NPR adds live news coverage to iPhone, Apple adding a FM radio
Apple users seem to always get all the neat stuff - a nice iPhone perk
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/143299/2009/10/npr_iphone_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.
Todd Allcock
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!
News
> 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
SMS
> 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.
Per Rønne
> 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 R�nne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe
Per Rønne
And some of us won't update our iPhone 3G before the new model contains
an FM as well as a DAB+ radio receiver.
trogdor
""Per R�nne"" <p...@RQNNE.invalid> wrote in message
news:1j7l3sw.1m5an4n17enydhN%p...@RQNNE.invalid...
> Apple users seem to always get all the neat stuff - a nice iPhone perk
> <vic.h...@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.
trogdor
"Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
news:1fkBm.1029$9F1...@newsfe11.iad...
nospam
<no...@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.
nospam
<no...@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.
Apple users seem to always get all the neat stuff - a nice iPhone perk
http://www.macworld.com/article/143299/2009/10/npr_iphone_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=MhRuOPsuBUk&feature=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.
SMS
> 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.
Dennis Ferguson
> Apple users seem to always get all the neat stuff - a nice iPhone perk
><vic.h...@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:
> 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
Per Rønne
Perhaps - but then I see no problems for me with keeping with my iPhone
3G with 16 GB of memory.
Andrew
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:141020091107334600%nos...@nospam.invalid...
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.
Jon Ribbens
No it doesn't.
Todd Allcock
<vic.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e9bd717b-053f-4caf...@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=MhRuOPsuBUk&feature=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...
SMS
> 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 $1 a month after the first year):
"http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Smart-Car-Surveillance-System-Using-a-Mobile-Phone"
Todd Allcock
> In article <onGBm.258799$cf6.1...@newsfe16.iad>,
> "Todd Allcock" <elecc...@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!
>
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.
nospam
Michelle Steiner <mich...@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.
nospam
Michelle Steiner <mich...@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. :)
DevilsPGD
Michelle Steiner <mich...@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...
DevilsPGD
Michelle Steiner <mich...@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.
Apple users seem to always get all the neat stuff - a nice iPhone perk
> 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
nospam
Michelle Steiner <mich...@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.
DevilsPGD
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> was claimed to have wrote:
>In article <9b8fd5d0cuncbfgjf...@4ax.com>,
>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.
DevilsPGD
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> was claimed to have wrote:
>In article <i9dfd5ho8id2nrk47...@4ax.com>,
> DevilsPGD <Death...@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?
nospam
Michelle Steiner <mich...@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.
DevilsPGD
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> was claimed to have wrote:
>In article <lnqfd5l9vogqqr1hg...@4ax.com>,
> DevilsPGD <Death...@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.
DevilsPGD
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> was claimed to have wrote:
>In article <q2ufd5t1moolp8eqi...@4ax.com>,
> DevilsPGD <Death...@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?
poldy
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <i9dfd5ho8id2nrk47...@4ax.com>,
> DevilsPGD <Death...@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.
Don't know about AppleTV but when you control iTunes, you see in the
display info. about what you're playing.
Plus it uses Wifi, so it doesn't require line of sight -- you don't have
to raise the infrared remote and point it at the device.
You can get Airport Express and hook in speakers and you can control
iTunes playback from anywhere in the house.
poldy
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> 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!
>
> 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.
Probably more to get incremental sales on iTunes through the
song-tagging feature.
The original iPod Shuffle also had FM capability in the chipset but
Apple never bothered to develop a UI to use it.
Lot of people still listen to AM, for news, traffic.
poldy
p...@RQNNE.invalid (Per R�nne) wrote:
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Per R�nne 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.
Has DAB+ taken off? Is it a subscription service or free? How
expensive are the receivers?
Yeah wish the US had gone that route than waste time with HD Radio or
even more useless, subscription satellite radio.
