PDA

View Full Version : The 5 Best and Worst iPods of All Time


MacBytes
Sep 24, 2008, 12:19 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Apple Hardware
Link: The 5 Best and Worst iPods of All Time (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20080924131949)
Description:: Apple has released no less than 104 different capacity and color combinations of its iconic media player. Among all those models, however, there are bound to be a few that stand out among the sea of white, for better or worse. Check out our list of the 5 best -- and worst -- iPods ever.

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Kilamite
Sep 24, 2008, 12:30 PM
The current iPod Nano 4G should be in place of the 3G - the 3G is just too fiddly, and of course the 4G has the accelerometer for going sideways.

Don't agree with the 7G iPod Classic being in the Worst section either - how they come to the conclusion that the 1,2 and 3G iPod's rank better than the 7G iPod Classic is beyond me! They made a huge part in forming the iPod's now, but to put the new Classic on the Worst section...come on!

morlium
Sep 24, 2008, 12:42 PM
The current iPod Nano 4G should be in place of the 3G - the 3G is just too fiddly, and of course the 4G has the accelerometer for going sideways.

Don't agree with the 7G iPod Classic being in the Worst section either - how they come to the conclusion that the 1,2 and 3G iPod's rank better than the 7G iPod Classic is beyond me! They made a huge part in forming the iPod's now, but to put the new Classic on the Worst section...come on!

As with most lists, this one is subjective, but really --- what's so great about the 7G classic? Less gigabytes, no accelerometer and no design changes. Pretty bland, if you ask me.

Kilamite
Sep 24, 2008, 12:45 PM
As with most lists, this one is subjective, but really --- what's so great about the 7G classic? Less gigabytes, no accelerometer and no design changes. Pretty bland, if you ask me.

What's so great about the 1,2 or 3G iPod's that makes them better than the 7G Classic?

It is a sleek, thin, full colour screen and video playback iPod, and now has the Genius feature (which I know, Apple could implement for the rest of them) too.

And why isn't the iPod Touch on there either? The original iPod's are better than the Touch in their view?!

nick9191
Sep 24, 2008, 12:48 PM
The iPod Touch is the best iPod, scratch that, music player ever produced.

Rojo
Sep 24, 2008, 01:07 PM
I think they were going for which models ended up being a vast improvement over the previous models (and the first gen thrown in there, because...well it's the 1st!). That's why they're placing older generations above the latest 7G -- which frankly isn't all that much better than it's predecessor.

However, the list still seems off to me. And no Touch? That seems very wrong to me...

tk421
Sep 24, 2008, 01:07 PM
What's so great about the 1,2 or 3G iPod's that makes them better than the 7G Classic?

The list isn't what is the best now, but in context of history. Of course nobody would buy a 3G today - it's outdated. But the 3G update was amazing, and added so much to the iPod (a lot of it - like the dock connector or AAC - remaining today).

That said, I don't think the iPod Classic is so bad either.

morlium
Sep 24, 2008, 01:10 PM
What's so great about the 1,2 or 3G iPod's that makes them better than the 7G Classic?

It is a sleek, thin, full colour screen and video playback iPod, and now has the Genius feature (which I know, Apple could implement for the rest of them) too.

And why isn't the iPod Touch on there either? The original iPod's are better than the Touch in their view?!

It's a matter of evolution, and the 1G, 2G and 3G were major leaps forward, rather than design improvements or software tweaks. You'd argue that Genius playlists are more important to the iPod's development than Windows support? The 7G iPod is a perfectly fine release, just not a groundbreaking one. I mean, it didn't even get its own press release.

shigzeo
Sep 24, 2008, 01:11 PM
the ipod touch is what brought me away from apple's competitors. good sound, gapless, heaps of space, great battery life: this list is ongoing.

morlium
Sep 24, 2008, 01:12 PM
I think they were going for which models ended up being a vast improvement over the previous models (and the first gen thrown in there, because...well it's the 1st!). That's why they're placing older generations above the latest 7G -- which frankly isn't all that much better than it's predecessor.

However, the list still seems off to me. And no Touch? That seems very wrong to me...


Well, the touch merely followed the iPhone's lead and didn't actually break any ground of its own.

11800506
Sep 24, 2008, 01:51 PM
I would have to say that the iPod touch is actually one of the best iPods - sure it came after the iPhone but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included as a separate model.

maclovin'
Sep 24, 2008, 02:01 PM
Well, the touch merely followed the iPhone's lead and didn't actually break any ground of its own.

The iPhone's purpose wasn't a music player though....it was a phone that happened to have some functionality as a music player. The iPod touch was designed to be a music player, and it's Apples best music player. As a standalone music player, it broke tons of ground.

macFanDave
Sep 24, 2008, 02:51 PM
I liked the iPod mini a lot, but I didn't care for the nano 1G. I thought Apple nailed it with the nano 2G -- it was a mini mini!! I loved both of those aluminum babies!

