NPR adds live news coverage to iPhone, Apple adding a FM radio

NPR and CNN fighting to be the best on the iPhone for live news, and
meanwhile Apple is readying an app that will turn on a FM radio hidden
in one of the chips so you can have live FM radio too. It just gets
better and better everyday for the Apple iPhone user.

Hey sour grapes, don't feel too bad you didn't get an iPhone. You can
always post to usenet or a blog how crap phonet XXX is a better choice
for a 'real user'. Maybe you can prove you are a real looser by saying
all this neat Apple news is fake and SPAM. HA HA

http://www.macworld.com/article/1432...hone_live.html

Staying up-to-date and in-the-know with an iPhone or iPod touch is
getting real, people. CNN's iPhone app raised the bar at the end of
September, and now National Public Radio has updated its app with a
number of new features, not the least of which is live coverage.

NPR News 1.2 (iTunes link) for iPhone and iPod touch boasts "32
improvements," including the ability to tune in live for breaking news
and other special coverage. If live coverage is happening when you
start the app, you'll be prompted to tune in. You will also see "On
Air" badges next to some shows on the Programs tab.

Other ares of NPR News have received some TLC, including an improved
story layout, captions when expanding images, and better audio
streaming quality in low-bandwidth situations. Sharing is also no
longer just for individual news stories, as users can now share
program episodes via e-mail, Twitter, and Facebook.

NPR says it is listening intently to user feedback for this app. It
also says version 1.3 is already in the works, and that Push
Notifications for live coverage are on the way.

At 14 Oct 2009 05:10:37 -0700 Apple users seem to always get all the neat
stuff - a nice iPhone perk wrote:

> meanwhile Apple is readying an app that will turn on a FM radio hidden
> in one of the chips so you can have live FM radio too. It just gets
> better and better everyday for the Apple iPhone user...


LOL! Only you'd be thankful rather than annoyed that a device manufacturer
"hid" product features for x# of months or years before finally enabling or
supporting them.

Now cue Oxford to tell us how wonderful having an FM radio on your iPod is
after telling us for years it's a dead technology because iPods didn't
include them!

Todd Allcock wrote:

> Now cue Oxford to tell us how wonderful having an FM radio on your iPod is
> after telling us for years it's a dead technology because iPods didn't
> include them!


ROFLMAO

Todd Allcock wrote:

> LOL! Only you'd be thankful rather than annoyed that a device manufacturer
> "hid" product features for x# of months or years before finally enabling or
> supporting them.

The news story I read was that it was a difficult application to write
because they are integrating Mobile iTunes Store purchases into the
functionality of the program (tagging songs you hear on the radio for
purchase).

> Now cue Oxford to tell us how wonderful having an FM radio on your iPod is
> after telling us for years it's a dead technology because iPods didn't
> include them!

It may be that one reason Apple decided to add an FM radio because most
other digital music players already have one. There's a small, but
non-trivial, number of consumers that won't buy a music player that
lacks a radio and in the past Apple had no product to sell to them so
they were buying other music players. There were add-on radios for the
iPod and iPhone but these were rather kludgey.

Apple users seem to always get all the neat stuff - a nice iPhone perk
<vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote:

> NPR and CNN fighting to be the best on the iPhone for live news, and
> meanwhile Apple is readying an app that will turn on a FM radio hidden
> in one of the chips so you can have live FM radio too.

From where have you got that the iPhone has a hidden chip for FM radio
broadcasts ?

And which iPhone are you talking about? Generation 1, 2 or 3 ?
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > LOL! Only you'd be thankful rather than annoyed that a device manufacturer
> > "hid" product features for x# of months or years before finally enabling or
> > supporting them.
>
> The news story I read was that it was a difficult application to write
> because they are integrating Mobile iTunes Store purchases into the
> functionality of the program (tagging songs you hear on the radio for
> purchase).
>
> > Now cue Oxford to tell us how wonderful having an FM radio on your iPod is
> > after telling us for years it's a dead technology because iPods didn't
> > include them!
>
> It may be that one reason Apple decided to add an FM radio because most
> other digital music players already have one. There's a small, but
> non-trivial, number of consumers that won't buy a music player that
> lacks a radio and in the past Apple had no product to sell to them so
> they were buying other music players. There were add-on radios for the
> iPod and iPhone but these were rather kludgey.