Per Rønne
> In article <1j7l7zi.x0fr8u1giywctN%p...@RQNNE.invalid>,
> p...@RQNNE.invalid (Per R�nne) wrote:
>
> > SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Per R�nne 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.
>
> Has DAB+ taken off?
Denmark has decided to go digital.
In a fortnight all television signals will be digital and the analog
signals will stop. Analog equipment will only work with cable networks.
It has also been decided to stop FM. All broadcasts will be with DAB and
after af few years DAB+ only. Except if you are connected to a cable
network.
> Is it a subscription service or free?
Access to the signals are free but some channels will be coded.
"Denmark's Radio", the large state company, will have six television
channels and more than ten radio channels. All freely available - paid
through a 'licence fee' - everybody with an internet connection and a
televiosn or radio receiver have to pay.
> How expensive are the receivers?
It depends on the quality. You can get radio and tv tuners for $100-140,
25% VAT included. You then just connect them to your amplifier or to the
HDMI port on your television.
> Yeah wish the US had gone that route than waste time with HD Radio or
> even more useless, subscription satellite radio.
Well, everybody in Europe and especially in Japan call the US a "cell
phone developing country" - perhaps it is the same with television and
radio broadcast?
--
Per Erik R�nne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe
SMS
> Has DAB+ taken off? Is it a subscription service or free? How
> expensive are the receivers?
>
> Yeah wish the US had gone that route than waste time with HD Radio or
> even more useless, subscription satellite radio.
DAB+ seems to be on the same slow growth curve as HD.
For HD, right now it's higher end vehicles that are including it as
standard equipment (Volvo, BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Jaguar). It's the
chicken and the egg thing--without a lot of receivers broadcasters don't
want to spend the money on the broadcast equipment and licensing (though
it isn't millions of dollars, it can be less than $10K depending on the
existing equipment) and without a lot of content consumers don't want to
spend anything extra on receivers (even though the cost difference is
very low, maybe $10 extra for built-in HD on a receiver).
The idea of extra-cost, add-on receivers, like used on satellite radio
won't work to get HD to the mass market, too complicated and too expensive.
2013 is when HD radio will likely be standard on all new vehicles sold
in the U.S.. Then broadcasters will be more likely to at least lease out
the sub-channels or put on automated content. The problem is making a
business case for HD without destroying it with so much advertising that
no one listens to it either, and everyone just plugs in (or streams)
from their digital music player.
Personally, for the car, I like the new receivers with front USB ports
where you just plug in a USB memory stick with audio and you don't even
bother with the iPod or MP3 player.
Satellite radio is going nowhere. Unless the monthly rate is not more
than $5 they'll never get to the mass market, and I don't think they can
operate at those kind of rates. Plus if you can stream audio on a 3G
phone with unlimited data, what's the point of satellite radio? It's
like the lack of an Iridium business case for satellite phones--few
people were willing to pay for ubiquitous coverage.
SMS
<snip>
> Access to the signals are free but some channels will be coded.
> "Denmark's Radio", the large state company, will have six television
> channels and more than ten radio channels. All freely available - paid
> through a 'licence fee' - everybody with an internet connection and a
> televiosn or radio receiver have to pay.
LOL, try that in the U.S. and the right wing lunatics like Rush and
Glenn will be screaming about communism, socialism, etc.
> Well, everybody in Europe and especially in Japan call the US a "cell
> phone developing country" - perhaps it is the same with television and
> radio broadcast?
Yeah, in the U.S. the government abdicated their duty for cellular,
leaving it to the free market to sort things out. The result has been
less competition, poorer coverage, multiple "standards," different
carriers on different bands, and higher prices (though not as high as
some people claim because there's no "caller pays" scam that makes cell
rates appear artificially low). Even now, with the world moving quickly
to CDMA, it's two different versions of 3G CDMA in the U.S. (EV-DO and
W-CDMA). LTE will be a bit better.
poldy
I think we're ahead in HDTV installed base over most countries. For a
long time, consumer electronics sales were flat and then home theater
and big screens became popular, helped first by DVD and then by HDTV and
flat screens.
