What do you want from iPod Classic?

[killr_b]

I have to ask the people of this forum:
Do you want a thinner Classic, more storage, ect? Select multiple options and lets see where we are.

I want a 250GB iPod Classic. I love music and my library is about 50% Apple Lossless now, and I can tell the difference in the quality. I don't want to down convert to 128kbs EVER, and I'm not sure 256kbs is good enough either (what I used before Apple Lossless and 2TB hard drives). I don't care if it is as thick and heavy as the iPod Photo, I was cool with that then.

What do you all want and why?

[Rawkfist]

I want more storage, the more the better. A better DAC, like the 5g and 5.5g had. Like the title says, I want a MUSIC player. A Classic doesn't need to multi-function. I really like the no look function of the scroll wheel. The thickness or thinness of it is no big deal to me because mine spends 90% of it's time in my glovebox anyway. When I do take it out, the scroll wheel suits my simple needs and my simple mind. I might be in the minority on these views, but my iPod needs to do one thing and do it well. Nothing does it better than the Classic.

[v66jack]

iPod Classic in my view should be bulky, have some real weight and pack masses of storage. It should play music, have the round scroll thing on the front and a screen. That's it!

[Alaerian]

I want an iPod. Just an iPod. I want storage, I want battery life. I want to be able to take my entire collection with me and have space to spare.

I don't want bells and whistles - leave off the crap like cameras, touch screens, etc. The iPod Touch already exists for people who want that.

[Zoreke]

Better sound, DAC and amp, so it can drive better headphones on the go. and more storage is always good. FLAC support would be nice too.

Better earbuds (I basically trow away the stock ones), I want the 10 year anniversary audiophile ipod !

:D

[NeoMac]

Beyond the higher capacity I would like airplay but it's not a deal breaker.

[Yaboze]

Good post and poll! I am a huge fan of the classic and wheel based iPods. I just want a music player, faster scrolling through songs (my B&W iPod 4 was faster in this regard), good DAC, good storage, etc. A little weight and bulk, smaller screen is ok (when compared to the Touch). I would also like the back to be less mirrored because it scratches so easily. Make it matte and look like the iPad with a black apple logo or something.

I just hope they don't bag the product. I hope it stays around, even if it's not that popular and doesn't have a big touch screen, etc.

[emvath]

I would love to have a classic with 128 flash memory in it!

[Rawkfist]

I would love to have a classic with 128 flash memory in it!
I think a flash drive Classic would be cool. That would increase battery life. But 128gb is not big enough for my needs. A 256gb flash drive Classic with a decent DAC would be the iPod of my dreams. At the current price of SSD right now I don't think enough people would be able to justify the price for Apple to produce it. Maybe the Classic will survive long enough for a flash based unit to be feasible.

[herruberraschen]

FM radio, wi-fi iTunes store, and an external volume button.

[jrcsh6]

bigger, widescreen, higher res. screen, smaller wheel. like the previous gen ipod nano and a huge HD. i'd also like white back from the old days of a true CLASSIC!:D

[mattk3650]

Big 'ol 4.0" touch screen. Simple interface. It would be basically a thicker, hard drive, iPod Touch with no app store. Just Music, Videos, and Photos.

[Komentra]

I would like it to have Wifi and that's it and the ability to stream from your iTunes library and perhaps a music store.

[Alan64]

I want an iPod. Just an iPod. I want storage, I want battery life. I want to be able to take my entire collection with me and have space to spare.

I don't want bells and whistles - leave off the crap like cameras, touch screens, etc. The iPod Touch already exists for people who want that.

Ditto!

[phairphan]

Bring back the slight thicker version of the first iPod Classic, the one capable of accommodating dual platter drives. Then convince Toshiba to make a dual platter version of their new 220 GB drive for a whopping 440 GB of space. Improve the DAC and the amp and charge an arm and a leg for it. I'd be happy with just the extra space, but they might as well throw in a few extras.

Per the above poll, one thing I imagine a lot of us lossless folks would appreciate is the ability to choose the down-sampling rate. 128kb/s? No thanks. Even before I started re-ripping everything ALAC, I never used such a low bit rate. That's an iTunes issue and has nothing to do with the iPod.

[iLucas]

A much larger hard drive.
I would like just one device to be able to carry my music library and play it whenever.

my current 80 gb is full!

[FatJeff]

Like most of you all I want is a larger hard drive. I use mine in the usual fashion as a music player, but I also do large file transfers with it, so an extra 10-12 gigs of available storage space is valuable to me.

Keep the storage big.
Keep the features simple.
Keep it reliable (still using a 30g Photo version)
Keep the price low.
Keep making it!