And some of us won't update our iPhone 3G before the new model contains
an FM as well as a DAB+ radio receiver.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe

""Per Rønne"" <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
news:1j7l3sw.1m5an4n17enydhN%per@RQNNE.invalid...
> Apple users seem to always get all the neat stuff - a nice iPhone perk
> <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> NPR and CNN fighting to be the best on the iPhone for live news, and
>> meanwhile Apple is readying an app that will turn on a FM radio hidden
>> in one of the chips so you can have live FM radio too.
>
> From where have you got that the iPhone has a hidden chip for FM radio
> broadcasts ?
>
> And which iPhone are you talking about? Generation 1, 2 or 3 ?

The ability of the iPhone and iPod touch to receive FM signals has been used
solely in the implementation of the Nike+ ecosystem to this point.

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
news:1fkBm.1029$9F1.218@newsfe11.iad...
> At 14 Oct 2009 05:10:37 -0700 Apple users seem to always get all the neat
> stuff - a nice iPhone perk wrote:
>
>> meanwhile Apple is readying an app that will turn on a FM radio hidden
>> in one of the chips so you can have live FM radio too. It just gets
>> better and better everyday for the Apple iPhone user...
>
>
> LOL! Only you'd be thankful rather than annoyed that a device
> manufacturer
> "hid" product features for x# of months or years before finally enabling
> or
> supporting them.
>
> Now cue Oxford to tell us how wonderful having an FM radio on your iPod is
> after telling us for years it's a dead technology because iPods didn't
> include them!
>
>
The ability of the iPhone and iPod touch to receive FM signals has been used
solely in the implementation of the Nike+ ecosystem to this point.

In article <hb4nog$ffh$1@news.eternal-september.org>, trogdor
<notme@notcomcast.net> wrote:

> The ability of the iPhone and iPod touch to receive FM signals has been used
> solely in the implementation of the Nike+ ecosystem to this point.

wrong. nike+ uses bluetooth.

In article <hb4nqp$fvm$1@news.eternal-september.org>, trogdor
<notme@notcomcast.net> wrote:

> The ability of the iPhone and iPod touch to receive FM signals has been used
> solely in the implementation of the Nike+ ecosystem to this point.

wrong, it's bluetooth.

On Oct 14, 8:10*am, Apple users seem to always get all the neat stuff
- a nice iPhone perk <vic.hea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> NPR and CNN fighting to be the best *on the iPhone for live news, and
> meanwhile Apple is readying an app that will turn on a FM radio hidden
> in one of the chips so you can have live FM radio *too. It just gets
> better and better everyday for the Apple iPhone user.
>
> Hey sour grapes, don't feel too bad you didn't get an iPhone. You can
> always post to usenet or a blog how crap phonet XXX is a better choice
> for a 'real user'. Maybe you can prove you are a real looser by saying
> all this neat Apple news is fake and SPAM. HA HA
>
> http://www.macworld.com/article/1432...hone_live.html
>
> Staying up-to-date and in-the-know with an iPhone or iPod touch is
> getting real, people. CNN's iPhone app raised the bar at the end of
> September, and now National Public Radio has updated its app with a
> number of new features, not the least of which is live coverage.
>
> NPR News 1.2 (iTunes link) for iPhone and iPod touch boasts "32
> improvements," including the ability to tune in live for breaking news
> and other special coverage. If live coverage is happening when you
> start the app, you'll be prompted to tune in. You will also see "On
> Air" badges next to some shows on the Programs tab.
>
> Other ares of NPR News have received some TLC, including an improved
> story layout, captions when expanding images, and better audio
> streaming quality in low-bandwidth situations. Sharing is also no
> longer just for individual news stories, as users can now share
> program episodes via e-mail, Twitter, and Facebook.
>
> NPR says it is listening intently to user feedback for this app. It
> also says version 1.3 is already in the works, and that Push
> Notifications for live coverage are on the way.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1432...hone_live.html

My favorite new free app is the one where you can turn on/off your
alarm system from any where in the world with hardware from Best Buys.
I like Viper's StartSmart which starts your car to warm it up from
any distance. That feature is incredibly useful for those who do not
like sitting in a freezing car waiting for the windows to defrost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhRuO...=youtube_gdata

I am beginning to forget all those years with crap smart phones that
were really dumb compared to the revolutionary iPhone and its 90,000+
apps. How many apps can you download and review in a day? Not a
problem with most phones but its impossible to see and hear them all
on the iPhone.

Per Rønne wrote:

> And some of us won't update our iPhone 3G before the new model contains
> an FM as well as a DAB+ radio receiver.

You'll be waiting quite a while for that.