And HDTV was only emphasized because in the late '80s, early '90s, money
was spent on ATSC as digital imaging was thought to be a strategic
market. Not just for consumer electronics but defense applications.
Cell phones are a mess, because they let the market use whatever
standards various carriers tried. So many different networks rolled out
and then mothballed, while Europe just kept building up GSM all those
years.
Per Rønne
> In article <1j7rsul.t2c1ve1m2qfvtN%p...@RQNNE.invalid>,
> p...@RQNNE.invalid (Per R�nne) wrote:
>
> > > Yeah wish the US had gone that route than waste time with HD Radio or
> > > even more useless, subscription satellite radio.
> >
> > Well, everybody in Europe and especially in Japan calls the US a "cell
> > phone developing country" - perhaps it is the same with television and
> > radio broadcast?
>
> I think we're ahead in HDTV installed base over most countries. For a
> long time, consumer electronics sales were flat and then home theater
> and big screens became popular, helped first by DVD and then by HDTV and
> flat screens.
Well, 42" flat televisions are common in Denmark too ...
> And HDTV was only emphasized because in the late '80s, early '90s, money
> was spent on ATSC as digital imaging was thought to be a strategic
> market. Not just for consumer electronics but defense applications.
NTSC? We use PAL.
> Cell phones are a mess, because they let the market use whatever
> standards various carriers tried. So many different networks rolled out
> and then mothballed, while Europe just kept building up GSM all those
> years.
Yes.
Mark Crispin
>> And HDTV was only emphasized because in the late '80s, early '90s, money
>> was spent on ATSC as digital imaging was thought to be a strategic
>> market. Not just for consumer electronics but defense applications.
> NTSC? We use PAL.
NTSC and PAL are analog systems, neither of which do HDTV.
ATSC is the digital TV system used in North America, and supports 480i,
480p, 720p (HDTV), and 1080i (HDTV). The USA stopped using NTSC earlier
this year with its shutdown of analog TV, but Canada, Mexico, and a few
other countries still use it.
Briefly, ATSC has somewhat longer range and somewhat greater resistance to
impulse noise at the cost of somewhat greater vulnerability to multipath.
The COFDM based modulation systems used in Europe and Japan are probably
better for densely populated countries (as in Europe and Japan), while
ATSC's 8VSB based modulation is probably better for much less densely
populated North America.
Fanatics will argue these points at great length, long beyond what anyone
else will care. I've found that, from a consumer viewpoint, both ATSC and
the various COFDM based systems used in Europe and Japan work (and fail to
work) equally well/poorly. The much-vaunted superior mobile TV capability
of COFDM is more hype than substance.
A similar thing happened with PAL vs. NTSC. The claim that one is
unconditionally better than the other is a "grass is greener on the other
side of the fence" fallacy.
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
Mark Crispin
> Satellite radio is going nowhere. Unless the monthly rate is not more than $5
> they'll never get to the mass market, and I don't think they can operate at
> those kind of rates.
Satellite radio committed suicide with the merger of XM and Sirius.
Sirius (the weaker company with fewer subscribers) bought out XM and
immediately terminated all the programming that had brought customers to
XM in the first place.
They've lost a lot of customers since then, but that's been hidden
temporarily by the new customers they got with new car purchases due to
Obama's "stimulus".
At the rates charged by satellite radio, the only things that it had to
offer were (1) better/unique programming not found on broadcast radio, and
(2) access in remote areas that aren't well served (or served at all!) by
broadcast radio.
(2) isn't enough of a critical mass to keep it going, and (1) is gone
(unless you care to listen to Howard Stern's mindless rants) entirely.
Per Rønne
> A similar thing happened with PAL vs. NTSC. The claim that one is
> unconditionally better than the other is a "grass is greener on the other
> side of the fence" fallacy.
