Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iPod' started by 411macjunkie, Feb 4, 2009.
Posted this story on my site I read on 9to5mac. Would 240GB be enough for you?
YES, in a flash!
If they released that along side the 120GB I would have gotten it instead of the 2G 16GB iPod touch.
yeah but in a couple months even that wont hold all my stuff. i currently have like 160 gbs of videos and music mainly videos
In a second.
Mostly use Apple Lossless and my 750 CDs fill about 190GB. So even the 160GB iPod Classic was never an option.
Had hoped Apple would announce a 240GB version, but then they didn't. But perhaps they couldn't since the drives weren't really available. No point announcing hardware that will ship 6 months later...
Fingers crossed Apple will release a 240GB iPod some time!
Using lossless on a HDD iPod is gonna smash the battery life unless they bump the RAM up by loads. Otherwise it would be spinning the disc up after pretty much every song.
yes, i would order it the day it came out. by the way, about a week after Toshiba announced the 1.8" 240GB HDD, they out did themselves and announced a 250GB 1.8" HDD, so i would buy either one of them in a heartbeat. does anyone know if there is any evidence to support that Apple is working on a 250GB iPod classic?
since the technology is now available they probaly hard. I hope they are
I'd buy one if my 30 GB iPod photo broke, not before.
I would definitely. But aren't Apple focusing on smaller capacity players?
I'd say 15% of music listener's don't have massive libraries.
And 99 % of listeners with massive libraries have no reason to put months worth of music on an iPod other than "just to have it there."
Other than the occasion of a party or maybe they want to have enough music so that there is something that each of their friends would enjoy.
So true. I have 17 days worth of music on my iPod and I only listen to a few albums.
That's the most subjective statement I hear all the time on this site. I have a 200GB music collection. ALL of which I love, obviously. I would love to be able to have all that music in one place because how the hell am I supposed to know what I'm going to want to listen to when I'm in a certain mood, when I'm gone for a month at a time, when a friend asks to hear a certain song/album, when I forgot about an album that I now want to hear, when... do I really need to go on? Why is it that this argument needs to constantly be stated to people before they understand it?
Honestly, no offense to you personally, but there are literally a million different reasons why a person would want to have all their music in one place. Why is 120GB ok to have but not 240? Why do you need 120GB? Why do you need 60GB? Why 30? Everyone's collections are different and everyone's music listening habits/needs are different.
That's exactly it, though I wouldn't say it's a negative thing. If I can have EVERYTHING on my iPod it's great for not having to syn regularly to update what I'm listening to the most, if I'm on a trip, or.. well all of the reasons have realyl been discussed to death and they all really boil down to "just to have it there". i suppose it's also an excellent back-up incase my laptop was ever stolen/crashed for all of my music. I guess I just don't see the "just to have it" as a negative.
Only if it came in a better design than the current iPod Classic. Kinda fell out of love with it after owning one. 3G and 5G designs were my favourites.
Phoar, that would just be mad. lol. I could imagine a whole bunch of music fanatics getting that lol.
My library is 305GB, so anything is an improvement. I was really hoping that they'd jump from 160Gb to 320GB, but no.
Unfortuantely, Steve Jobs implicitly agrees with you. Like I said above, I have what some must consider to be a "massive" library. Every disc I own I bought for some reason, so there is always the chance that I'll want to hear it. It is a big inconvenience to manual check and uncheck songs to keep within the capacity of my 160GB Classic. I wish that Apple would continue to put the biggest capactiy drives that they can in the Classic, but I'm afraid that we won't see any more upgrades. Flash is the future, and if that means we have to wait until 2012 to get flash-based player that equals the capacity of today's (or ironically, last year's) Classics, so be it.
And they'll probably have the inferior Touch interface, too. Seriously, have you ever tried to scroll through a long track (like an hour-long podcast or an audiobook) with that slider with any sort of precision? Give me the scroll wheel any day.
Looking at iPod development in the last few years, I believe it is pretty clear that the hard drive based iPod is on its way out. Too bad, because I use mine primarially to carry my music from home, to the car for my commute, in my office for 8 hours and then the commute home, then repeat. I can count the number of times I have used my headphones with my iPod on one hand (e.g. 6).
I really like having all of my music with me. If I want a player for walking, doing yard work, etc., a nano or shuffle makes more sense.
One can only hope that flash memory keeps getting cheaper and in bigger capacity.
Really? A million? Talk about a subjective statement. When you figure out how to listen to 10 days worth of music in one day, let me know.
I don't. But unless your music files are all 300 MB in size, the simple math/logic argument eluded to above is a good start.
Yes, there is always a "chance" you'll want to hear it. But if not being able to listen to one song when you have a maximum of 159.96 GB of other music to choose from is going to ruin your day, then you've got bigger issues to sort out than fussing over the iPod Classic. If you want a large-capacity iPod, check out the iPod Super.
As for the interface: to be honest, I don't find the new scroll wheel as responsive as those found on the 5g and 5.5g iPod videos. The split screen interface also drives me nuts, as well as the disappearance of an easy way to get the music to pause when the headphone jack gets pulled out (did I miss this somewhere?). Scrolling through a long list of tracks or seeking within a track sounds like a nightmare. The one-level file system and crappy sorting options further detract from the iPod experience, at least for me. I wish I had the time and know-how to make a Rockbox build for the Classic.
Face reality, folks- you all implicitly realize that the utility of an iPod doesn't decrease nearly as much going from 160 GB to 240 GB than going from say, 30 to 60. You just don't want to agree with me.
lol i have a friend who deletes songs off his iPhone like 2 weeks after he puts them on because he can't stand listening to old music. Me on the other hand, i like to keep everything with me incase i feel like listening to something from back in the day.
Most people also don't use lossless formats in a portable device. Considering the nightmare of storage that Apple Lossless is, I don't get the use of it unless you're a music pro. You need a good sound system to really tell the difference, and most people don't hook iPods up to decent sound systems.
Whether Apple keeps the Classic or not is going to boil down to sales numbers. If they continue to sell, Apple will keep making them. Especially since the storage is considerably larger than the current touch models. My best guess is that Apple will continue to have just one model of the Classic and they won't make them any thicker. So when larger HDD's come out but can fit in the current model, that's what they'll offer. But that's just my opinion.
Personally I agree with those that don't want to have to constantly sync their ipods to add/remove songs. Along with the required data plan, the *relatively* small storage that is currently offered on the iPhone is one of the 2 main reasons I am not getting one.
To answer the original question, I would buy a 240 gb Classic if that was the only model offered if I needed a new iPod and depending on what sizes the Nanos are being offered in. I don't need that much storage but I prefer the click wheel to touch screens and I predict by the time we see Classics that large, we'll see 32 gb nanos which would be a perfect size for me.
Definitely, I need more storage. I rip everything to lossless and can only carry around a fraction of my library.