[iLucas]

Keep it reliable (still using a 30g Photo version)


This as well.

I have dropped my iPod classic a ton of times, and it is still in excellent shape.

[iEvolution]

There is one more very important factor missing from the poll, "improved sound quality". The classic is behind sound quality wise when it should be the best since it is pretty centered around music.

Overall, if I were to pick just one it would definitely be capacity, with improved sound quality a VERY close second.

[Vermillion]

Definitely bigger space. My current iPod is full and I would LOVE to have most of my music in lossless on it.

[Scepticalscribe]

I love the classic and find myself in agreement with almost everyone who has posted so far. Nice thread, and nice, too, to see that the classic still has a certain cult status amongst music lovers, and that it still has fans.

Personally, the I'd like to see a number of features. To me, the classic is a music player, pure and simple, and I'm not interested in complicated features. I have an iTouch which does all that and more. So, for the classic, I'd like to see more storage, and longer battery life. If that storage could come in the form of SSD, I'd be delighted. Agree with iEvolution about the sound quality, it could certainly do with improvement, and I agree totally with Zoreke re the poor quality of the admittedly stylish ear-buds. I, too, have never actually been able to use them comfortably.

Cheers

[killr_b]

Some good ideas in this thread. I like the idea of using an aluminum back like the iPad. iPods only look good for about 5 minutes...

I didn't put the Digital to Analog converter as a poll option because I didn't know the DAC was downgraded after the 5g. Maybe they should release a special edition "audiophile" version that has a really good DAC, a dual platter drive @+ 400GB, and a real eq with at least 10 bands.

[someone28624]

I don't need a whole lot more features, but I woud love an FM tuner. Better battery life wouldn't hurt either. I don't need a higher capacity, but lighter is always nicer, just don't do it by sacrificing functionality- keep the current general form factor.

[dXTC]

My next logical iPod purchase is the classic, when/if my 5th gen nanos wear out; the 6th gen nano is seriously nerfed.

My votes: More storage of course, better battery life, and ability to downconvert to 256K. I'm rebuilding my library, some of it in Lossless, and it would be nice to have a setting that's better than 128K.

I think Apple could squeeze 192Gb (six 32Gb chips) into the current form factor. Ditching the platter drive would boost battery life considerably, and even more space would be left for battery capacity. 256 Gb may take too much room on the circuit board unless Apple used four 64Gb chips, which starts to get really pricey.

I don't necessarily care for more features such as FM radio. However, a high-quality DAC/phone amp would be a definite plus.

Oh, and keep the Click Wheel! For those who want touch screen, Apple could up the iPod touch to 128Gb.

[vincenz]

How about a 500 GB classic? :D

[blackburn]

What about an decent click wheel like the older ipods?

this "Ability to down-convert on transfer to 256kbs" can be implemented in software (iTunes side)

[Alaerian]

What's wrong with the current wheel? Honestly, I don't see any issue with it. What would you change?

[hleewell]

Is old fashioned spin drive fast enough for multi-touch interface? If yes, lose the physical click wheel, keep the same form factor of iPod Classic, boost storage to 220GB (Toshiba or some other has managed to produce such micro sized HDD), slap the current iPod Touch on top of it. Yes, the iPad 1G's aluminum back would look fantastic on iPod Classic.

Or just keep the form factor (I love the width & length), use iPad 1G aluminum back, put in iPod Touch 4G internals & modified LCD, 128 GB max, voila, you have a larger iPod Touch or an iPad Mini for extreme mobile gamers.

"iPod Classic Re-Defined."
"The Classic as You've Never Seen It Before."
"The Classic. Still Here."

[blackburn]

What's wrong with the current wheel? Honestly, I don't see any issue with it. What would you change?

It's really not responsive, the older ipods where more responsive.

[NCW]

How about a 500 GB classic? :D

yes please :p

I've got about 7 gigs left on my 120gb classic, I would love for a 200+ gig

[GSPARKY]

I imported all my CD's onto iTunes in a WAV format so the file sizes are not compressed at all but it does take up a lot of space. I would love for the next iPod classic to have 250GB or a possible 320GB of memory space & improved battery life. If the sound quality isn't very good, I honestly haven't noticed a problem but I am still pretty new, then I would like improved sound quality. That is about it.

[FixYouriTunes]

I want a thinner a slightly larger case and of course I want more space. A classic between the size of what it is now and the size of an iPhone with 250GB of space. Also a speedier version would be cool and a larger screen to see some awesome album covers! Anything more than that would be even better but this is what I would love!