I only know that the Federal Republic of Germany chosed PAL - which
resulted in the German "Democratic" Republic to choose the French NTSC
system. Thus, East Germans would only be able to watch Western
broadcasts in black and white ...
John McWilliams
Unconditionally better- yes, few things are that.... but my impression
was that PAL was indeed quite superior to NTSC, based on my own viewing.
What are the drawbacks to PAL?
--
john mcwilliams
Mark Crispin
> Unconditionally better- yes, few things are that.... but my impression was
> that PAL was indeed quite superior to NTSC, based on my own viewing. What are
> the drawbacks to PAL?
NTSC has better color rendition than PAL, *if* the front end doesn't suck.
The tube-based front ends in TVs prior to the 1970s were quite unstable,
mostly because they didn't want to spend the $$$ to implement a good front
end with tube technology. Solid state solved that problem.
PAL's phase shift was a great workaround for crummy front ends, and was
far cheaper than SECAM. However, that phase shift came at the cost of
green bandwidth. For the past 35 or so years of modern TV receivers, it's
been completely unnecessary.
A modern NTSC TV that has incorrect color is generally caused by some
well-intentioned person twiddling the tint control to match his perception
of proper skin tone "because you have to do it". A classic case of
something that was once true, no longer is, but has been passed, with
substantial misinformation, as part of folklore.
A separate issue is the TV system. NTSC and PAL are *color* systems, not
TV systems. NTSC always uses System M, which is 525 lines at 60Hz.
Europe tends to use one of several 625/50Hz TV systems; the result is a
better resolution picture (most noticable on larger screens) with somewhat
more flicker.
People can argue at length as to whether it is better to have more
resolution or less flicker. I vote for less flicker.
Then there is PAL-M, which is PAL color on system M. A truly pointless
combination for no reason other than someone's misconception that "PAL is
better" but having to use system M.
In any case, the folklore that PAL is somehow better than NTSC has a basis
in historical fact with crappy consumer TVs that existed in the 1960s. It
ceased being valid in the 1970s, but was firmly in folklore; and now is
completely irrelevant with everybody going to digital TV.
Jochem Huhmann
> A separate issue is the TV system. NTSC and PAL are *color* systems,
> not TV systems. NTSC always uses System M, which is 525 lines at 60Hz.
> Europe tends to use one of several 625/50Hz TV systems; the result is a
> better resolution picture (most noticable on larger screens) with
> somewhat more flicker.
>
> People can argue at length as to whether it is better to have more
> resolution or less flicker. I vote for less flicker.
Flicker is gone today. Even the better CRT sytems had frequency doublers
and with LCD and plasma displays there is no flicker anyway. PAL today
has more resolution with no flicker compared to NTSC with no flicker,
and still both totally suck on larger (common) screens.
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Mark Crispin
> Flicker is gone today. Even the better CRT sytems had frequency doublers
> and with LCD and plasma displays there is no flicker anyway. PAL today
> has more resolution with no flicker compared to NTSC with no flicker,
> and still both totally suck on larger (common) screens.
Flicker has nothing to do with PAL vs. NTSC. That is a TV system issue.
However, you can't squeeze blood from a stone. 625 lines at 50Hz is
effectively 576 lines at 25 frames/second. 525 lines at 60Hz is
effectively 480 lines at 30 frames/second. That's a mere 96 lines more,
at the cost of 5 frames/second of motion. Some of us can see the
difference.
Analog video is a 1940s design. It's high time that it was retired, and
in some countries (including the USA) it has been retired.
In digital TV, there is no difference in picture between ATSC and the
various COFDM-based modulations. The differences are only in how reliably
the bits are delivered.
Jochem Huhmann
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Jochem Huhmann posted:
>> Flicker is gone today. Even the better CRT sytems had frequency doublers
>> and with LCD and plasma displays there is no flicker anyway. PAL today
>> has more resolution with no flicker compared to NTSC with no flicker,
>> and still both totally suck on larger (common) screens.
