PDA

View Full Version : Apple iPod classic Update?




DrumApple
Nov 6, 2010, 10:24 PM
Are they ever going to update the iPod classic?! I think it's crazy they don't update before the holidays 2010. 160GB is so weak for $250 now! :mad:



FixYouriTunes
Nov 6, 2010, 10:51 PM
Yes tell me about it. I've been waiting for an updated Classic for a while now. I'm on my second 160GB Classic now and I'm hoping soon they will have a 250GB for 250! That's wish!

timerollson
Nov 6, 2010, 11:21 PM
I hope so. I only have 9GB left on my 160GB (latest revision) iPod Classic. I know people argue that the iPod Touch is a better alternative, but for me, I like the convenience of having my entire music library on hand.

I've tried just using my iPhone 4 but I've found that when I'm in the mood for certain songs, it's probably not on there. The 16GB is so limited an I'm sure it will probably be at least 5-10 years before a 250GB iPhone is in existence, if ever.

Scepticalscribe
Nov 7, 2010, 02:50 PM
Yes, I'm also one of those who likes to have my entire music collection with me when I travel, so I'm a fan of the classic, too.

While I love the Touch, too, (I have the 64GB) it is nice to have all of your music collection on one device.

Cheers

appleguy123
Nov 7, 2010, 02:53 PM
Apple should just make little flash chips that fit flush inside the 30 pin connector. You could have your music with you everywhere, without worrying about space.

Merthyrboy
Nov 7, 2010, 03:27 PM
They should update it by either making it cheaper, more battery or more storage. hopefully they'll do all three though

iEvolution
Nov 8, 2010, 12:01 AM
Apple should just make little flash chips that fit flush inside the 30 pin connector. You could have your music with you everywhere, without worrying about space.

The reason they don't do this is because capacity is a big selling point for new models, by not having microSD support there would be no need for users of older models to upgrade.

Shaneuk
Nov 8, 2010, 12:42 PM
I'd love to have a 500gb one and a 1tb one, that would be amazing.

Twizz91
Nov 8, 2010, 01:01 PM
I think they are going to discontinue the classic, and upgrade the ipod touch to 128gb flash.

Hasn't anyone noticed how steve did nót point the classic as an ipod during the september event (the one with the 'complete ipod make-over') He did not once notice the Classic.
So i think it's end of road for the Classic....

appleguy123
Nov 8, 2010, 09:19 PM
The reason they don't do this is because capacity is a big selling point for new models, by not having microSD support there would be no need for users of older models to upgrade.

Make the chips expensive and don't allow 3rd parties to reproduce them.

ArmCortexA8
Nov 8, 2010, 10:23 PM
If people rememember the iPod Classic came out as 160Gb, then they cut the capacity back to 120GB, then they went back to 160GB. The reason why the Classic still sells well is because of capacity, as it has 1.8" hard disk inside it which is extremeley durable. Hell mine has dropped a couple of times and never missed a beat. I suppose Apple could put a touch screen in the classic with it existing hardware, this way people have the best of both. There has been no Firmware updates to the iPod Classic for over a year.

The iPhone 4 / iPod Touch all use DDR-RAM, not NAND which is used in SSD drives. The DDR is cheaper to produce and more common, unlike NAND used in SSD drives which is usually MLC (Multi Level Cell), rarely SLC (Single Level Cell). True the classic still uses a hard disk, but because these are so common and such high capacity the price of the HDD is very low, especially in the quantities Apple purchase from Hitachi etc. If Apple were to remove the HDD and replace it with a similar capacity 160GB SSD module, the price would make it more expensive than the top end iPod touch.

This is because NAND manufacturing is still pretty minimal and only a select few fabrication plants actually manufacture it - Samsung being the majority stakeholder, and due to this the price remains high. The simple idea of supply and demand. Currently between SSD / HDD the situation is the following - SSD very high speed lower capacity vs HDD slower speed larger capacity. Currently, its uneconomical to have the best of both worlds.

In the end Apple will either kill off the Classic or keep selling it till the Ipod Touch range and their capacities can be increased gradually to meet or exceed the 160GB Classic.

Kestrel452
Nov 9, 2010, 10:27 AM
There comes a point where adding more storage just becomes not worth it. 160GB is a TON of storage.

Derkatwork
Nov 9, 2010, 11:01 AM
They should discontinue it. There comes a point where the old must yield to the new. The storage space of ipod touches are slowly increasing and have a large arsenal of features that the classic is highly unlikely to get. I'm only surprised that they haven't stopped it already. Maybe they are waiting until ipod touches get ~160 GB of storage space; since at that point they will outclass the classic in all respects.

