We believe in the long term value of Apple hardware. You should be able to use your Apple gear as long as it helps you remain productive and meets your needs, upgrading only as necessary. We want to help maximize the life of your Apple gear.
Sometimes you just have to scratch your head and wonder, "What are
they thinking?".
I followed a link to AppleInsider to
an article explaining how the National Association of Broadcasters
(NAB) and RIAA want Congress to require that all "consumer mobile
devices" include an FM radio receiver. This article was built on
one on Ars Technica explaining how the NAB and RIAA want FM radio
in all future mobile phones.
It's certainly in their best interest to increase the FM radio
market, and many MP3 players - the current iPod nano for instance -
already have FM tuners, but requiring that every cell phone, MP3
player, PDA, etc. include FM reception makes no sense at all.
Why would I want a radio built into my cell phone? I use it to make
and receive phone calls, text messages, and photos. I don't use it to
listen to MP3s, access the Net, or anything else. It's a phone - a
communication device - not an entertainment device.
I'm not saying that nobody should make a mobile phone with an FM
tuner. If it's a feature that the market wants, go for it. That's how
we got cameras and keyboards on cell phones - someone tried it, the
public embraced it, and the rest is history.
But what the NAB and RIAA are talking about is mandating an FM radio
chip in every mobile consumer device. (How far will this go? Would it
include mobile DVD players, CD players, and tape players? What about
portable gaming systems and portable computers? And how in the world
could you add an FM radio to a single-purpose device like the iPod
shuffle?)
The Public Interest
Governments are supposed to pass laws that are in the public
interest, not laws that only benefit a few interests. And here in the
US, our government has a pretty spotty track record.
For instance, there's the whole digital television fiasco. For
years, every TV sold in the US had to have a tuner that could handle
the eventual switch to digital broadcasting, and the government even
came up with a program that would allow consumers to buy digital
converter boxes for their existing analog TVs. The government spent
billions on converter boxes and advertising to make sure every American
knew about the transition and the coupon program for converters.
So what happened? President Obama decided that two years hadn't been
enough time and postponed the transition by several months. This let a
few more people buy digital TVs and digital converters, but in the end
a lot of people still woke up to no TV on transition day. Those extra
months created a huge inconvenience for a lot of TV stations who had
equipment scheduled based on the original date.
The end result is that postponing the transition was not in the
public interest, although it did help Obama's image as the champion of
the people.
Let the Market Decide
I have mixed feelings about government mandates and capitalist
principles.
Beta vs. VHS
At one time there were several competing videotape systems on the
market, which soon became two: Beta and VHS. They fought it out for
years, and Sony's superior Beta format became increasingly marginalized
over the years, finally disappearing from the consumer market. At no
point did the federal government feel a need to step in and mandate
that all VCRs be VHS-compatible. That's how the market should work and
how government should act.
This also paved the way for new technologies, such as 8mm and
DAT.
AM Stereo
In 1980, the FCC chose one of five competing technologies, C-QUAM,
as the official AM
stereo standard for the US, a decision that was immediately
challenged by Motorola's competitors. In 1982, the FCC officially
decided not to decide, revoked its decision to make C-QUAM the national
AM stereo standard, and "let the marketplace decide."
The result? AM radio stations didn't want to invest in stereo
equipment because nobody could predict what the market would choose,
and with four competing standards (Belar had dropped out), odds were
that most stations would make the wrong choice. Better not to go there
at all.
Of course, without AM stereo to listen to, there was no demand for
AM stereo radios. In this case, manufacturers didn't want to get stuck
with inventory supporting the wrong standard, and consumers didn't want
to own radios that might not work with their favorite AM stations (when
they finally went stereo).
In 1984, the auto industry began putting radios with C-QUAM in 1985
model cars, and Harris abandoned its AM stereo proposal, reducing the
number of competing standards to three.
By 1992, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and Japan had all adopted the
C-QUAM standard, and the FCC finally settled on C-QUAM in 1993.
Reversing its decision to establish an AM stereo standard was not in
the public interest, and the Reagan-era FCC did a real disservice to
manufacturers, broadcasters, and people who wanted to listen to AM
stereo content. It should have stuck by its guns and let the AM stereo
market flourish rather than create chaos, as it did in 1982.
HD TV
Way back in 1969, Japan's national broadcasting service, NHK,
developed 1080i high definition television. MUSE, as the system was
called, required twice as much bandwidth as NTSC and delivered four
times the resolution. MUSE was first demonstrated in the US in 1981,
and President Reagan said that introducing HD TV in the US was "a
matter of national interest". However, the FCC rejected HD TV because
of the additional bandwidth required.
Things began to gel for HD TV in the 1990s when the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) settled on 1920 x 1080 as the standard
resolution for HD television. The 16:9 aspect ratio was chosen as a
compromise between traditional 4:3 television and the extreme
widescreen 2.4:1 format used for some movies. (For the record, standard
definition is 640 x 480.)
HD TV really took off with digital TV, as it has the bandwidth to
support it. Digital equipment can handle different resolutions (1080,
720, and 480) and frame rates (generally between 24 and 30 frames per
second) on the fly.
For the most part, HD TV standards have been established by the ITU,
with the FCC and other national broadcast agencies rubber stamping what
have become worldwide standards.
The FCC doesn't mandate that all HD content be broadcast as 1080i
(1080-line interlaced), nor does it mandate that everyone use 720p
(720-line noninterlaced). Broadcasters are free to choose whatever they
prefer, so you find ABC, A&E, and Fox using 720p (which tends to be
better for sports) while CBS, NBC, and The CW use 1080i.
There are some problems. Although all HD TVs are required to support
1080i and 720p, lower end TVs tend to have 1280 x 720 displays, which
means they have to downscale and deinterlace 1080i content, resulting
in less sharp images than a 1080 screen would display (the amount of
sharpness lost probably varies, but it's really noticeable with smaller
text on news broadcasts).