On 2009-10-14, Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
> Apple users seem to always get all the neat stuff - a nice iPhone perk
><vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> NPR and CNN fighting to be the best on the iPhone for live news, and
>> meanwhile Apple is readying an app that will turn on a FM radio hidden
>> in one of the chips so you can have live FM radio too.
>
> From where have you got that the iPhone has a hidden chip for FM radio
> broadcasts ?

It is on the Broadcom WiFi+Bluetooth chip:

http://tinyurl.com/yfrvxka

> And which iPhone are you talking about? Generation 1, 2 or 3 ?

That chip is in the 3GS, I don't know about the earlier phones.

Dennis Ferguson

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Per Rønne wrote:
>
> > And some of us won't update our iPhone 3G before the new model contains
> > an FM as well as a DAB+ radio receiver.
>
> You'll be waiting quite a while for that.

Perhaps - but then I see no problems for me with keeping with my iPhone
3G with 16 GB of memory.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:141020091107334600%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <hb4nqp$fvm$1@news.eternal-september.org>, trogdor
> <notme@notcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The ability of the iPhone and iPod touch to receive FM signals has been
>> used
>> solely in the implementation of the Nike+ ecosystem to this point.
>
> wrong, it's bluetooth.

It seems like it would be kinda hard to distinguish between FM and
bluetooth.
Maybe the strength of the tx rx, etc. Bluetooth is low strength.
Perhaps bluetooth doesn't use frequency modulation, but basically they are
the same things. Radio waves.

On 2009-10-14, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <hb4nog$ffh$1@news.eternal-september.org>, trogdor
><notme@notcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The ability of the iPhone and iPod touch to receive FM signals has been used
>> solely in the implementation of the Nike+ ecosystem to this point.
>
> wrong. nike+ uses bluetooth.

No it doesn't.

<vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e9bd717b-053f-4caf-a9c1-d5c0ce427147@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

> My favorite new free app is the one where you can turn on/off your
> alarm system from any where in the world with hardware from Best Buys.
> I like Viper's StartSmart which starts your car to warm it up from
> any distance. That feature is incredibly useful for those who do not
> like sitting in a freezing car waiting for the windows to defrost.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhRuO...=youtube_gdata

"Free" app? Yeah, the app is free. I get a free sprig of parsley on my
plate with a $100 steak at Morton's, too!

$300 for the celular interface (on top of the price of the alarm/remote
starter) and $30/year for the service- but the app is free!

Blind fanaticism aside for a moment, don't even YOU think this thing is a
little Rube Golbergy? Sitting in your kitchen, using your phone to contact
Viper's server via the internet, who then sends a command to the cellular
receiver in the alarm to tell the car in your driveway to start? Instead of
hitting the "start" button on the alarm's included ("free!") RF remote?

I'll conceed the RF remotes have a limited range- a few hundred yards, and
you could use this app from anywhere in the world where you have an internet
connection, but how often do you intend to remotely start your car when
you're more than a quarter-mile away from it?

Now, could this be a worthwhile system? Sure- if it reported back the
status of the alarm system to your iPhone; e.g. you're in the mall and get a
notification on your phone that your car alarm just went off- this would be
like a $3/month monitored alarm system for your car. But from the website,
I see no indication at all that the system can report back any info at all-
the cellular module seems to simply be wired into the same relays the remote
module is. What a stupid lost opportunity to make an impressive product
rather than a gimmicky one.


> I am beginning to forget all those years with crap smart phones that
> were really dumb compared to the revolutionary iPhone and its 90,000+
> apps. How many apps can you download and review in a day? Not a
> problem with most phones but its impossible to see and hear them all
> on the iPhone.

Careful Vic, equating the quality of a product solely with the number of
available apps for it won't win you any friends in the Mac world...

Todd Allcock wrote:

> Blind fanaticism aside for a moment, don't even YOU think this thing is
> a little Rube Golbergy? Sitting in your kitchen, using your phone to
> contact Viper's server via the internet, who then sends a command to the
> cellular receiver in the alarm to tell the car in your driveway to
> start? Instead of hitting the "start" button on the alarm's included
> ("free!") RF remote?

I remember a chapter in one of my EE textbooks that the author had
included called "The Engineer as a Dope Pusher." This would qualify,
even more so because you end up with a recurring expense besides the
initial extra cost for something that has been done for decades in a
more straightforward manner. How unsurprising is it that someone
believes that prior to this application, the related hardware, and the
yearly subscription, that the only alternative was to sit in a freezing
car waiting for the windows to defrost?!

> I'll conceed the RF remotes have a limited range- a few hundred yards,
> and you could use this app from anywhere in the world where you have an
> internet connection, but how often do you intend to remotely start your
> car when you're more than a quarter-mile away from it?