Blue Velvet
Nov 9, 2010, 11:18 AM
They've been using Toshiba 1.8" drives in these for years.

The largest one that Toshiba currently make is 320Gb with a 250Gb model in the same range, but whether they're at a bulk trade price that can enable Apple to keep their usual high margins and still have a product that people will pay for is another thing altogether. There also comes a point where the clickwheel becomes awkward to use with the number of files a gadget like this could hold, so having some idea of how Steve Jobs is incredibly fussy about interfaces, this also might play a part in its future and form factor.

I suspect they can't, or won't take the Classic much further.

OllyW
Nov 9, 2010, 11:40 AM
...since at that point they will outclass the classic in all respects.

Except for the price.

Twizz91
Nov 9, 2010, 11:48 AM
Except for the price.

Unfortunately the price has never been a worry for Apple :D

Derkatwork
Nov 9, 2010, 07:37 PM
Except for the price.

The features (and there are a lot of them) definitely outweigh the price difference. Also, how many people actually fill an ipod classic? The screen is too small to watch movies (in my opinion at least). Again, based on me, I can barely fill a 16 GB iphone (let alone my 32 GB iphone). At 64GB or maybe 120 in the next generation or two, that will be a considerable amount that most won't fill, other than the people that want an entire movie collection on their ipod for some reason.

iBookG4user
Nov 9, 2010, 07:44 PM
The features (and there are a lot of them) definitely outweigh the price difference. Also, how many people actually fill an ipod classic? The screen is too small to watch movies (in my opinion at least). Again, based on me, I can barely fill a 16 GB iphone (let alone my 32 GB iphone). At 64GB or maybe 120 in the next generation or two, that will be a considerable amount that most won't fill, other than the people that want an entire movie collection on their ipod for some reason.

Some people do not need all of the features and just want something that will play music and let them watch videos on it. Personally I have an iPhone, but I also have an iPod Video and I don't mind watching movies on the 2.5" screen. That's why there are more than 1 iPod, because different people have different needs.

TuffLuffJimmy
Nov 9, 2010, 07:56 PM
I'd love to have an iPod classic with a 500GB hard disk, better battery life, no stupid fancy interface, and a thicker body.

My favorite iPod design is the third generation iPod with the glowing red touch buttons. An updated version of that would be sick especially with a glass face.

DrumApple
Nov 9, 2010, 11:40 PM
There comes a point where adding more storage just becomes not worth it. 160GB is a TON of storage.

I disagree, yes 160GB is a lot of storage for the average person. But iPod classics are intended for the hardcore music collectors etc. with a need for A LOT of storage space. For them, 160GB is not much today. Look at computer HD's, the second level iMac already has a terabyte!

I wouldn't mind if they retire the actual hard-drive discs and change to flash memory- but come on give us an update! We're paying nearly $1.56 per gigabyte on these!

Peter.Howard
Nov 10, 2010, 12:11 AM
My guess would be that Apple just replaces the Ipod Classic with an updated Ipod touch with more memory and the better display from the Iphone 4.
I'm sure from their point of view the Classic is an outdated product, with this touch screen OS.


The Ipod Classic does not really look much different to the first Ipod.

Derkatwork
Nov 10, 2010, 07:39 AM
I disagree, yes 160GB is a lot of storage for the average person. But iPod classics are intended for the hardcore music collectors etc. with a need for A LOT of storage space. For them, 160GB is not much today. Look at computer HD's, the second level iMac already has a terabyte!

I wouldn't mind if they retire the actual hard-drive discs and change to flash memory- but come on give us an update! We're paying nearly $1.56 per gigabyte on these!

I highly doubt that even music junkies have 160GB of only music and no video. I doubt there is more than 5% of people that fill that to the ~40,000 song limit. And IF you have that much music, do you listen to it all? Or is it taking up space without being listened to? I only have 1.5 GB, but I cycle through it all. And the fact that mac hard drive has that much space is a different story too. Full computers have programs that take up a few GB. They typically handle much large files (and more of them) and need the extra space (although a terabyte is a bit excessive I must admit).

runnin17
Nov 10, 2010, 07:41 AM
They should not change the ipod classic other than to give it more storage space. It is perfect the way it is!!!!