On the plus side, most 1080 TVs do a good job upscaling 720p and
480p (standard definition) content. I have to report that I am blown
away by the quality of DVDs that have been upscaled to 1080 by our
inexpensive ($55) Philips DVD player.
The point of all this is that the FCC is letting local stations
decide whether they want to broadcast HD content in 1080i or 720p.
There is no mandate to use one format or the other.
Personal Computers
Imagine if some government agency had decided that it was in the
public interest to standardize personal computers. Every computer would
have to support Intel's x86 instruction set and Windows software, since
these are established standards. Word and Excel formats would also be
mandated rather than de facto standards.
Apple would have had to pull the plug on PowerPC or made x86
emulation part of its operating system, and WINE (a Windows
compatibility layer for Unix) would be a standard feature of all Mac OS
and Linux computers. AppleWorks, Pages, and Numbers would have to use
Microsoft formats by default, requiring the user to override that if
they wanted to use a program's native file format.
We can be grateful that his never took place, but you can see how it
could happen.
The Mobile Phone Industry
Another area where the federal government decided not to decide is
the cell phone market. As with AM stereo, rather than establishing one
national standard, the FCC has allowed to competing, incompatible
standards (GSM and
CDMA) to exist, making
it impossible to take your iPhone, a GSM device, to Verizon, a CDMA
carrier.
Beyond the issues of GSM vs. CDMA, carriers are also allowed to sell
mobile phones that have been deliberately modified for their networks,
so even if a phone is designed to support GSM and CDMA, it may have
been intentionally crippled to prevent you from switching from Verizon
to AT&T or vice versa.
This is an area where the FTC should be involved, as it is supposed
to protect consumers from anticompetitive business practices. Locking a
phone to a single service provider, such as the AT&T-exclusive
iPhone, is anticompetitive, and the continued divide between GSM and
CDMA prevents consumers from using their perfectly good existing cell
phones with half the carriers in the market. Not a big deal with a
basic phone, but definitely for the smartphone user. Given the choice
between using an iPhone and using Verizon, iPhone users are going to
stick with AT&T.
The public interest is not being served when the government allows
carriers to lock customers in and prevent them from using the phone of
their choice with the service of their choice.
Let's hope we do see a CDMA iPhone, which would give us Verizon
users (I'm under contract until mid-June) access to the iPhone without
having to change carriers and pay an early termination fee.
The iPod/iTunes Ecosystem
There's been a debate going on for years about iPods and the iTunes
Store. On one side, we have those who complained that iPods used a
proprietary compression scheme (AAC) that other MP3 players didn't
support, and in the early days of the iTunes Store, music tracks also
included digital rights protection (DRM). These people complained that
this meant that iTunes Store users couldn't take their tracks to other
MP3 players.
This is akin to Beta owners not being able to play their videotapes
on VHS decks or Canon camera owners complaining that they can't use
Nikon or Leica lenses. When you choose a system, you limit your
options.
On another side are those who complained that the iPod wasn't
compatible with Microsoft's DRM system, which meant that iPod owners
couldn't use WMA tracks. That's like a VHS owner complaining that his
tapes won't work on a friend's Beta player. Again, when you make a
choice, some options are no longer available.
On the side of reason are those who understand that this is a bunch
of sour grapes. iPods work just fine with standard MP3 files, as do all
the other MP3 players on the market. iTunes can rip tunes to MP3 format
or AAC (which is an industry standard, not proprietary to Apple). And
you can burn protected tracks to a CD and then rip them into the format
of your choice if you want to switch to another brand of MP3
player.
Microsoft even came up with its own competing technologies, Plays
For Sure and Zune, which are also mutually incompatible. Plays For Sure and
Zune content locked you into their platforms even more than iTunes
content did, since both were incompatible with both iPods and Macs.
People who choose iPod/iTunes, Plays For Sure, or Zune limit their
options, just as surely as people who buy MP3 players without DRM
support are unable to use content from the iTunes, Plays For Sure, and
Zune stores. And nobody prevents you from playing standard MP3 files on
any brand of player.
You choose an ecosystem and you get limitations. Plain and
simple.
Why FM Radio? And Why Now?
Why are the NAB and RIAA, longtime enemies over royalty issues,
teaming up here? Because the NAB realizes that more people are
listening to their own content rather than radio. And the RIAA realizes
that with less people listening to radio, they are less likely to be
exposed to new music, and thus less likely to buy it. More listeners
means higher ad rates for radio stations and more music sales for the
RIAA. And they have every right to pursue that goal.
However, it is disingenuous for them to promote FM radio as "a great
thing, particularly from a public safety perspective." Pushing for the
inclusion of a weather band radio
perhaps, but they're not doing that. This is a grab for an audience,
not a public service.
The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) opposes legislation that
would require an FM tuner in every mobile electronics device. In fact,
they call it "the height of absurdity", which is pretty much my
assessment as well.
If people want FM radio in their cell phones, MP3 players, and the
like, they already have that option. Mandating it means everyone ends
up paying a bit more for their electronics, including those who will
never use the feature, and that is wrong and not in the public
interest.
Let's hope that the spotlight being shone upon this idea helps the
NAB and RIAA recognize what a bad idea this is and stop pursuing it.
Dan Knight has been using Macs since 1986,
sold Macs for several years, supported them for many more years, and
has been publishing Low End Mac since April 1997. If you find Dan's articles helpful, please consider making a donation to his tip jar.
Links for the Day
Mac of the Day: Yikes! Power Mac G4, introduced 1999.08.31. The only Power Mac G4 with PCI graphics was built on a modified G3 motherboard.