It's a bad idea even from inside your house, you really wouldn't want to
do it from your hotel or apartment with the car inside a parking garage,
or even outside.

> Now, could this be a worthwhile system? Sure- if it reported back the
> status of the alarm system to your iPhone; e.g. you're in the mall and
> get a notification on your phone that your car alarm just went off- this
> would be like a $3/month monitored alarm system for your car.

You can already buy car alarms that will page you, though the range is
limited to about a mile.

> Careful Vic, equating the quality of a product solely with the number of
> available apps for it won't win you any friends in the Mac world...

LOL.

How about a LoJack substitute that costs you less than $3 a month
(technically less than $1 a month after the first year):
"http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Smart-Car-Surveillance-System-Using-a-Mobile-Phone"

At 15 Oct 2009 09:26:19 -0700 Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <onGBm.258799$cf6.165045@newsfe16.iad>,
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > "Free" app? Yeah, the app is free. I get a free sprig of parsley on
my
> > plate with a $100 steak at Morton's, too!
>
> Morton's has a $100 steak? Most I ever paid for a meal there was $50,
and
> that included wine and a dessert.

I only go when they run their $99 "Dinner for Two" special. Maybe no one
actually pays full price at Morton's!

> I agree with you about the app and associated costs.


I just hate so see such a great opportunity wasted. Why go to the trouble
of designing a cellular interface for a car security/remote start system,
just to use it as a replacement remote? It could've had the abilty to
report back the car's status (alarm tripped, engine ruining/not running,
etc.) and even GPS location- imagine the app throwing your car's location
up in Google Maps if queried?


Instead, they make a flashy half-assed implementation of a potentially good
idea, that will end up only impressing fanbois like Vic who can whip out
his iPhone or iPod to start his car. Anyone stupid enough, er,um,
"willing" to spend $300-500 plus $30/year on this device as currently
implemented, would certainly pay a couple hundred more upfront, and a
little more a year on a system that actually lived up to the potential
useful applications of mounting a celluar data device under the hood.

In article <michelle-915158.11064415102009@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> There are some applications that just do not make any sense, other than to
> prove that it can be done. One of the ones that Apple itself has is its
> "Remote" application that can control Apple TV. Sure it works, and works
> well, but it doesn't offer any more functionality than the Apple remote
> that comes with the Apple TV, or the Harmony Remote that I use to control
> all my AV equipment.

of all the apps that are useless, that's not anywhere near the top of
the list, and it actually works fairly well. remote is a *lot* more
useful than stuff such as the plethora of flashlight and fart apps.

In article <michelle-3FFD6E.14071715102009@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> Flashlight apps are useful, if you need a flashlight but all you have is
> your cell phone.

open safari and load a blank page. instant flashlight. that's basically
all a flashlight app does. no need for a separate app.

on the other hand, everyone needs push alerts for britney spears'
twitter account.

<http://appshopper.com/entertainment/push-britney>

In message <michelle-3FFD6E.14071715102009@news.eternal-september.org>
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> was claimed to have wrote:

>Flashlight apps are useful, if you need a flashlight but all you have is
>your cell phone.

Turn the phone on, pick a screen that's mostly white (you've probably
got a couple on your home screen already -- Safari will do the trick)
and you've got a flashlight.

In message <michelle-915158.11064415102009@news.eternal-september.org>
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> was claimed to have wrote:

>There are some applications that just do not make any sense, other than to
>prove that it can be done. One of the ones that Apple itself has is its
>"Remote" application that can control Apple TV.

It's far more useful to control iTunes remotely...

On Oct 15, 6:28*pm, DevilsPGD <DeathToS...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> In message <michelle-3FFD6E.14071715102...@news.eternal-september.org>
> Michelle Steiner <miche...@michelle.org> was claimed to have wrote:
>
> >Flashlight apps are useful, if you need a flashlight but all you have is
> >your cell phone.
>
> Turn the phone on, pick a screen that's mostly white (you've probably
> got a couple on your home screen already -- Safari will do the trick)
> and you've got a flashlight.

This post is straight from an iPhone. It got it first wild breaking
news test today. A phone call alertedme to check CNN for news story
of child in a balloon. A quick check on CNN app had video of chase. A
quick post to emergency forums got many more following story. Back to
video. Screen had pop up box from AP I went to AP app nothing else
yet. Back to CNN. Phone vibrated indicating incomming email.
These where messages that posts needs moderation on yahoogroups
Clicked on link and see they are about balloon chase. OK posts and
back to video.