I for one would hate to have a touch. The touch screen is not nearly as functional as the click wheel. The click wheel is perfect for a music only device IMO because you don't have to mess with looking at the frickin' screen if you want to change songs or even change the volume.

I would be happy with a 256GB flash storage option or heck even a 320GB 1.8" HDD option would make me happy.

I have had my 160GB classic filled since the second week I have had it.

jeffy.dee-lux
Nov 10, 2010, 07:50 AM
I for one would hate to have a touch. The touch screen is not nearly as functional as the click wheel. The click wheel is perfect for a music only device IMO because you don't have to mess with looking at the frickin' screen if you want to change songs or even change the volume.
it.

I agree about the interface. If all you want it for is music, the touch screen is less useful and it adds a lot to the cost. I want my money to go towards storage and not the iOS stuff. A 128GB Touch will be way too expensive for me. I'd love a 128GB flash-based storage Classic at $279, that would be perfect for me.

OllyW
Nov 10, 2010, 07:57 AM
The features (and there are a lot of them) definitely outweigh the price difference. Also, how many people actually fill an ipod classic? The screen is too small to watch movies (in my opinion at least). Again, based on me, I can barely fill a 16 GB iphone (let alone my 32 GB iphone). At 64GB or maybe 120 in the next generation or two, that will be a considerable amount that most won't fill, other than the people that want an entire movie collection on their ipod for some reason.

The extra features of the touch are great if you need them and a complete waste of money if you don't.

I use my 160 GB classic for music only and I'm down to my last 5 GB. I've got an iPhone for the fancy stuff but I just like to plug my iPod into the speakers at work and let it play. The classic is perfect for this.

bartelby
Nov 10, 2010, 08:09 AM
I highly doubt that even music junkies have 160GB of only music and no video. I doubt there is more than 5% of people that fill that to the ~40,000 song limit.

Less songs at a higher quality?

dcd1134
Nov 10, 2010, 08:59 AM
I highly doubt that even music junkies have 160GB of only music and no video. I doubt there is more than 5% of people that fill that to the ~40,000 song limit. And IF you have that much music, do you listen to it all? Or is it taking up space without being listened to? I only have 1.5 GB, but I cycle through it all. And the fact that mac hard drive has that much space is a different story too. Full computers have programs that take up a few GB. They typically handle much large files (and more of them) and need the extra space (although a terabyte is a bit excessive I must admit).


Over 400GB of music, plus 300GB of movies and counting. Do I listen to it all?
I try. :D

ngenerator
Nov 10, 2010, 10:28 AM
The reason they're not updating the Classic? Apps. No apps on an iPod Classic means no 30% cut to them when an app is sold. It's really too bad, I loved the Classic

Labaguette
Nov 10, 2010, 04:55 PM
i would also love to see an updated iPod Classic.

I mean: 40,000 songs? on 160GB? This is sooo 2001, nobody talkin' AAC 128Kbit/s any more.
Nowadays, you get somewhere round
450MB/h with 16/44,1
or something like
800MB/h for 24/48
when using ALAC.
If you mix these formats half and half, you can fill your iPod classic with just 250 hours of music. At an average of 4 minutes per song, this totals at 3750 Songs, less than 1/10th of what it promises...

Twizz91
Nov 11, 2010, 01:13 PM
I highly doubt that even music junkies have 160GB of only music and no video. I doubt there is more than 5% of people that fill that to the ~40,000 song limit. And IF you have that much music, do you listen to it all? Or is it taking up space without being listened to? I only have 1.5 GB, but I cycle through it all. And the fact that mac hard drive has that much space is a different story too. Full computers have programs that take up a few GB. They typically handle much large files (and more of them) and need the extra space (although a terabyte is a bit excessive I must admit).

Hmm I guess that i'm a hardcore hardcore music collector then, i constantly have storage problems on my ipod classic (160gb), with no video at all!

TuffLuffJimmy
Nov 11, 2010, 01:25 PM
Hmm I guess that i'm a hardcore hardcore music collector then, i constantly have storage problems on my ipod classic (160gb), with no video at all!

Same. I've been contemplating getting another classic, but I really do not want to have to manage two separate libraries.

Shaneuk
Nov 11, 2010, 02:02 PM
I think they are going to discontinue the classic, and upgrade the ipod touch to 128gb flash.

Hasn't anyone noticed how steve did nót point the classic as an ipod during the september event (the one with the 'complete ipod make-over') He did not once notice the Classic.
So i think it's end of road for the Classic....

