Just get Pandora and you can tune to hundreds of stations even foreign.
Internet streaming is the future. Not some legacy way of distributing signal with content over the air. That includes TV broadcast.
I agree streaming is the future. The issue is that Pandora is only available in one country. There's other apps like Fstream which are great for general streaming radio, but there is still a whole bunch of legacy licensing issues which get in the way of Pandora and Spotify really looking like they're making the future. The interests of many still want to segment the world up to suit their interests.
This is off-post. Thank you Kasper for fixing the iPhone mobile site. It's much improved. However, when clicking "comments" the page broke, so it's affecting every article. Will you please fix it? Thanks again!
Why would Apple include HD Radio, which has expensive royalty fees and basically doesn't even work. Is Jobs going to become part of the HD Radio scam, and was he given a piece of iBiquity exquity for potentially including HD Radio. The battery drain of HD Radio will eat Apple products alive. Analog FM, as included in the Nano, also has the tagging feature. There would be no advantages of including HD Radio.
Why would Apple include HD Radio, which has expensive royalty fees and basically doesn't even work...
1. Maybe you should define what you mean by "basically doesn't even work", otherwise you may be accused of being basically wrong.
2. There are no "expensive royalty fees" for receivers of HD broadcasts.
If you don't like HD radio for some reasoned reason, it would make sense to correctly explain that, but it won't serve your purpose to write stuff like the above which is either simply mistaken or misleading. Either way, it's a miss.
The addition of an HD Radio receiver to future handheld devices from Apple could allow users the ability to scan and search through live radio content without having to channel flip....
I just think it's a shame that iBiquity is allowed to use the "HD" moniker, when most of the stations they carry are AM junk. An actual FM radio will get you more stations in more areas, and more of those stations will be of higher quality than iBiquity's "HD Radio." "HD Radio" (iBiquity's), doesn't even work outside of the USA.
Also, the number of folks that think that "HD Radio" means the radio is in some kind of high definition quality is ridiculous. It's blatantly misleading advertising IMO.
A new patent application from Apple this week centers around HD Radio, a trademarked wireless radio format owned by iBiquity, which allows both AM and FM radio stations to simulcast digital and analog audio within the same channel. The application suggests that future handsets from Apple, such as the iPod or iPhone, could embrace HD Radio technology to allow users greater flexibility when listening to broadcast media.
Does anyone know how this works? Attaching a digital stream to an FM carrier is pretty straightforwards, but I'd be interested to understand how they manage that with AM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
It will be cool if Apple does it, but when MS did it with the Zune HD, the response here was largely negative, with a lot of people even calling it pointless.
Ah, the ongoing hypocrisy of Apple Insider.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maciekskontakt
Just get Pandora and you can tune to hundreds of stations even foreign.
Internet streaming is the future. Not some legacy way of distributing signal with content over the air. That includes TV broadcast.
I agree that internet streaming is the future, but whilst we wait for the future to arrive, I think a radio tuner in the iPhone would be nice. There are a lot of locations around where I live that we can't get data over the GSM network, but the car radio picks up FM stations fine.
Over the past year AM HD stations have begun turning OFF the signal, first at night, then during the daytime. The AM HD system creates terrible interference on the AM broadcast band.
The FM HD system has been marginally more successful. However, listeners (those few who have actually purchased the expensive equipment needed) are finding nothing but duplicates of the same FM programming on the HD-1 channels, and mediocre jukeboxes on the HD-2 and HD-3 channels. The sole exception to this are the NPR stations that have managed to put some excellent alternative programming on their -2 and -3 streams.
The main problem for HDRadio so far is that it is NOT "HD", meaning "high definition" in any sense. In fact, the argument is being made that a clean analog signal usually sounds better than any HD signal. The company that controls HD Radio, Ibiquity, is charging stations very high license fees to use the equipment. One reason that you don't see many HD radios in the stores is that Ibiquity license fees make receivers expensive as well. In fact, before the recent portable released by Best Buy, the low price point for HD radio was $100.
There are many other objections to the system, all of which can be researched by a quick Google search of HD RADIO PROBLEMS. Before Apple spends a single centavo on any of this technology, or before any Apple customer does the same, they need to take a long, hard, look at Ibiquity's track record and decide if this product is worth the trouble...and if Ibiquity is a company that Apple should take on as a partner.
The chief engineers, sales managers, and general managers of hundreds of radio stations across the U.S. would say ... no ... to both of those questions.