[blackburn]

A more elaborated list:D
Do's:
-> Light sensor (when navigating trough music library at late night)
-> No more shinny back (it's only great on the first week or so, mine is still good but is in a leather case)
-> Solid state option (one with hdd and other with flash)
-> No lag when opening lyrics (bigger cache perhaps?)
-> Either and faster to recharge battery or an bigger battery
-> Decent dac
-> An ips screen maybe (asking too much?)
Don'ts:
-> NO gimmicks, just an audio player
-> NO crappy oled screens that you can't see anything outdoors (like my walkman)

[dime21]

I want more storage, the more the better. A better DAC, like the 5g and 5.5g had. Like the title says, I want a MUSIC player. A Classic doesn't need to multi-function. I really like the no look function of the scroll wheel. The thickness or thinness of it is no big deal to me because mine spends 90% of it's time in my glovebox anyway. When I do take it out, the scroll wheel suits my simple needs and my simple mind. I might be in the minority on these views, but my iPod needs to do one thing and do it well. Nothing does it better than the Classic.
Agree 100% with your comments. 256 GB SSD is now available in 1.8" size, that would be perfect. That and a better DAC than the cheapo one they're using now. Lastly, I'd like the headphone jack to be like the one on the MBP, where it's an electrical audio jack, but it's also a mini-Toslink SPDIF jack... for when I want to use my serious home DAC and stereo system.

I absolutely do not want a touchscreen. Real physical buttons only please, that I can feel in my pocket without having to take the thing out to look at it. And I don't give a crap about thinner. The current thickness is perfectly fine. And keep the polished metal case. It feels really nice, like a high end piece of hardware. I don't care that it gets scuffed easily, it still feels so much better than any cheap plastic would.

And don't clutter the thing up with 1000 useless functions like wifi or games or apps. Keep it simple, make it do one thing, and do it well. Doing one thing well is far better than doing 1000 things poorly.

[dime21]

I imported all my CD's onto iTunes in a WAV format so the file sizes are not compressed at all but it does take up a lot of space. I would love for the next iPod classic to have 250GB or a possible 320GB of memory space & improved battery life. If the sound quality isn't very good, I honestly haven't noticed a problem but I am still pretty new, then I would like improved sound quality. That is about it.
Why WAV? Apple lossless is identical 1:1 quality as WAV. So is FLAC and any other lossless compressed formats.

[jackbarton]

I have to ask the people of this forum:
Do you want a thinner Classic, more storage, ect? Select multiple options and lets see where we are.

I want a 250GB iPod Classic. I love music and my library is about 50% Apple Lossless now, and I can tell the difference in the quality. I don't want to down convert to 128kbs EVER, and I'm not sure 256kbs is good enough either (what I used before Apple Lossless and 2TB hard drives). I don't care if it is as thick and heavy as the iPod Photo, I was cool with that then.

What do you all want and why?

I love claaic ipod.

[LLPE33]

I wanted the Classic updated with one of the 220GB Toshiba drives, but I couldn't wait another 6 or so months and picked up the Classic a couple of weeks ago. I still have my 8GB Fatty and my phone with 16GB of memory to pickup the slack since I'm just over and growing. But other wise I just want a super large capacity iPod that's for playing music, hence getting the Classic.

[blackburn]

How about a decent EQ?:D

[dime21]

I love claaic ipod.
And claaic ipod loves you too!

[GSPARKY]

Why WAV? Apple lossless is identical 1:1 quality as WAV. So is FLAC and any other lossless compressed formats.

Because WAV is completely uncompressed & it is the full file. If you buy the totally uncompressed file, you can still import it in a lossless format but it doesn't go the other way around. You can upconvert lossless to WAV but it wont be 100% the same quality as the original WAV file would have been. Let me buy the uncompressed file & do with is what I want.

[kuebby]

Like most of you all I want is a larger hard drive. I use mine in the usual fashion as a music player, but I also do large file transfers with it, so an extra 10-12 gigs of available storage space is valuable to me.

Keep the storage big.
Keep the features simple.
Keep it reliable (still using a 30g Photo version)
Keep the price low.
Keep making it!

Finally, a MR newbie with some reasonable, well-thought out opinions. I agree with all of those. The current size of the classic is perfect, not too thin, not too thick, with enough weight to be solid but not too much to be bulky. Great battery life built into the form factor, but also at a good price point. The only thing I think I'd even think of changing is bringing back Firewire support, specifically FW800. As the capacity increases it will be increasingly useful for file transfers, where a faster connection becomes increasingly important.