To discontinue the classic would be unbelievably foolish. The touch is good, but it's not for everyone. The classic is just a really nice thing to have, since it's nice and bulky and doesn't rely on a touch screen. Which a lot of people I know can't use it because their fingers are too big.

iEvolution
Nov 11, 2010, 07:37 PM
I find it funny that apple has been so reluctant to update capacities. People need more capacity these days. Yet..

- Classic is still at its 2007 capacity
- Nano is still at its 2008 capacity
- Touch is only 64GB which is wimpy if you want to carry around a decent collection of videos and have music + apps.
- Shuffle has been downgraded to a capacity introduced in 2008. Though admittedly it would be pretty silly to have a massive capacity shuffle, but 4GB should have definitely been the choice capacity for those who like to keep their music in higher quality bit rates.

blackburn
Nov 16, 2010, 05:04 AM
I have an ipod classic and I will most likely never fill the 160gb it offers. I use about 20~30Gb, I don't like caring to many songs with me, I only listen in shuffle, is rare to listen albums (only progressive stuff like dream theater). But if I had bought an ipod touch, I would spend all day messing with apps. When I just want something to listen to music with a decent battery. They should make an ipod classic with flash memory and a bigger battery. And another for those who carry lossless music with more space.

Pojo458
Nov 16, 2010, 07:52 AM
I think they should keep updating them, maybe add bluetooth capabilities or AM/FM radio

blackburn
Nov 16, 2010, 05:19 PM
What I wanted apple to do was an big ipod classic for lossless tunes, and an ipod classic with at least 32gb of flash space to carry around every day with me (with no gimmicks).
I can't use small things, since I keep on loosing them (already lost 2 flash drives and one ipod shuffle:eek:)
That's why I have an big ass flash drive and an ipod classic with only 26gigs of music.
They could launch an ipod mini style ipod classic with anodised covers and a clickwheel that doesn't need to get shinny to work well.

ItsJustafnPhone
Nov 16, 2010, 09:08 PM
more than 160gb... in music ????

I will admit the need for a larger size if there is someone with that large of a collection that was 100% purchased , not downloaded for free anywhere

TuffLuffJimmy
Nov 16, 2010, 11:00 PM
more than 160gb... in music ????

I will admit the need for a larger size if there is someone with that large of a collection that was 100% purchased , not downloaded for free anywhere

I made all 200GB of music in my iTunes. Well other than my purchased Beatles albums.

DrumApple
Nov 16, 2010, 11:06 PM
more than 160gb... in music ????

I will admit the need for a larger size if there is someone with that large of a collection that was 100% purchased , not downloaded for free anywhere

Well... where's that admission? :D

Besides, that's like saying lawyers never lie...

blackburn
Nov 17, 2010, 04:44 AM
Well it ain't that hard to fill up 160gb of music. I don't buy music from itunes. I still like old school cd's.
ALAC is crap compared to flac. For example the album Lateralus from Tool, uses 480MB in flac but if compressed in ALAC uses 853MB (24 Bit HDCD).

dXTC
Nov 17, 2010, 11:12 AM
They've been using Toshiba 1.8" drives in these for years.

The largest one that Toshiba currently make is 320Gb with a 250Gb model in the same range, but whether they're at a bulk trade price that can enable Apple to keep their usual high margins and still have a product that people will pay for is another thing altogether.

I disagree, yes 160GB is a lot of storage for the average person. But iPod classics are intended for the hardcore music collectors etc. with a need for A LOT of storage space. For them, 160GB is not much today. Look at computer HD's, the second level iMac already has a terabyte!


Now that the nano has gone touchscreen, my next logical purchase is the Classic, as I'm not yet ready to give up the Clickwheel-- I love the no-look functionality.

I use my 5G nano for both music and video, often in conjunction with the Composite A/V cable. I could easily fill a Classic with a decent amount of music and a LOT of movies for when there's nothing decent on the hotel's cable TV, or when my daughter's bored and fidgety.

250Gb seems about right for a healthy mix of audio and video while out and about to me. The 320Gb drive may make it too costly to sell well.

Alternately, Apple could redesign it to use the SSD that's made for the MacBook Air, and use economies of scale to reduce production cost. Of course, this might make the resulting device "taller", so that might rule it out.