The Chief Engineer of our local NPR affiliate told me "We're going to have digital radio...but it won't be THIS digital radio."
Well, yes, but with carriers capping bandwidth, Pandora could be an expensive proposition if you aren't on WiFi. Admittedly, you have access to more options with Pandora, but you won't burn through your 3G data cap with HD radio. And, as for "over the air", well, think about that. Everything seems to be moving to "over the air". And, especially since you've expressed a preference for not having to pay for content, one would think you would be a fan of "over the air".
(Obviously, I'm mixing meanings of "over the air" above. It's intentional.)
HD Radio is not broadcast over 3G. Neither Apple or ATT would have any control over the usage, it's just like having a portable radio. You pay for the radio, not the service. I think too many people are getting this confused with satellite radio which is a pay service.
HD Radio is not broadcast over 3G. Neither Apple or ATT would have any control over the usage, it's just like having a portable radio. You pay for the radio, not the service. I think too many people are getting this confused with satellite radio which is a pay service.
What I don't want to see is an actual HD receiver built into any Apple product. IF we're just talking about audio streams, fine. But in addition to the objections I posted in my previous message, HD tends to eat up a LOT of power from its device, meaning even more issues with battery life than we now have.
Apple needs to stay far, far, away from any kind of Ibiquity-licensed HD radio recevier.
At one time, the "HD" was said to have stood for "hybrid digital" meaning that it could coexist with an analog carrier on the same frequency. It has never, ever, stood for the words "High Definition", though some of the proponents have made that claim.
Go to their site: www.hdradio.com , nowhere will you find the words "High Definition".
1. Maybe you should define what you mean by "basically doesn't even work", otherwise you may be accused of being basically wrong.
2. There are no "expensive royalty fees" for receivers of HD broadcasts.
If you don't like HD radio for some reasoned reason, it would make sense to correctly explain that, but it won't serve your purpose to write stuff like the above which is either simply mistaken or misleading. Either way, it's a miss.
1. If you have ever used a HD radio receiver, you will understand that outside antennas are needed for proper reception of all stations. The receivers themselves eat up a LOT of power. The HD signals themselves are weak compared to the analog signals. Have you auditioned the only inexpensive HD radio? It's marketed under the Insignia brand by Best Buy. It is $50. That's cheap for a HD radio. When you use this radio, you will find that the HD signals drop out repeatedly as you move around a room, and as you move from one place to another outside.
I would say that the above puts it in the category of being inferior to the existing analog FM transmission system. If someone wants to say that qualifies as "doesn't even work" then the people who have returned HD receivers would most certainly agree.
2. If there are no expensive royalty fees, then why do all radios, except for two, cost more than $100? Please allow me to quote from the Wiki on HD Radio:
Quote:
High costs
The costs of installing the system, including fees, vary from station to station, according to the station's size and existing infrastructure. Typical costs are at least several tens of thousands of dollars at the outset (including transmitter, diplexer or antenna/feedline, and labor), plus per-channel annual fees to be paid to iBiquity. Large companies in larger media markets (such as Clear Channel or Citadel Broadcasting) can afford to implement the technology for their stations. However, community radio stations, both commercial and noncommercial, cannot.
Current HD Radio receivers cost anywhere from around $50 to several hundred dollars (US), compared to regular FM radios which can even be found at dollar stores. By contrast, all of the R&D work for DAB (and much of DAB+) had already been done using an existing codec, and requires no licensing fees. FMeXtra is even less expensive, and requires no installation labor or cost for the broadcaster, other than plugging it into the transmitter. It also requires no FCC approval, coming under a station's subsidiary communications authority. FMeXtra requires no license fees, and does not interfere with adjacent channels. Other digital broadcast technologies have not been approved for use in the United States.
Once again....this is NOT a technology that suits Apple, or its customers.
The Wiki is actually a good, unbiased, source of information, both positive and negative. While I myself am obviously an opponent of the system, the Wiki will give you a balanced picture of the plusses and minuses. It can be found at:
1. Maybe you should define what you mean by "basically doesn't even work", otherwise you may be accused of being basically wrong.
2. There are no "expensive royalty fees" for receivers of HD broadcasts.
If you don't like HD radio for some reasoned reason, it would make sense to correctly explain that, but it won't serve your purpose to write stuff like the above which is either simply mistaken or misleading. Either way, it's a miss.