I had no problem with the iPod 4G. It was a fine machine, until it broke.

All great products. Now I use an iPhone. I don't see why iPhones aren't considered iPods. I mostly use my iPhone as an iPod.

Brien
Sep 24, 2008, 03:00 PM
I would've put the 3G iPod, 1G iPod, nano, touch/iPhone on the top 5 (along with the mini). Not the 2G (just an evolutionary update), and not the 3G nano.

brn2ski00
Sep 24, 2008, 03:01 PM
i love that 3G iPod... its beautiful!

Yvan256
Sep 24, 2008, 04:54 PM
As far as music playback is concerned, IMHO, my iPod shuffle easily beats my iPod touch. I can clip my iPod shuffle to my shirt, I don't have to look at it to change the volume or skip tracks, it's pratically weightless and it costs only 55$ CAD. :D

For everything else, however, I prefer my iPod touch (bigger capacity, video playback, Safari, Mail, Google Maps, apps, etc).

mathcolo
Sep 24, 2008, 10:19 PM
i love that 3G iPod... its beautiful!

I love mine too... that's why I still use it to this day:D.

mainstreetmark
Sep 25, 2008, 08:04 AM
I'd put the Touch up in the "worst" list. Any iPod that gets rid of the clickwheel entirely should either be in the Top 5 Worst, or not called an iPod at all.

Breegy
Sep 25, 2008, 08:18 AM
I'd put the Touch up in the "worst" list. Any iPod that gets rid of the clickwheel entirely should either be in the Top 5 Worst, or not called an iPod at all.

Some people like their iPods to do more than play music and videos... Did it ever occur to you that they can make an app that incorporates a fuax-click-wheel on the touch screen? Isn't a real click wheel but goes through music all the same. If you spread the word, maybe one will come around.

Why aren't Touches on the best list? This article fails.

Dejavu
Sep 25, 2008, 08:21 AM
The 3G iPod had 8-hour battery life and buttons on the top which cluttered the aesthetics. It would be considered my worst pick.

BTW. This list is pants. Every new model improves on the former, so I haven't a clue what criteria they are using. The 2G is pretty bad; expensive, molasses UI, crap screen, 10 hour battery life, etc.

Breegy
Sep 25, 2008, 08:33 AM
The 3G iPod had 8-hour battery life and buttons on the top which cluttered the aesthetics. It would be considered my worst pick.

BTW. This list is pants. Every new model improves on the former, so I haven't a clue what criteria they are using. The 2G is pretty bad; expensive, molasses UI, crap screen, 10 hour battery life, etc.

I agree. This list makes no sense whatsoever.

r.mac999
Sep 25, 2008, 10:18 AM
What about the iPod 5G as the 'best iPod ever'. Not only is the black one the best looking iPod ever produced (IMO), but it also introduced video playback to the iPods.

Galley
Sep 25, 2008, 01:19 PM
The 3G iPod was terrible with its touch-sensitive buttons. I didn't buy my first iPod until the 40GB 4G.

sra. Aguirre
Sep 27, 2008, 05:17 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Apple Hardware
Link: The 5 Best and Worst iPods of All Time (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20080924131949)
Description:: Apple has released no less than 104 different capacity and color combinations of its iconic media player. Among all those models, however, there are bound to be a few that stand out among the sea of white, for better or worse. Check out our list of the 5 best -- and worst -- iPods ever.

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

IMHO the worst iPod isn't because of function, but has more to do with form... I DETEST those fat and ugly 3rd Generation nanos......yuck! glad the 4th gen's are sleek and stylish again

Chundles
Sep 27, 2008, 05:30 PM
There is no 7G iPod. The iPod classic (80GB, 160GB) and the new 120GB are all still 6G iPods.

zap2
Sep 27, 2008, 05:37 PM
Cool idea for an article, poorly done.


And the 2G iPod was not the best iPod.

No mention of the touch? I mean that was a big step in a new direction.

Kilamite
Sep 27, 2008, 05:39 PM
There is no 7G iPod. The iPod classic (80GB, 160GB) and the new 120GB are all still 6G iPods.

Slight case modification.

If going by your logic, then the iPod Nano 2G is just a Nano 1G.

sra. Aguirre
Sep 27, 2008, 05:41 PM
Cool idea for an article, poorly done.


And the 2G iPod was not the best iPod.

No mention of the touch? I mean that was a big step in a new direction.

Could not agree with you more, poorly done article...and the Touch was definitely better than the Nano 3 Gen......much more innovation...this is just a list of personal likes of someone...

calculus
Sep 27, 2008, 05:45 PM
this is just a list of personal likes of someone...

