PDA

View Full Version : iPod classic in September?




atoothelex
Jun 9, 2009, 11:28 AM
What can we expect come September? Will the iPod classic finally get the memory boost of 250GB that we've been waiting for, or will the classic be killed?



JonHimself
Jun 9, 2009, 11:48 AM
Maybe they'll turn it into a competitor of the Flip HD video recorder. Who knows at this point if they'll even keep it? I've got to assume they're still a little ways away from killing it off (if they ever do) but I think bump in hard drive space is likely the only "guarantee" as far as rumor-site guarantees go.

ecstasy
Jun 9, 2009, 11:50 AM
From my own perspective, I think the Classic will slowly be killed off, leading way to the iPod Touch/iPhone dominating the scene.

ghostee
Jun 9, 2009, 10:13 PM
Considering they went down in size from 160 to 120, I doubt they'll be increasing it to 250. I'd guess they'll retire it either this September or next.

pooryou
Jun 10, 2009, 06:19 AM
Well if they finally have an OS for the device that can handle large amounts of music files, they can start upping the capacity again. I'm pretty sure that the 160GB was discontinued because the iPod Classic OS can't handle it (mine sure can't).

JonHimself
Jun 10, 2009, 07:19 AM
Well if they finally have an OS for the device that can handle large amounts of music files, they can start upping the capacity again. I'm pretty sure that the 160GB was discontinued because the iPod Classic OS can't handle it (mine sure can't).

I think the reason it dropped from 160gb to 120gb is because of the hard-drive "plates" (or platters or something). The 80gb was 1 of those so it was small, the 160 was 2 so it was thicker. They were able to then up the 80 to 120gb because the hard drives got bigger (in terms of space) and presumably could have put out a 240gb in the same size as the 160gb previous model but just didn't.
Maybe it does have to do with the OS but I just assumed it was a dimensions issue.

Ivan P
Jun 10, 2009, 07:34 AM
I think the reason it dropped from 160gb to 120gb is because of the hard-drive "plates" (or platters or something). The 80gb was 1 of those so it was small, the 160 was 2 so it was thicker. They were able to then up the 80 to 120gb because the hard drives got bigger (in terms of space) and presumably could have put out a 240gb in the same size as the 160gb previous model but just didn't.
Maybe it does have to do with the OS but I just assumed it was a dimensions issue.

Apple said why at the iPod keynote - the wanted to make it thinner while keeping it at a capacity that everybody (read: most) would love. Plus the 160GB classic was officially the worst-selling iPod ever.

instaxgirl
Jun 10, 2009, 07:40 AM
Apple said why at the iPod keynote - the wanted to make it thinner while keeping it at a capacity that everybody (read: most) would love. Plus the 160GB classic was officially the worst-selling iPod ever.

And while the Apple obsession with thinness is usually really annoying, it's true that the 160GB classic is a beast. I only know one person with one.

JonHimself
Jun 10, 2009, 10:35 AM
Apple said why at the iPod keynote - the wanted to make it thinner while keeping it at a capacity that everybody (read: most) would love. Plus the 160GB classic was officially the worst-selling iPod ever.

I think that's what I was getting at? 120gb was the biggest hard drive available to keep it at the same dimensions. I have to assume part of why the 160gb didn't sell was because of the size when added to the fact that most people probably don't have libraries that big? (I'm aware that some people do, I have 110gbs of music and close to 1TB of video, but I'm likely in the minority of most iPod purchasers).
If they could fit 180gbs/240/150 whatever it may be in the same size iPod for the same price I'm not sure why they wouldn't (well I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if they left it, but if price and cosmetics don't change it's reasonable to assume they'd bump specs)?

JonHimself
Jun 10, 2009, 10:36 AM
And while the Apple obsession with thinness is usually really annoying, it's true that the 160GB classic is a beast. I only know one person with one.

I'd like to see the nano sales vs classic sales. I've always had the classic (since 3rd gen) and only once bought a refurb 2gb nano for nike+. Most people I know have nanos and not the classic and I think Apple has long acknowledged the nano as being the most popular (amazon charts, itunes store charts etc) but I'd like to know how close it actually is (or isn't).

TheNightPhoenix
Jun 10, 2009, 06:24 PM
And while the Apple obsession with thinness is usually really annoying, it's true that the 160GB classic is a beast. I only know one person with one.

Well I bought 2 :p

slu
Jun 10, 2009, 09:14 PM
I also bought one and was dissapointed when they dropped the capacity, but I also understood why they did.

I expect them to keep it the same unless they can get a larger capacity drive in the same size.

I don't think they can drop it until you can get a touch with over 100 gig. There are just too many people that want a music player that holds their entire collection.

DaftUnion
Jun 10, 2009, 09:49 PM
Eh, I'm really hoping they "update" it back to a 160gb drive or larger (if they make a single platter 160gb drive or bigger by September). Hell, now that the iTunes store is double the bitrate than before it's like dropping a 120gb iPod down to 60gb for the people that only used to encode/buy at 128kbps. And I really can't see that the 120gb is going to be big enough for everybody due to this.

I've almost finished ripping all my cd's onto the computer and it's going to be around 120-130gb's so that 120gb classic just isn't going to do.

And to the people that say that you don't need all your music with you, I already have an iPhone that only holds a portion of my collection so I want one that does (as I'm sure others do too). When your in the car and somebody wants to hear a random song it's nice to know that it's most likely there.

Chundles
Jun 10, 2009, 09:55 PM
I'd like to see the nano sales vs classic sales. I've always had the classic (since 3rd gen) and only once bought a refurb 2gb nano for nike+. Most people I know have nanos and not the classic and I think Apple has long acknowledged the nano as being the most popular (amazon charts, itunes store charts etc) but I'd like to know how close it actually is (or isn't).

In my iPod sales experience the nanos and the touches fly off the shelves while the classics gather dust.

It's massively skewed towards nano and touch, like 10 or 15:1

SactoGuy18
Jun 10, 2009, 11:18 PM
I don't think Apple sells that many iPod classics because 1) they're pretty big units by iPod standards and 2) the vast majority of iPod owners don't need the 120 GB storage capacity of the player unless they want to store most fo their music collection on the player.

I do think that Apple may be preparing to replace the iPod classic with a new touchscreen player with 64 and 128 GB flash memory that does not have the full functionality of the iPod touch (many of the features of the iPod touch are overkill for the average iPod owner).