iPod Any New Classic Coming Out Soon?

The iPod Classic form factor is a dying breed. There probably won't be any updates to it; if it even survives.

I'm also in for a new iPod.. would love a Touch with a hard drive.. Probably won't see it though..

As of writing (5/20/2011) iPod Classic is the 2nd leading selling mp3 player behind the iPod Touch on Amazon under the mp3 player section. 90% of the time I check the classic is in the top 10, something apple probably hates.

It is my opinion that apple severely underplays the selling of the iPod Classic in attempt to get people to convert to iOS devices where they can make greater profits from apps, etc. There is no way the device is going bye-bye this year either, but then again apple has done some stupid moves before (3rd gen shuffle anyone?).

The iPod Classic *might* be the mid year-refresh (which would be the next apple event on the 22nd) with that 220GB hard drive. Other than that I wouldn't expect any serious modifications to be done to the device other than the capacity, which is it's selling point.

I can't remember for sure, but I don't think there was a mid year refresh in 2010 (3rd gen shuffle colors is the only thing that really sticks out as a possibility) so perhaps there won't be one this year either.

Has anyone noticed that the iPod Touch tops out at 64 Gigs and you pay top dollar for that... but the Classic iPod tops out at 160 Gigs and you can buy it at Best Buy for what... $244. I understand that it appears that Apple would love people to migrate to the iOS platform, whether iPad, iTouch, iPhone etc... but the capacities are much smaller, yet you are paying more for less.
I plan to get a new Classic, whether they update it or not. There are those of us who just want a really good player to hold lots of great songs, videos and pics without all the other stuff.

17Mac said:

Has anyone noticed that the iPod Touch tops out at 64 Gigs and you pay top dollar for that... but the Classic iPod tops out at 160 Gigs and you can buy it at Best Buy for what... $244. I understand that it appears that Apple would love people to migrate to the iOS platform, whether iPad, iTouch, iPhone etc... but the capacities are much smaller, yet you are paying more for less.
I plan to get a new Classic, whether they update it or not. There are those of us who just want a really good player to hold lots of great songs, videos and pics without all the other stuff.

Click to expand...

They can't be compared

The iTouch is light years ahead of the classic.

17Mac said:

Has anyone noticed that the iPod Touch tops out at 64 Gigs and you pay top dollar for that... but the Classic iPod tops out at 160 Gigs and you can buy it at Best Buy for what... $244. I understand that it appears that Apple would love people to migrate to the iOS platform, whether iPad, iTouch, iPhone etc... but the capacities are much smaller, yet you are paying more for less.
I plan to get a new Classic, whether they update it or not. There are those of us who just want a really good player to hold lots of great songs, videos and pics without all the other stuff.

Click to expand...

One of the huge hardware differences between the touch and the classic is that the classic uses a much cheaper hard drive for storage (hence the 'larger capacity for less'), while the touch uses flash chips which cost quite a bit more the higher the capacity. Some people can use the camera and a heap of other gimmicks as reasons the price is higher too, but the way I see it is that the first few generations lacked many of those features yet still cost just as much (if not more); as it stands, the huge difference between the two iPods' price is, in my opinion, to do with the storage.

OllyW said:

Different beasts.

Try squeezing a 60+GB music collection onto a iPod touch. The classic is light years ahead in this case.

Click to expand...

You have to remember though, that the Classic has a physical (moving parts) hard drive, while the Touch has a flash drive.

Of course the hard drive has more storage capacity, but it is also causes the Classic to be much thicker, slightly slower than the Touch, more susceptible to damage from drops and whatnot (since there is a hard drive as opposed to a flash drive).

Just my two cents, I'm neutral, I had both, and loved them both. If I had to choose which one to buy, it would be difficult to decide.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

I own both a Classic and a Touch. Both have their merits. For me the Classic serves as a music device and it does that excellently. I don't mind that it's physically a bit bigger and heavier at all. In fact you barely notice. I paid around £175 for the Classic in November '10 and I can safely say it was a fine investment.

My Touch I have owned for around 2 and a half years. I originally used it for a mix of music and apps however, even if I had a 64GB Touch, I simply didn't have enough room. So I began to use it solely for TV programmes and movies. The Touch's screen worked perfect for that and I can't complain. I'd never dream of putting any music back on it as the two devices compliment each other perfectly.

I can see Apple doing a 10th anniversary edition to milk the faithful into buying iPods again, despite owning iDevice(s).

Praying for a 220 gig classic

At 161 gigs of music I maxed out my "160" gig classic about 11 or 12 gigs ago, and the gap gets bigger weekly. I pray daily to be able to once again have all my music with me at all times. If you are not obsessive enough to have that kind of music collection it would be hard for you to understand how hard it is to decide what to leave off. I sure hope Apple's move to streaming from the cloud (which I highly doubt would work for my collection, if it's based solely on music they've bought rights to stream, like the reports say) won't cause them to leave us high-capacity guys in the lurch. Anyway, I will buy a 220 on the day it comes out.

Cheers.

Samuel Beckett said:

At 161 gigs of music I maxed out my "160" gig classic about 11 or 12 gigs ago, and the gap gets bigger weekly. I pray daily to be able to once again have all my music with me at all times. If you are not obsessive enough to have that kind of music collection it would be hard for you to understand how hard it is to decide what to leave off. I sure hope Apple's move to streaming from the cloud (which I highly doubt would work for my collection, if it's based solely on music they've bought rights to stream, like the reports say) won't cause them to leave us high-capacity guys in the lurch. Anyway, I will buy a 220 on the day it comes out.

Cheers.

Click to expand...

Thats my exact fear with these cloud crap, its a nice way to stop updating capacities in a attempt to "force" people over to their cloud services. Never-mind the signal problems that can occur through streaming content.

To be completely honest, for music my 120GB works just fine even have 40GB left over..but if I were to throw my videos for output on TV then I'd be about 80GB in the hole with a 160GB model.

In a perfect world the iPod Classic would get a increase in screen size (3" to keep it from running into the touch market), the dual platter hard drive model would return and apple would release a 320GB (maybe 440GB since the single layer is at 220GB now) and HD movie output support.

I wish microsoft would have never dropped their Zune hard drive model simply because I'm sure we would actually see some updates of there were any competition for the iPod Classic. Sadly it is in a league of its own these days.

OllyW said:

Different beasts.

Try squeezing a 60+GB music collection onto a iPod touch. The classic is light years ahead in this case.

Click to expand...

I have ~3gb of music , capacity doesn't worry me.

iEvolution said:

greater profits from apps, etc.

Click to expand...

The money apple makes from the apps is really insignificant when you look at the total they make every quater.

Thanks for all the extra info about the Touch and the classic. I was just looking strictly at the storage capacity and the cost associated with that.

True... with the classic, a hard drive, slower than flash... and the touch you can do so much more. I had a Touch, 2nd gen, and at times, for flash based, it seemed a bit slow to me, subjective of course, but again, I was just musing about the storage of both for games, music, movies and things like that.

Here is something that just popped into my head. You know how for desktop computers and laptops I believe also... you can get a hybrid drive... that is a spinning platter but also had flash memory modules for quick access?

Wouldn't it be something to develop an iPod Touch along those lines.. to increase storage potential...yet be fast...with a stronger case to resist drops and things like that.. Just throwing an idea out there.