>
> Flicker has nothing to do with PAL vs. NTSC. That is a TV system
> issue.
Flicker (as all consumers see it) has everything to do with the 50/60Hz
of screen refresh and modern screens just don't show this. They show
better or worse resolution and on large screens both PAL and NTSC show
fat pixels except when viewed from very far away, although PAL is
a bit better here.
> However, you can't squeeze blood from a stone. 625 lines at 50Hz is
> effectively 576 lines at 25 frames/second. 525 lines at 60Hz is
> effectively 480 lines at 30 frames/second. That's a mere 96 lines more,
> at the cost of 5 frames/second of motion. Some of us can see the
> difference.
In an average home with modern large screens everyone can see that this
sucks. And "a mere 96 lines" is quite a bit better, but still both suck
because it's too few lines. And then there are more things: Compression
artifacts, strange colors, scaling. A good analog TV signal on a good
analog CRT TV is *better* than digital TV on a LCD monitor. I'm always
wondering how people can stand the piss-poor quality of modern TV. I've
given up on this now, I'm viewing the unimportant things on a computer
or my iPod and for movies I go to the cinema.
SMS
> (2) isn't enough of a critical mass to keep it going, and (1) is gone
> (unless you care to listen to Howard Stern's mindless rants) entirely.
There may be a business case for satellite radio after XM/Sirius goes
under and the development and deployment costs are written off. The
buyer, unburdened of those costs, could offer the service at a more
attractive rate that might be able to retain more of the subscribers. $5
a month or $50 a year would be a fair price.
Mark Crispin
> Mark Crispin <m...@panda.com> writes:
>> Flicker has nothing to do with PAL vs. NTSC. That is a TV system
>> issue.
> Flicker (as all consumers see it) has everything to do with the 50/60Hz
> of screen refresh
Yes, and as I said 50/60Hz is not PAL or NTSC. It is TV system.
I forget which TV system is used in Germany (which is where I guess you
are); the 625/50 systems are B, D, G, H, I, K, K', L, and N. Most PAL
(systems B, G, H, I, N) and SECAM (D, K, K', L) countries use one of
these.
The 525/60 systems are J (used in Japan) and M. The USA used System M
prior to the shutdown of analog earlier this year. Canada, Mexico, and a
few other countries still use it. Although primarily associated with
NTSC, system M is also used with PAL and SECAM.
> They show
> better or worse resolution and on large screens both PAL and NTSC show
> fat pixels except when viewed from very far away, although PAL is
> a bit better here.
For some definition of "better". The 625 line TV systems have better
resolution (monochrome), but PAL color isn't as good as NTSC.
Consider PAL-M, which is used in Brazil. It's completely pointless today,
although it may have been a good idea in the 1960s.
Conversely, "NTSC-B" (which never existed) would have been a better analog
system in Germany, once modern front ends existed.
> In an average home with modern large screens everyone can see that this
> sucks. And "a mere 96 lines" is quite a bit better, but still both suck
> because it's too few lines.
I don't think that anyone defends 480i or 576i, other than a certain
crackpot who claimed that 480p would be good enough for everybody.
720p and 1080i are minimums today.
> And then there are more things: Compression
> artifacts, strange colors, scaling. A good analog TV signal on a good
> analog CRT TV is *better* than digital TV on a LCD monitor.
This sounds an awful lot like the so-called "golden ear" folks of the
1980s who claimed that CDs would never replace LPs because purportedly CDs
could never reproduce the "rich, natural, sine waves" of LPs.
I have some excellent video sources, both analog and digital. As fond as
I was of ED Beta, U-Matic SP, and Laser Disc, the world has passed these
technologies by. In *theory*, Laser Disc performed better than DVD; but
practice was quite a bit different.
Once one has been on digital for a while, there's a lot that one tends to
forget about analog. Memories are generally fonder than reality.
Now, with that said, of course an inexpensive LCD TV isn't going to
deliver the same level of quality that a high-end CRT did. You can get a
"big screen TV" quite cheaply today, but it won't reproduce colors well.
