BTW, in places like Bangladesh, almost EVERY cell phone has an FM receiver in it.
I think part of what "consumers want" is something VERY easy to do in terms of a bill-of-materials but something the !...@#$! ecosystem (manufacturers, carriers, content holders, service providers) etc. are loathe to allow is to combine the FM with a flexible, free, tivo-like service (even before asking for MP3 type capabilities so the song can be heard later on in a different device). As for mini (?micro) USB, Europe has mandated it. Asking consumers if they want it is a misleading question since this is posed as "do you want model X" (which as such a plug) instead of asking - should your existing (or all) phones have such a plug. Almost very consumer I've talked to (including dozens in my course) has favored standardization. Rahul On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:51 AM, Barry Gold <[email protected]> wrote: > Lauren Weinstein wrote: > >> NAB is serious about mandating FM radios in every cell phone >> >> http://bit.ly/aSo8d2 (NAB) >> > > It's all very convincing -- except for one thing: if consumers wanted it > that much, it would already be there. A quick check of Wikipedia shows a > total of 17 manufacturers, of whom 6 have agreed to use the micro-USB > connector for charging. > > With that many manufacturers, it is inevitable that any feature desired by > a substantial number of consumers will be available. Yet I don't see any > offered on Amazon or CNet. That strongly suggests to me that people don't > want it -- at least, not enough to pay however much the FM radio chip adds > to the price. > > One can, perhaps, justify requiring a feature when it's safety-related, > like airbags in a car. But when it's just a convenience, or is *at best* > arguably safety-related (like the weather alerts in the > NAB puff piece), let the market decide. > > [ They're playing this very cleverly by emphasizing the "public > safety" aspects. These do exist -- in disaster > situations (floods, earthquakes, etc.) cell nets tend to fail > quickly. They are relatively fragile especially in terms of > microcell backup power facilities. Your cell phone quickly > turns into a brick in terms of communication when the nets go > down. Too bad that inter-phone direct local communications > aren't possible with these phones. But that would allow > bypassing the net, and since billable events wouldn't be > created, it's hardly attractive to the powers that be. > > My suspicion is that what the broadcasters and NAB are even more > interested in is the possibility (for example) of stations using > real-time tagging on cell phones to create a song track sales > ecosystem (they even mention tagging themselves). To them, > anything that can induce people to listen to music on radio > rather than streaming the audio (since the latter can -- but > doesn't necessarily -- cut conventional broadcasters out of the > loop) is a potential revenue enhancer. By getting an FM > requirement written into law as a technical mandate they > accomplish this without any cost to themselves (other than their > ongoing lobbying outlays). > > -- Lauren Weinstein > NNSquad Moderator ] >