There are royalty fees paid - by the company who adds the receiver (in this case Apple). I'd prefer they didn't add HD radio, and used the royalty fee for something more useful - even regular FM.
In Europe they have a different system of digital radio (incompatible with Ibiquity's HD Radio), and I've heard it's much better. Anyone know for sure?
There are royalty fees paid - by the company who adds the receiver (in this case Apple). I'd prefer they didn't add HD radio, and used the royalty fee for something more useful - even regular FM.
In Europe they have a different system of digital radio (incompatible with Ibiquity's HD Radio), and I've heard it's much better. Anyone know for sure?
I've used DAB in the UK. While it does have a nice sound, it has not been the big time product in sales that proponents predicted. However, it does have a large advantage over HD-Radio in that it has its own separate frequency band. Here in the U.S. the FCC allowed iBiquity to slap this new carrier on top of existing signals, causing interference. Since in the UK it has its own set of new frequencies, normal analog broadcasts are not distorted as they are here in the U.S.
1. If you have ever used a HD radio receiver, you will understand that outside antennas are needed for proper reception of all stations. The receivers themselves eat up a LOT of power. The HD signals themselves are weak compared to the analog signals. Have you auditioned the only inexpensive HD radio? It's marketed under the Insignia brand by Best Buy. It is $50. That's cheap for a HD radio. When you use this radio, you will find that the HD signals drop out repeatedly as you move around a room, and as you move from one place to another outside.
I would say that the above puts it in the category of being inferior to the existing analog FM transmission system. If someone wants to say that qualifies as "doesn't even work" then the people who have returned HD receivers would most certainly agree.
This would seem to be a valid criticism of the technology, much better than "basically doesn't work" when the experience of most people with any exposure would be that it "basically works".
Quote:
2. If there are no expensive royalty fees, then why do all radios, except for two, cost more than $100?
By receivers, I actually meant the person, not the device.
However, it does seem a bit unlikely that Apple would incorporate HD radio into an iPhone, mainly because it doesn't seem to be widely used outside the US, unless the brief research I did on that is mistaken.
It will be cool if Apple does it, but when MS did it with the Zune HD, the response here was largely negative, with a lot of people even calling it pointless.
probably failed because you couldn't tag the songs and then immediately buy them through itunes....
Comments
Just get Pandora and you can tune to hundreds of stations even foreign.
Internet streaming is the future. Not some legacy way of distributing signal with content over the air. That includes TV broadcast.
I agree streaming is the future. The issue is that Pandora is only available in one country. There's other apps like Fstream which are great for general streaming radio, but there is still a whole bunch of legacy licensing issues which get in the way of Pandora and Spotify really looking like they're making the future. The interests of many still want to segment the world up to suit their interests.
http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com
Why would Apple include HD Radio, which has expensive royalty fees and basically doesn't even work...
1. Maybe you should define what you mean by "basically doesn't even work", otherwise you may be accused of being basically wrong.
2. There are no "expensive royalty fees" for receivers of HD broadcasts.
If you don't like HD radio for some reasoned reason, it would make sense to correctly explain that, but it won't serve your purpose to write stuff like the above which is either simply mistaken or misleading. Either way, it's a miss.
The addition of an HD Radio receiver to future handheld devices from Apple could allow users the ability to scan and search through live radio content without having to channel flip....
I just think it's a shame that iBiquity is allowed to use the "HD" moniker, when most of the stations they carry are AM junk. An actual FM radio will get you more stations in more areas, and more of those stations will be of higher quality than iBiquity's "HD Radio." "HD Radio" (iBiquity's), doesn't even work outside of the USA.
Also, the number of folks that think that "HD Radio" means the radio is in some kind of high definition quality is ridiculous. It's blatantly misleading advertising IMO.
A new patent application from Apple this week centers around HD Radio, a trademarked wireless radio format owned by iBiquity, which allows both AM and FM radio stations to simulcast digital and analog audio within the same channel. The application suggests that future handsets from Apple, such as the iPod or iPhone, could embrace HD Radio technology to allow users greater flexibility when listening to broadcast media.
Does anyone know how this works? Attaching a digital stream to an FM carrier is pretty straightforwards, but I'd be interested to understand how they manage that with AM.
It will be cool if Apple does it, but when MS did it with the Zune HD, the response here was largely negative, with a lot of people even calling it pointless.
Ah, the ongoing hypocrisy of Apple Insider.