But that has nothing to do with digital. If you want good color, you have
to pay for it.
Then there are bitty devices like iPhone with low-resolution screens that
can't even deliver 480i...
Todd Allcock
"Mark Crispin" <m...@panda.com> wrote in message
news:alpine.OSX.2.00.0...@hsinghsing.panda.com...
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Jochem Huhmann posted:
>> artifacts, strange colors, scaling. A good analog TV signal on a good
>> analog CRT TV is *better* than digital TV on a LCD monitor.
>
> This sounds an awful lot like the so-called "golden ear" folks of the
> 1980s who claimed that CDs would never replace LPs because purportedly CDs
> could never reproduce the "rich, natural, sine waves" of LPs.
No, I'm on Jochem's side, at least with respect to broadcast TV. I think
digital artifacting is more annoying than analog, and it "sticks out" when I
see it. I much preferred my old analog C-/Ku-band satellite system to
modern hi-def. The wide-bandwidth direct network-to-affiliate feeds (the
same feeds local stations received to rebroadcast over the air) were crisp,
had good color, and looked great even when received with consumer-grade
equipment, on my 50" rear projection set. High-def has higher resolution,
but the pixellation, color banding, etc. I see on live broadcasts ruins it
for me. (Blu-ray DVD, for example, looks very nice since artificating isn't
an issue.) Most people don't notice that kind of stuff, but it just bugs
me. (And no, I'm not a "golden ear" guy- I much prefer CDs to LPs and
cassette tape. Bandwidth is the difference. Hi-def broadcast TV to too
compressed.)
Jochem Huhmann
> "Mark Crispin" <m...@panda.com> wrote in message
> news:alpine.OSX.2.00.0...@hsinghsing.panda.com...
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Jochem Huhmann posted:
>>> And then there are more things: Compression
>>> artifacts, strange colors, scaling. A good analog TV signal on a good
>>> analog CRT TV is *better* than digital TV on a LCD monitor.
>>
>> This sounds an awful lot like the so-called "golden ear" folks of the
>> 1980s who claimed that CDs would never replace LPs because purportedly
>> CDs could never reproduce the "rich, natural, sine waves" of LPs.
>
> No, I'm on Jochem's side, at least with respect to broadcast TV. I
> think digital artifacting is more annoying than analog, and it "sticks
> out" when I see it.
Yes, exactly. Add large screens and it gets really poor. I wouldn't
compare that to LPs versus CDs. Rather to LPs versus overcompressed MP3s
played on a cheap and loud system. I have no doubt that you can get real
good quality with digital signals, but in the case of broadcast TV it's
tailored to force quantaties of the lowest quality they can get away
with down our throats. And this is not even about the content.
John McWilliams
> "Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> writes:
>
>> "Mark Crispin" <m...@panda.com> wrote in message
>> news:alpine.OSX.2.00.0...@hsinghsing.panda.com...
>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Jochem Huhmann posted:
>>>> And then there are more things: Compression
>>>> artifacts, strange colors, scaling. A good analog TV signal on a good
>>>> analog CRT TV is *better* than digital TV on a LCD monitor.
>>> This sounds an awful lot like the so-called "golden ear" folks of the
>>> 1980s who claimed that CDs would never replace LPs because purportedly
>>> CDs could never reproduce the "rich, natural, sine waves" of LPs.
>> No, I'm on Jochem's side, at least with respect to broadcast TV. I
>> think digital artifacting is more annoying than analog, and it "sticks
>> out" when I see it.
>
> Yes, exactly. Add large screens and it gets really poor. I wouldn't
> compare that to LPs versus CDs. Rather to LPs versus overcompressed MP3s
> played on a cheap and loud system. I have no doubt that you can get real
> good quality with digital signals, but in the case of broadcast TV it's
> tailored to force quantaties of the lowest quality they can get away
> with down our throats. And this is not even about the content.