Imagine that!

People like different things, who would have thought...

Chundles
Sep 27, 2008, 05:52 PM
Slight case modification.

If going by your logic, then the iPod Nano 2G is just a Nano 1G.

It's not "my logic" it's how Apple classifies them in their server.

Only when they undergo significant external redesigns are they considered a new generation of iPod.

iPod:

1G = iPod (with scroll wheel)
2G = iPod (with touch wheel)
3G = iPod (dock connector)
4G = iPod (click wheel), iPod photo, iPod (colour screen)
5G = iPod 5th Generation, iPod 5th Generation (late 2006)
6G = iPod classic (80GB, 160GB), iPod classic (120GB)

iPod nano:

1G = iPod nano
2G = iPod nano 2nd Generation
3G = iPod nano 3rd Generation
4G = iPod nano 4th Generation

Each year the nano has had a significant redesign and as such are new generations.

Remember, this is not my opinion, it is fact directly from Apple.

Scarlet Fever
Oct 29, 2008, 06:02 AM
Gold 1st gen Mini. It looked horrible.

iCantwait
Oct 29, 2008, 08:36 AM
the difference between the 1G and 2G aren't huge, just a solid wheel and a firewire cover...

by the logic mentioned in the comments of the author you would think the jump between the 3G to 4G is bigger then the step from 1G to 2G

*Note: i have all 4 iPods i speak of - and love the 1G and 4G most

Krafty
Oct 29, 2008, 03:15 PM
3G iPod
No one really knew what to expect when, in April 2003, Apple sent out invitations for its first standalone iPod event, and nothing could have prepared us for what was waiting behind the black curtain. With an entirely new lineup dressed in an ultra-thin enclosure, the first audio-out dock, On-the-Go playlists, back-lit, touch-sensitive buttons, and AAC decoding, the 3G iPod was (and, by all accounts, still is) the greatest update the iPod had ever seen.My first iPod. Used it so much the battery only last 15 minutes after 4 years.

Techguy172
Oct 29, 2008, 03:16 PM
This article was a FAIL! the 3G nano is horrible!

aznguyen316
Oct 29, 2008, 04:01 PM
This article was a FAIL! the 3G nano is horrible!

Disagree =) why is the 3G nano horrible in your opinion? It's thin, a widescreen that is much larger than the previous 2G nano, plays video, cover flow and doubled the size to 8GB. I owned the 2G nano and this 3G is much better/nicer. I say it's a bigger leap forward than the 4G nano just released.

Techguy172
Oct 29, 2008, 04:52 PM
Disagree =) why is the 3G nano horrible in your opinion? It's thin, a widescreen that is much larger than the previous 2G nano, plays video, cover flow and doubled the size to 8GB. I owned the 2G nano and this 3G is much better/nicer. I say it's a bigger leap forward than the 4G nano just released.

It's fat, coverflow is useless and i don't care about thickness. The 4th get has nicer colors and a better design, also with a widescreen. It includes a shake to shuffle and an accelerometer. Also thinner and double capacity.

aznguyen316
Oct 29, 2008, 05:51 PM
It's fat, coverflow is useless and i don't care about thickness. The 4th get has nicer colors and a better design, also with a widescreen. It includes a shake to shuffle and an accelerometer. Also thinner and double capacity.

But the 4th came after the 3rd obviously and the 3g was a bigger leap from 2g than 3G->4G.

you thought the 3G was horrible but yet the 4G brings a lot of what the 3rd Gen brought to the table

The double capacity was the same thing from 2G->3G you can't just say 4G is better in that aspect and skip a gen like that wasn't the case before.

What I guess I wonder is before the 4th gen nano did you think the 3rd was horrible? B/c two of your arguments for the 4th the 3rd gen introduced (widescreen and double capacity)

Techguy172
Oct 29, 2008, 06:11 PM
But the 4th came after the 3rd obviously and the 3g was a bigger leap from 2g than 3G->4G.

you thought the 3G was horrible but yet the 4G brings a lot of what the 3rd Gen brought to the table

The double capacity was the same thing from 2G->3G you can't just say 4G is better in that aspect and skip a gen like that wasn't the case before.

What I guess I wonder is before the 4th gen nano did you think the 3rd was horrible? B/c two of your arguments for the 4th the 3rd gen introduced (widescreen and double capacity)

I never liked the 3rd gen, from the first day i saw it. the third gen wasn't the first to double capacity that was the second gen. I don't really care for the larger screen as i don't watch video and the only time I look at it is to change the song. The 3rd gen didn't double capacity the 2nd gen had 8gb's.

To be honest It innovated nothing. Widescreen is no innovation. I only give credit for changing something. The 3rd gen was a step back for me.