Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPod Classic Supplies Tightening Ahead of Possible Update or Discontinuation

Why is there so much hate for the Classic? If you don't need one, that's cool, but why do want it discontinued? I have no use for a Mac Mini and 16GB iPads seem stupid to me, but I don't want them denied to others...

I've got a huge library that I burnt into Apple Lossless because I care about my music. One classic is plugged into my car, and the other is in my office at work - not places that I can stream music from my desktop. I need as much storage as they can give me.

I don't need or want a Touch, because I have an iPhone and the iOS interface is awful for a dedicated music player. Anyway, a Touch with 256GB isn't happening anytime soon, and would cost $700 anyway. A 220GB Classic (or even twice that with a double platter) could be had for under $300 now.

Seriously, if you don't need it, don't buy it. I realize that your Beiber and Katy Perry catalog ripped at 128 AAC takes up about 100MB, but it is unseemly to demand that the Classic be discontinued and to ridicule those that do have a need for it.
 
Last edited:
I honestly can't believe so many people are saying discontinue it and backing that up by pointing to an upcoming 128GB touch or cloud computing/streaming, that totally misses the point.

First the 128GB touch. The 64GB costs 400 now, so it's probably safe to assume that the next generation will offer 128 at the same price point. That's still $150 more for 32GB less than is available now for an iPod classic. WHY WOULD ANYONE PAY MORE FOR LESS? It's just counter-intuitive.

Second is streaming or cloud or whatever. Personally I hate streaming things, I'd rather have the file to keep, and I know I'm not the only one. Internet isn't always available, it adds cost, it eats battery... need I go on? There's a reason a classic gets like 40 hours on 1 charge. What about when you travel outside the country? When I went to France a couple years ago I didn't even bring my iPhone, just my 80GB 5G.

I'd love to see a 10th anniversary 220GB classic, maybe even with a slight redesign. I really don't even see much of a chance at discontinuation. Any R&D costs have long been recouped so getting rid of the classic would just be giving away profits since people who want a HD iPod won't just settle with a touch, they'll buy one used from eBay, where Apple clearly makes zero money.

Edit: Just saw Foxer's post. That's exactly what I'm saying.
 
The iPod Video 5.5 80GB was my first Apple product, and I still use it every single day. I travel a lot for my job, and I love the idea of having as much of my music collection at hand as I possibly can. I have been using Audiogalaxy's iPhone app for relatively smooth streaming of my entire music collection, but I am limited to cell signal... I can't stream where I don't have coverage. I'll be using my iPod video until it refuses to work for me. If/When that day comes, though, I'd replace it with a 220GB iPod Classic in a heartbeat.
 
I've been using my 5G iPod lately, and it's still a great device. It doesn't have all the features of the Classic, but the storage (for my needs) can't be beat; it's so easy to use and navigate; the screen is still in great shape; and it's still a pretty nice looking piece of technology.

It was my first iPod (I got it with my first Mac in July of 06), and it still does good work for me. For those who need high capacity and affordability and don't want to hassle with a do-all device, the Classic can't be beaten.
 
griz said:
Anyone who keeps all their music, especially 150GB worth on just their iPod is insane.
Click to expand...

I own (yes, own...not pirated) over 23,000 songs as I have collected cds and 12" single vinyl since the early 80s...and used to DJ. I own thousands of cds and thousands of 12" vinyl. Not everything is ripped yet. :)

All my tunes are ripped at 192k (because I started encoding over a decade ago and couldn't store all WAV or lossless APE or even 320K mp3)...adding up to about 145GB.

It all fits on my 160GB Classic and of course easily fits on the $85 1TB external hard drives of today.

What's so insane about this?

There are lots of people in the world that simply can't use a 16GB device: a)those who want high quality rips such as 320k or lossless and/or b)own a lot of music. And for us who just want a darn player, why spend $199 on a Nano that won't even come close to the storage capacity of a $249 Classic?!
 