Illuminating discussion; thank you.
I am fortunate in that I get both very good Off the Air HDTV which is
mostly flawless if the content is well shot and transmitted, and have
DirecTV, which generally is artefact free, though when it does happen,
it's very annoying. Seems to be worse when dialog is critical! (Drop
outs affect audio in a more annoying way than video, for me, at least.)
--
john mcwilliams
John Blutarsky
@news.eternal-september.org:
What I find interesting about this entire discussion is the expectation of
videophile quality over the airwaves, whether digital or analog. It is
akin to expecting CD quality audio from a radio station.
Mark Crispin
>> This sounds an awful lot like the so-called "golden ear" folks of the 1980s
>> who claimed that CDs would never replace LPs because purportedly CDs could
>> never reproduce the "rich, natural, sine waves" of LPs.
> No, I'm on Jochem's side, at least with respect to broadcast TV. I think
> digital artifacting is more annoying than analog, and it "sticks out" when I
> see it. I much preferred my old analog C-/Ku-band satellite system to modern
> hi-def.
Yes, and early CDs sucked (play a CD made in the early 1980s...they still
sucked), and Laser Disc did a much better job than early DVDs.
The key word here is "early". The early CDs and DVDs were mastered from
the same sources; and what was "good enough" before ceased to be good
enough. You can most clearly see this with a HDTV broadcaster playing SD
media.
More modern media requires more modern mastering techniques. You can't
just do what you've always done and expect new stuff to "make it better".
Similarly, since the compression is lossy, compression has to be done
intelligently.
Todd Allcock
Good point, but it is the 21st century. Is there some reason I shouldn't
expect at least 1980s-era videodisc quality from broadcast TV? Or my
"modern" digtal DBS system to outperform my 1980's 9-foot analog
satellite dish? Seems like a reaonable (even if apparently not a
realistic!) expectation...
Jochem Huhmann
> What I find interesting about this entire discussion is the expectation of
> videophile quality over the airwaves, whether digital or analog. It is
> akin to expecting CD quality audio from a radio station.
Well, at least for me it's not about videophile quality but about at
least a bit of progress qualitywise. Maybe it's a temporary thing but
right now I often see broadcast TV on new screens looking *worse* than
the same thing 10 or 20 years ago. As I said, I've mostly dropped out of
that game, but for a reason. OK, for several reasons, but this is one of
them.
Jochem Huhmann
> Illuminating discussion; thank you.
You're welcome. Civil discussions are indeed rare these days...
> I am fortunate in that I get both very good Off the Air HDTV which is
> mostly flawless if the content is well shot and transmitted, and have
> DirecTV, which generally is artefact free, though when it does happen,
> it's very annoying. Seems to be worse when dialog is critical! (Drop
> outs affect audio in a more annoying way than video, for me, at
> least.)
I think if you're lucky and invest enough money and knowledge you can
get decent TV. But in may case they've just lost a customer and I'm not
coming back. I can easily get my movies and news and entertainment
elsewhere.
John Blutarsky
$cf6....@newsfe16.iad:
The problem I see is a "videophile" experience coming from any kind of
OTA broadcast source. The environmental factors alone are enough to play
havoc on the reception of a solid product- digital or analog. We see it
with cell phones all the time- weather, wind, foliage, topography all
determine whether you get a "good" or "great" signal, and what is great
today may only be okay tomorrow in exactly the same spot. How far (no
matter how small) does your dish move in a 20mph wind. How much noise
is added to the signal in a good rainstorm or snowstorm? How much signal
is lost if your house is surrounded by trees?
I sit here typing this while looking out the window at snow flurries and
steady 15-20 mph winds. My cellphone sits in front of me on it's
charger and I am getting as much as a 2 bar fluctuation in signal. I
realize it is not an accurate measure, but it shows that OTA
transmission will always be hampered by factors that the technology
itself cannot eliminate.