EDIT: Oh, and colors! Not the whole gamut of color like the nano, but a small assortment, say pink, blue and green or purple in addition to the silver and black. Perhaps the same color selection as the shuffle...?

blackburn
Nov 17, 2010, 11:35 AM
The main problem that we (iPod Classic users) face, is that it lost it's former glory.
It's a stop gap, yet mine performs it's job just fine. No issues with it. But I would like more options (color / capacity / ssd / harddisk).
The new ipod nano is way to small and the lack of the clickwheel makes it very unappealing to me.
Looking forward to grab another ipod classic and convert it to compact flash.

And I agree with dXTC, the ipod classic lcd has very lousy colors. But it preforms well in sun light.

So most likely apple will someday kill it.

warpoholic
Nov 19, 2010, 02:42 AM
Reading this treat and out of my own experience the iPod Classic should be made into an iPod Pro (iPod HiFi? ... was there something?).
Since my iPod Photo 60GB died, I was hoping for a 128GB Touch.
I'm hesitating to get the Classic as I have a history of damaged hard-drives.
(iPod 3G 20GB / iPod 4G 40GB (+1 disc replaced) / iPod Photo 60GB (+1 disc replaced))

Meanwhile I'm back on an old 300 $ DiscMan and realized what I was missing. A whole dimension of space and clarity.
(Sure you'll need a better headphone than what is coming with the iPod to get this difference)

So pleas Apple, put in flash memory and use the space for a better audio unit.
This will end up pricy but compared to what I've spend for my music-collection pretty much peanuts.
I really don't like to buy one of this ugly HiFiMan's out there!

JaHawk2009
Nov 19, 2010, 04:29 AM
I still think that next year Apple are going to go 100% Touch based with all the iPod models.
2007 - iPod touch released. It proved a success and that success has grown with every iteration since then.
2010 - iPod nano made 95% touch-based & seems to be proving popular
2011 - iPods Classic & Shuffle made touch based? I think the Classic will become just like the Nano6G but with a more rectangular screen and video capability OR the Classic will be phased out completely.

Zoddino
Nov 21, 2010, 06:47 AM
The reason they're not updating the Classic? Apps. No apps on an iPod Classic means no 30% cut to them when an app is sold. It's really too bad, I loved the Classic

I agree with you. But let's face it, the Classic is old tech, no iOS and especially there is the old mechanical drive which is going to be replaced in the future by flash memory and SSDs in general. I'm all for taking all of our music with us (even better in lossless which at one point has to come to iTunes Store i suppose) but even if I had to choose again between a Classic or an iPod Touch, i would chose the latter one all the time because of the many advantages it has over the old mechanical classic. The main problem right now with Touch-es is the space compared to the Classic but i'm pretty sure that is not going to be a concern for much longer, I expect a 128gb flash memory iPod Touch (and maybe iPad and iphone? not so sure on iphone) by next year!

Warbrain
Nov 21, 2010, 10:41 AM
I agree with you. But let's face it, the Classic is old tech, no iOS and especially there is the old mechanical drive which is going to be replaced in the future by flash memory and SSDs in general. I'm all for taking all of our music with us (even better in lossless which at one point has to come to iTunes Store i suppose) but even if I had to choose again between a Classic or an iPod Touch, i would chose the latter one all the time because of the many advantages it has over the old mechanical classic. The main problem right now with Touch-es is the space compared to the Classic but i'm pretty sure that is not going to be a concern for much longer, I expect a 128gb flash memory iPod Touch (and maybe iPad and iphone? not so sure on iphone) by next year!

The hard drive is what makes it really old tech. Remember that the nano is still running the same iPod OS but just adapted to allow touch gestures.

combatcolin
Nov 22, 2010, 08:45 AM
There comes a point where adding more storage just becomes not worth it. 160GB is a TON of storage.

People may define that somewhat differently.

littleman23408
Nov 23, 2010, 09:17 AM
If they do not update it, atleast drop the price. The design looks fine to me for a music player.

Maybe there will be some kind of discount on it for black friday. I need a new ipod, and one with no less than 120 gb of storage is the one for me.

InuNacho
Nov 23, 2010, 04:25 PM
I'm a bit surprised that the Classic hasn't seen a price reduction. It is using kinda old technology compared to the Touch, has less features, fatter, and smaller screen.

I hope that the Classic will get an update soon with maybe a SSD, different colors, or even a built in speaker like the Touch.

blackburn
Nov 24, 2010, 03:24 AM
They could get rid of the shiny back, and make it look like the ipod mini. Anodized aluminum, but in black. Unibody style :D

KeithJenner
Nov 24, 2010, 04:24 AM
more than 160gb... in music ????