[dXTC]

Because WAV is completely uncompressed & it is the full file. If you buy the totally uncompressed file, you can still import it in a lossless format but it doesn't go the other way around. You can upconvert lossless to WAV but it wont be 100% the same quality as the original WAV file would have been. Let me buy the uncompressed file & do with is what I want.

Perhaps you've been misinformed. Apple Lossless as well as FLAC indeed store a perfect bit-for-bit representation of the audio data that a .WAV or .AIFF file contains; the Apple Lossless and FLAC codecs are simply more efficient with its method of storing those bits. Reconverting the Apple Lossless or FLAC file into .WAV or .AIFF indeed restores every single original audio bit, in a very similar way that .ZIP files do to documents/binary data.

No sound data, and thus no sound quality, is lost at all; that's why it's called lossless.

EDIT: Another thing you may notice: Apple Lossless and FLAC have standardized metadata sections that allow information like artist and song title to be recognized across applications and even OS platforms. WAV files don't; metadata stored in a WAV file by one application are not guaranteed to be readable by other applications.

[Javik]

Is old fashioned spin drive fast enough for multi-touch interface? If yes, lose the physical click wheel, keep the same form factor of iPod Classic, boost storage to 220GB (Toshiba or some other has managed to produce such micro sized HDD), slap the current iPod Touch on top of it. Yes, the iPad 1G's aluminum back would look fantastic on iPod Classic.

Or just keep the form factor (I love the width & length), use iPad 1G aluminum back, put in iPod Touch 4G internals & modified LCD, 128 GB max, voila, you have a larger iPod Touch or an iPad Mini for extreme mobile gamers.

"iPod Classic Re-Defined."
"The Classic as You've Never Seen It Before."
"The Classic. Still Here."

....yeah i really dont think so...


The iPod Classic and 5th Gen Nano's are perfect in my opinion. Good, cheap, rugged, no fuss, yet still beautiful devices that don't need the multi-touch perks and fancy UI's. I think this is what has made the classic iPod devices so successful and what made them so popular.

The new Classic imo should:
-KEEP THE CLICK WHEEL FTW! love it really
-Increase Data Capacity HDD FTW
-2Gigs (or less i dunno) of SSD for OS
-Slightly revamped UI (by this i don't mean iOS, but maybe a slightly more minimalistic, simple, and slightly cooler interface...i dunno Apple you think of it!
-Keep the Same Form Factor (come on its awesome and if anything need be changed, change the back or the build of the device...not the shape or dimensions)
-FW and/or Thunderbolt Connection
-Wifi Syncing/Software Upgrade (more for calendar/notes sync than media sync

Bring Back the ClickWheel Nano...No one wants a touchscreen shuffle!

The reason I would love getting an iPod Classic, would be storing my data in Lossless format. I've never liked MP3 or purchasing MP3's through the internet because I'm always scared the media I'm getting is not a true representation of the quality the artist wants to give you. Although this is never ever truly possible, I feel lossless is the only way to quench this need inside of me. Please Apple dont destroy the product that built you back up again. The new Nano is crap! I have literally seen no one with it, bring back the nanochromatics!

[Fuzzy.Dunlop]

Dual WM8740 Dac and 200gb+ would do me

[MikesGravity]

I don't care about the size or battery, it sits in my car, plugged in. Bigger capacity is my BIG thing. VOICE control would be REALLY nice! Just for music. "Play artist ____, album ____".

250GB should be good!

Not a big deal but some more powerful guts would be good, I HATE how the classic "OS" lags a bit.

[killr_b]

Perhaps you've been misinformed. Apple Lossless as well as FLAC indeed store a perfect bit-for-bit representation of the audio data that a .WAV or .AIFF file contains; the Apple Lossless and FLAC codecs are simply more efficient with its method of storing those bits. Reconverting the Apple Lossless or FLAC file into .WAV or .AIFF indeed restores every single original audio bit, in a very similar way that .ZIP files do to documents/binary data.

No sound data, and thus no sound quality, is lost at all; that's why it's called lossless.

EDIT: Another thing you may notice: Apple Lossless and FLAC have standardized metadata sections that allow information like artist and song title to be recognized across applications and even OS platforms. WAV files don't; metadata stored in a WAV file by one application are not guaranteed to be readable by other applications.

After reading his post I was going to type the exact same reply. Then I read your post, LOL!

[killr_b]

...this "Ability to down-convert on transfer to 256kbs" can be implemented in software (iTunes side)

I understand that it is software side, not hardware. I included the option in the poll so people could expand on their thoughts if they were so inclinded. They could select "thinner, but still around 160" and also select "ability to down-convert" to express that they are happy with storage but would like slightly higher quality, or what have you.