Just get Pandora and you can tune to hundreds of stations even foreign.
Internet streaming is the future. Not some legacy way of distributing signal with content over the air. That includes TV broadcast.
I agree that internet streaming is the future, but whilst we wait for the future to arrive, I think a radio tuner in the iPhone would be nice. There are a lot of locations around where I live that we can't get data over the GSM network, but the car radio picks up FM stations fine.
HD radio does not stand for high definition. this isn't like hd tv at all.
You might want to check your facts on that!
Over the past year AM HD stations have begun turning OFF the signal, first at night, then during the daytime. The AM HD system creates terrible interference on the AM broadcast band.
The FM HD system has been marginally more successful. However, listeners (those few who have actually purchased the expensive equipment needed) are finding nothing but duplicates of the same FM programming on the HD-1 channels, and mediocre jukeboxes on the HD-2 and HD-3 channels. The sole exception to this are the NPR stations that have managed to put some excellent alternative programming on their -2 and -3 streams.
The main problem for HDRadio so far is that it is NOT "HD", meaning "high definition" in any sense. In fact, the argument is being made that a clean analog signal usually sounds better than any HD signal. The company that controls HD Radio, Ibiquity, is charging stations very high license fees to use the equipment. One reason that you don't see many HD radios in the stores is that Ibiquity license fees make receivers expensive as well. In fact, before the recent portable released by Best Buy, the low price point for HD radio was $100.
There are many other objections to the system, all of which can be researched by a quick Google search of HD RADIO PROBLEMS. Before Apple spends a single centavo on any of this technology, or before any Apple customer does the same, they need to take a long, hard, look at Ibiquity's track record and decide if this product is worth the trouble...and if Ibiquity is a company that Apple should take on as a partner.
The chief engineers, sales managers, and general managers of hundreds of radio stations across the U.S. would say ... no ... to both of those questions.
The Chief Engineer of our local NPR affiliate told me "We're going to have digital radio...but it won't be THIS digital radio."
Well, yes, but with carriers capping bandwidth, Pandora could be an expensive proposition if you aren't on WiFi. Admittedly, you have access to more options with Pandora, but you won't burn through your 3G data cap with HD radio. And, as for "over the air", well, think about that. Everything seems to be moving to "over the air". And, especially since you've expressed a preference for not having to pay for content, one would think you would be a fan of "over the air".
(Obviously, I'm mixing meanings of "over the air" above. It's intentional.)
HD Radio is not broadcast over 3G. Neither Apple or ATT would have any control over the usage, it's just like having a portable radio. You pay for the radio, not the service. I think too many people are getting this confused with satellite radio which is a pay service.
HD Radio is not broadcast over 3G. Neither Apple or ATT would have any control over the usage, it's just like having a portable radio. You pay for the radio, not the service. I think too many people are getting this confused with satellite radio which is a pay service.
What I don't want to see is an actual HD receiver built into any Apple product. IF we're just talking about audio streams, fine. But in addition to the objections I posted in my previous message, HD tends to eat up a LOT of power from its device, meaning even more issues with battery life than we now have.
Apple needs to stay far, far, away from any kind of Ibiquity-licensed HD radio recevier.
You might want to check your facts on that!
At one time, the "HD" was said to have stood for "hybrid digital" meaning that it could coexist with an analog carrier on the same frequency. It has never, ever, stood for the words "High Definition", though some of the proponents have made that claim.
Go to their site: www.hdradio.com , nowhere will you find the words "High Definition".
Why use a radio when you can stream it?
Remember that (new) 200MB limit?
HD Radio is not broadcast over 3G. ...
No, no one said it was.
1. Maybe you should define what you mean by "basically doesn't even work", otherwise you may be accused of being basically wrong.
2. There are no "expensive royalty fees" for receivers of HD broadcasts.
If you don't like HD radio for some reasoned reason, it would make sense to correctly explain that, but it won't serve your purpose to write stuff like the above which is either simply mistaken or misleading. Either way, it's a miss.
1. If you have ever used a HD radio receiver, you will understand that outside antennas are needed for proper reception of all stations. The receivers themselves eat up a LOT of power. The HD signals themselves are weak compared to the analog signals. Have you auditioned the only inexpensive HD radio? It's marketed under the Insignia brand by Best Buy. It is $50. That's cheap for a HD radio. When you use this radio, you will find that the HD signals drop out repeatedly as you move around a room, and as you move from one place to another outside.