I was one of those annoying 80's audiophile geeks with two racks full of
electronics, a wall full of LP's and CD's and speakers that took up huge
amounts of space. Spent hours a day sitting on the couch, literally
lsitening for the sound of fingers moving across a guitar neck. When
folks came over and wanted to hear the system at it's finest, the tuner
was not even an option.
John Blutarsky
> John Blutarsky <bl...@faber.com> writes:
>
>> What I find interesting about this entire discussion is the
>> expectation of videophile quality over the airwaves, whether digital
>> or analog. It is akin to expecting CD quality audio from a radio
>> station.
>
> Well, at least for me it's not about videophile quality but about at
> least a bit of progress qualitywise. Maybe it's a temporary thing but
> right now I often see broadcast TV on new screens looking *worse* than
> the same thing 10 or 20 years ago. As I said, I've mostly dropped out
> of that game, but for a reason. OK, for several reasons, but this is
> one of them.
>
>
> Jochem
>
NFL Football on a Sunday afternoon in HD (even when picked up OTA) shows
that great strides have been made in the last 20 years.
John McWilliams
> Jochem Huhmann <j...@gmx.net> wrote in news:m2d44gz...@revier.com:
>
>> John Blutarsky <bl...@faber.com> writes:
>>
>>> What I find interesting about this entire discussion is the
>>> expectation of videophile quality over the airwaves, whether digital
>>> or analog. It is akin to expecting CD quality audio from a radio
>>> station.
>> Well, at least for me it's not about videophile quality but about at
>> least a bit of progress qualitywise. Maybe it's a temporary thing but
>> right now I often see broadcast TV on new screens looking *worse* than
>> the same thing 10 or 20 years ago. As I said, I've mostly dropped out
>> of that game, but for a reason. OK, for several reasons, but this is
>> one of them.
> NFL Football on a Sunday afternoon in HD (even when picked up OTA) shows
> that great strides have been made in the last 20 years.
Would you agree to - gasp!- leaps and bounds? Maybe not light years, but
today's technology and what's available right now is so far above what
it was even ten years ago that I am jubilant, and hopeful that more
leaps will occur in my lifetime.
Note: talking about consumer available stuff, both now and in past.
Started with a tiny oval screen, B+W, ca. 1955 at my cousin's house, now
enjoying HD shows at home.
--
john mcwilliams
poldy
Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> >
> > What I find interesting about this entire discussion is the expectation
> of
> > videophile quality over the airwaves, whether digital or analog. It is
> > akin to expecting CD quality audio from a radio station.
>
> Good point, but it is the 21st century. Is there some reason I shouldn't
> expect at least 1980s-era videodisc quality from broadcast TV? Or my
> "modern" digtal DBS system to outperform my 1980's 9-foot analog
> satellite dish? Seems like a reaonable (even if apparently not a
> realistic!) expectation...
Costs probably.
And convenience. Lossy MP3s in a small device containing thousands of
hours of content, through which you can search and retrieve any piece
instantaneously.
Try digging through shelves of LPs or even CDs instead.
poldy
John Blutarsky <bl...@faber.com> wrote:
> The problem I see is a "videophile" experience coming from any kind of
> OTA broadcast source. The environmental factors alone are enough to play
> havoc on the reception of a solid product- digital or analog. We see it
> with cell phones all the time- weather, wind, foliage, topography all
> determine whether you get a "good" or "great" signal, and what is great
> today may only be okay tomorrow in exactly the same spot. How far (no
> matter how small) does your dish move in a 20mph wind. How much noise
> is added to the signal in a good rainstorm or snowstorm? How much signal
> is lost if your house is surrounded by trees?
Plus the mass market has shown that quality is secondary to costs and
convenience -- VHS over Beta, compressed content over uncompressed
content, etc.
John Blutarsky
news:poldy-8912E1....@news.eternal-september.org:
All very good points. The discerning eye (or ear) will always have to go
far above the average consumer market to be staisfied.