by the antenna, but in the interest of cost reduction, did they do that?
How can it be bad for an iPod to have a capability of tuning in FM radio? If it works well, great. If it's reception sucks in fringe areas, it will be like most small receivers - and users will simply switch to their mp3s. It seems to me that this is good for radio, and good for users. And, as David says, good for Apple.
Radio folks need to recognize that the only upside for Apple will be if having an FM tuner helps sales. If it doesn't, then they'll drop it faster than a PD dropping a format that gets a 1 share. I would suggest that stations should partner with Apple to help promote this device, and do on-air give-aways. The days of fearing Apple as killing radio are over.
Nick said:
Perfect example of the dichotomy between radio people and regular people. Regular people haven't had a portable radio in their arsenal in a LOT of years.
One reason I don't have an iPod is that it DOESN'T have an FM tuner. Another reason is that it's too closely tied to iTunes. I have a Sandisk Sansa that works very well, has an FM tuner, can record directly from FM or its built-in mic, and doesn't force me into iTunes.
gr8oldies said:
There's some GREAT radio out there. Most of it's just not corporate.
SirRoxalot said:
Going off on a sidebar, I think that iTunes is a fantastic way of distributing music. It allows the purchase, easily, of single songs and in that way does a little something to thwart P2P and other forms of piracy. It has also shown some of the record companies how consumers want to buy music, althouth there are some hold outs by the arcane labels and their out-of-touch management.
The convenience of being able to instantly buy a huge percentage of the songs out there, to now be able to share them in a household and distribute them to different wireless and net devices in a home, and to have some pretty decent software to manage them in is superior to any other music storage and playback system I know.
If there is going to be some kind of salvation for the record industry and the artists they represent, a single source model is required. there can be a number of the single source (meaning all songs on all labels at the source of your choice) retailers, with ones like Amazon also being useful (but not with the nifty software) but having to go to different places for different labels, or keeping songs from any of the retailers is just absurd.
Apple did it right. They deserve recognition.
A
adma
Guest
Roger That said:
Or if they do, it might have been some cheapo wind-up-able model in case of emergency (esp. in the aftermath of something like the Great Northeast Blackout of 2003)
DavidEduardo said:
Yeah, but Apple is "the Man"...that pretty much rules it out for Rox.
I'm interested to see how Spotify materializes in the States. As the (only?) distribution method for music that the major labels haven't just signed a deal with, but put their OWN money into, I'm curious as to what they think is the "winning combo" with this service.
Roger That said:Yeah, but Apple is "the Man"...that pretty much rules it out for Rox.
I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one who finds iTunes too proprietary and restrictive. Type "iTunes sucks" into a Google search, and you'll get nearly 3-MILLION entries to choose from.
Here's a fairly cogent discussion of the issue:
Converting iTunes to MP3.
- Status