I would say that the above puts it in the category of being inferior to the existing analog FM transmission system. If someone wants to say that qualifies as "doesn't even work" then the people who have returned HD receivers would most certainly agree.
2. If there are no expensive royalty fees, then why do all radios, except for two, cost more than $100? Please allow me to quote from the Wiki on HD Radio:
High costs
The costs of installing the system, including fees, vary from station to station, according to the station's size and existing infrastructure. Typical costs are at least several tens of thousands of dollars at the outset (including transmitter, diplexer or antenna/feedline, and labor), plus per-channel annual fees to be paid to iBiquity. Large companies in larger media markets (such as Clear Channel or Citadel Broadcasting) can afford to implement the technology for their stations. However, community radio stations, both commercial and noncommercial, cannot.
Current HD Radio receivers cost anywhere from around $50 to several hundred dollars (US), compared to regular FM radios which can even be found at dollar stores. By contrast, all of the R&D work for DAB (and much of DAB+) had already been done using an existing codec, and requires no licensing fees. FMeXtra is even less expensive, and requires no installation labor or cost for the broadcaster, other than plugging it into the transmitter. It also requires no FCC approval, coming under a station's subsidiary communications authority. FMeXtra requires no license fees, and does not interfere with adjacent channels. Other digital broadcast technologies have not been approved for use in the United States.
Once again....this is NOT a technology that suits Apple, or its customers.
The Wiki is actually a good, unbiased, source of information, both positive and negative. While I myself am obviously an opponent of the system, the Wiki will give you a balanced picture of the plusses and minuses. It can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Radio
Just get Pandora and you can tune to hundreds of stations even foreign.
Internet streaming is the future. Not some legacy way of distributing signal with content over the air. That includes TV broadcast.
Pandora is only available in the US, which is a real pity!
1. Maybe you should define what you mean by "basically doesn't even work", otherwise you may be accused of being basically wrong.
2. There are no "expensive royalty fees" for receivers of HD broadcasts.
If you don't like HD radio for some reasoned reason, it would make sense to correctly explain that, but it won't serve your purpose to write stuff like the above which is either simply mistaken or misleading. Either way, it's a miss.
There are royalty fees paid - by the company who adds the receiver (in this case Apple). I'd prefer they didn't add HD radio, and used the royalty fee for something more useful - even regular FM.
In Europe they have a different system of digital radio (incompatible with Ibiquity's HD Radio), and I've heard it's much better. Anyone know for sure?
There are royalty fees paid - by the company who adds the receiver (in this case Apple). I'd prefer they didn't add HD radio, and used the royalty fee for something more useful - even regular FM.
In Europe they have a different system of digital radio (incompatible with Ibiquity's HD Radio), and I've heard it's much better. Anyone know for sure?
I've used DAB in the UK. While it does have a nice sound, it has not been the big time product in sales that proponents predicted. However, it does have a large advantage over HD-Radio in that it has its own separate frequency band. Here in the U.S. the FCC allowed iBiquity to slap this new carrier on top of existing signals, causing interference. Since in the UK it has its own set of new frequencies, normal analog broadcasts are not distorted as they are here in the U.S.
1. If you have ever used a HD radio receiver, you will understand that outside antennas are needed for proper reception of all stations. The receivers themselves eat up a LOT of power. The HD signals themselves are weak compared to the analog signals. Have you auditioned the only inexpensive HD radio? It's marketed under the Insignia brand by Best Buy. It is $50. That's cheap for a HD radio. When you use this radio, you will find that the HD signals drop out repeatedly as you move around a room, and as you move from one place to another outside.
I would say that the above puts it in the category of being inferior to the existing analog FM transmission system. If someone wants to say that qualifies as "doesn't even work" then the people who have returned HD receivers would most certainly agree.
This would seem to be a valid criticism of the technology, much better than "basically doesn't work" when the experience of most people with any exposure would be that it "basically works".
2. If there are no expensive royalty fees, then why do all radios, except for two, cost more than $100?
By receivers, I actually meant the person, not the device.
However, it does seem a bit unlikely that Apple would incorporate HD radio into an iPhone, mainly because it doesn't seem to be widely used outside the US, unless the brief research I did on that is mistaken.
It will be cool if Apple does it, but when MS did it with the Zune HD, the response here was largely negative, with a lot of people even calling it pointless.
probably failed because you couldn't tag the songs and then immediately buy them through itunes....