I will admit the need for a larger size if there is someone with that large of a collection that was 100% purchased , not downloaded for free anywhere

I can just fit my collection on my Classic (about 2gb spare at the moment), but I have to downgrade everything to 128kbps to get it on. I'd like to put a couple of live videos on as well and have it at 256kbps (if only to speed up syncing), but need a bigger capacity to do that.

I have less than 100 free downloads in my collection, which are songs that are deleted so can't be purchased legally.

EDIT to say that I don't believe that these products are likely to be, or should be, upgraded to account for people like me, who make up a very small proportion of the population. However, enough people want to have their music in lossless format, or add some video, so there would be demand for larger capacity.

I suspect Apple won't upgrade the HDD classic, but as SSD's get cheaper we are likely in a few years time to see very large capacity SSD iPods available.

SactoGuy18
Nov 24, 2010, 06:42 AM
My guess right now is that Apple with the 5G iPod touch due September 2011 finally phase out the iPod classic and replace it with the 128 GB capacity iPod touch.

littleman23408
Nov 24, 2010, 08:40 AM
My guess right now is that Apple with the 5G iPod touch due September 2011 finally phase out the iPod classic and replace it with the 128 GB capacity iPod touch.

But isn't the 64 GB touch like $400? If they make a 128 GB touch, i'm sure it will be bloody expensive. It would be cool to have that much storage on a touch, but I would not buy it for as much as i'm sure that thing will cost.

petsy
Nov 24, 2010, 10:33 AM
Not that I have a ton of tunes in that format, but FLAC compatibility would obviously be nice on a future iPod Classic. Sizewise, I don't think they should try and make it smaller. It doesn't need to be. Who says everything has to become thinner and thinner? I love the weight and feel of my iPod. Apple are already ahead of the competition on this, but I really think they and other makers should focus on making well built and solid units that have a real physical quality to them. That's way more important than thickness (and, for the most part, features). This is one way electronics have really become worse as the years have gone by.

InuNacho
Nov 24, 2010, 11:29 AM
They could get rid of the shiny back, and make it look like the ipod mini. Anodized aluminum, but in black. Unibody style :D

That'd be great, especially if they offer it in the Mini colors!

SactoGuy18
Nov 24, 2010, 08:23 PM
But isn't the 64 GB touch like $400? If they make a 128 GB touch, i'm sure it will be bloody expensive. It would be cool to have that much storage on a touch, but I would not buy it for as much as i'm sure that thing will cost.

I would agree, but with the price of flash RAM still going down, I wouldn't be surprised that Apple prices the next-generation iPod touch at these prices:

32 GB US$229
64 GB US$299
128 GB US$399

jeffy.dee-lux
Nov 25, 2010, 03:37 PM
I would agree, but with the price of flash RAM still going down, I wouldn't be surprised that Apple prices the next-generation iPod touch at these prices:

32 GB US$229
64 GB US$299
128 GB US$399

Regardless... i would not be willing to pay 400$ for 128GB, especially considering i can get 160GB for $279 right now. Some people don't want to have to pay for a touch screen, wifi, iOS in something they just want to use as a music player. The question is whether Apple wants to continue producing a product for that market segment or if they'll just focus on fancier gadgets. I would buy a 128GB flash-based Classic if it came in at the same price as the current iPod. I'd be willing to take a hit in storage space for the solid state drive, I've probably still got a few years before I fill 128GB of music, but i will definitely get there. I'd also like to keep my photos on me, but I'm happy either looking at them on the small iPod screen, or plugging into a computer if I want to show them full size.

InuNacho
Nov 25, 2010, 08:40 PM
$249 for a 128 GB solid state Classic? I'm sold.

nightpwnsj00
Nov 26, 2010, 02:21 AM
Not that I have a ton of tunes in that format, but FLAC compatibility would obviously be nice on a future iPod Classic. Sizewise, I don't think they should try and make it smaller. It doesn't need to be. Who says everything has to become thinner and thinner? I love the weight and feel of my iPod. Apple are already ahead of the competition on this, but I really think they and other makers should focus on making well built and solid units that have a real physical quality to them. That's way more important than thickness (and, for the most part, features). This is one way electronics have really become worse as the years have gone by.


Ahhhh, FLAC would be amazing, as would the Classic not shrinking (or disappearing all together!). I happen to enjoy the heft compared to my Nano. The Nano gets knocked around so much because there's honestly nothing to it, and the thinness isn't that comfortable when compared to my Classic.