More mail direct messages to some listening to police feeds.
More moderation reqests - got to get that crap fixed! Back to CNN

now home fire up CNN on cable and notice iPhone video is delayed 30 to
60 seconds from live feeds but the exact same thing.

Email from blackberry user who is listening to police via BB app

I have same feeds on iPhone with EMERGENCY RADIO app.
Punch up Colorado State Police for that area. Notice a bunch of other.
Choices stay with CSPD

Boy is found alive.

All in all a pretty neat experience while out. As a ham I have been
involved with the police and rescue for years but never followed an
event far away in real time other than hurricanes.

oh I have seen plenty of police chases after the fact and OJ via cable
as they followed hi
but I have never done this away from the house for events out of
state.

Now technology puts it all in the palm of my hand. NEAT!

BTW if you don't have an iPhone you may not be able to get one this
year. Global demand is now far exceeding available supply. Bad news
for Apple but good news for Google and Rimm and Nokia

In article <michelle-020BA8.16302315102009@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> Yeah, that's what I do, but since most of the flashlight apps are free
> apps, if someone wants to use one of them, that's no big thing.

remote is free too.

In message <michelle-3347F8.16310015102009@news.eternal-september.org>
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> was claimed to have wrote:

>In article <9b8fd5d0cuncbfgjfi1io5eocdu5repft4@4ax.com>,
> DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> In message <michelle-915158.11064415102009@news.eternal-september.org>
>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> was claimed to have wrote:
>>
>> >There are some applications that just do not make any sense, other than
>> >to prove that it can be done. One of the ones that Apple itself has is
>> >its "Remote" application that can control Apple TV.
>>
>> It's far more useful to control iTunes remotely...
>
>True, but I have no need to control iTunes remotely.

Your lack of need for an app doesn't really cause it to "not make any
sense" in general though.

In message <michelle-2131A7.17350115102009@news.eternal-september.org>
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> was claimed to have wrote:

>In article <i9dfd5ho8id2nrk47fdsp3sqjj1th739rk@4ax.com>,
> DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> >> >There are some applications that just do not make any sense, other
>> >> >than to prove that it can be done. One of the ones that Apple
>> >> >itself has is its "Remote" application that can control Apple TV.
>> >>
>> >> It's far more useful to control iTunes remotely...
>> >
>> >True, but I have no need to control iTunes remotely.
>>
>> Your lack of need for an app doesn't really cause it to "not make any
>> sense" in general though.
>
>Agreed; what I had meant was that the function to control AppleTV (which
>was not in the original version of Remote) didn't make sense other than to
>prove that it could be done.

How about people who lost their remote? Or for people that wanted a
second?

In article <michelle-C0AEDE.21294815102009@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > How about people who lost their remote? Or for people that wanted a
> > second?
>
> A new remote costs $19.

the app is $0.00

> I have two of them; one came with my iMac and one
> came with the Apple TV. I don't use either; I use a Harmony remote instead.

they're no longer bundled.

In message <michelle-C0AEDE.21294815102009@news.eternal-september.org>
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> was claimed to have wrote:

>In article <lnqfd5l9vogqqr1hg0rtdpng8loflp89is@4ax.com>,
> DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> >Agreed; what I had meant was that the function to control AppleTV
>> >(which was not in the original version of Remote) didn't make sense
>> >other than to prove that it could be done.
>>
>> How about people who lost their remote? Or for people that wanted a
>> second?
>
>A new remote costs $19.

That's about $19 more then the freebie remote app, and I'm a heck of a
lot less likely to lose my iPhone then I am to lose a tiny remote.

The Apple Remote is also IR, which means it will only work in the same
room as the Apple TV, whereas the Remote App will work anywhere in wifi
range. This will be more useful if you have your Apple TV hidden within
a cabinet or connected to TVs in multiple rooms.

All of that being said, it sounds remarkable deficient in design vs the
functionality it offers when controlling iTunes.

In message <michelle-91A68F.06543516102009@news.eternal-september.org>
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> was claimed to have wrote:

>In article <q2ufd5t1moolp8eqip5hv36lgtgigujpoq@4ax.com>,
> DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> >> How about people who lost their remote? Or for people that wanted a
>> >> second?
>> >
>> >A new remote costs $19.
>>
>> That's about $19 more then the freebie remote app, and I'm a heck of a
>> lot less likely to lose my iPhone then I am to lose a tiny remote.
>
>Really? I can't envision a scenario where you would take the Apple TV
>remote out of your house. I have lost (or had stolen) an iPhone; I haven't
>lost, or even misplaced, either of my remotes.

I'm guessing you don't have kids?