When it dies, I will get a loan and buy all of them:eek: (lot's of them in stock here, but here theres always old ipods for sale for at least 2 / 3 months)
Genius or stupid? I don't know but I might grab another classic if they disappear. They now even run rockbox:D
 
MrWillie said:
How easy is it to navigate though that much music to find something? That's the reason I have been staying with the Nano's.
Click to expand...
I do not have that much music, 26 GB, 5000 songs, but split over nearly 700 artists and 800 albums.
Unfortunately I also have a terrible memory for names. I do sometimes think of an artist but do not remember its name. I then either have to go through the whole list of artists or if I remember the cover image go through all albums in coverflow.
What I really miss is the option to restrict coverflow to a play list (on iOS devices, in iTunes this is already possible).
 
ericinboston said:
I own (yes, own...not pirated) over 23,000 songs as I have collected cds and 12" single vinyl since the early 80s...and used to DJ. I own thousands of cds and thousands of 12" vinyl. Not everything is ripped yet. :)

All my tunes are ripped at 192k (because I started encoding over a decade ago and couldn't store all WAV or lossless APE or even 320K mp3)...adding up to about 145GB.

It all fits on my 160GB Classic and of course easily fits on the $85 1TB external hard drives of today.

What's so insane about this?

There are lots of people in the world that simply can't use a 16GB device: a)those who want high quality rips such as 320k or lossless and/or b)own a lot of music. And for us who just want a darn player, why spend $199 on a Nano that won't even come close to the storage capacity of a $249 Classic?!
Click to expand...

most of the chicks i see with ipods have nano's because they look cute. it's usually either iphone or nano
 
srxtr said:
Like who listens to over 100 GB of music?

This probably covers a small percentage of audience, maybe 0.0001%...
Click to expand...

I do! As others have pointed out, the ability to have my entire music library with me is tremendously convenient. If Apple did a bump to 220GB on a iPod Classic I'd jump on one in an instant.

How long will it take, and more importantly how much would it cost, to see an iPod Touch or iPhone with a storage capacity North of 160GB?
 
Touchscreen, iOS version... ;)

the_new_ipod.jpg


http://macamour.com/blog/2007/07/18/touchscreen-ipod/

COME ON, APPLE!
 
Foxer said:
Why is there so much hate for the Classic? If you don't need one, that's cool, but why do want it discontinued? I have no use for a Mac Mini and 16GB iPads seem stupid to me, but I don't want them denied to others...

I've got a huge library that I burnt into Apple Lossless because I care about my music. One classic is plugged into my car, and the other is in my office at work - not places that I can stream music from my desktop. I need as much storage as they can give me.

I don't need or want a Touch, because I have an iPhone and the iOS interface is awful for a dedicated music player. Anyway, I Touch with 256GB isn't happening anytime soon, and would cost $700 anyway. A 220GB (or even twice that with a double platter) could be had for under $300 now.

Seriously, if you don't need it, don't buy it. I realize that your Bieber and Katy Perry catalog ripped at 128 AAC takes up about 100MB, but it is unseemly to demand that the Classic be discontinued and to ridicule those that do have a need for it.
Click to expand...

I think this may be a generational problem.

Like Ozzy Osborne said on Superbowl Sunday: What is a Bieber?

I think the older generation appreciates quality of music , lossless files etc. whereas the younger people go for the quick in an out hits.
20 years from now nobody will talk about Bieber, but Beatles and the like yes!

Yes, we could have cloud streaming, but that will not come for free, whereas if I have all my music with me I don't have to worry about where I can listen to what. Just need enough battery life, which the classic is fantastic in.

As somebody who doesn't want pockets full of equipment an iphone with apr. 32GB of music is fine for everyday loads, but for vacations, going to Europe etc. the classic is like a mini suitcase full of music. (Hey Apple you can have that line for your ad:)

Also puzzles me when people want to discontinue something they don't even use or is not targeted to their needs.
 
TigerWoodsIV said:
Whatever they're doing, they better have an iPod with a huge capacity. I don't feel like spending 400 on an iPod touch 128 GB if that happens by the time I need another iPod. Apple has to keep something that can support people who love music enough to have over 100GB.
Click to expand...

I know I am going to get flamed for this but who needs that to carry that much music with them? The charge on the device will run out loooong before you can ever listen or even watch that much.
 
They should just make a brick iPod touch with the biggest harddrive under the screen and sell it for $400. And laugh.
 
I just hope the current classic won't be replaced with another touch-control device. Having to take the device out of my pocket and look at the screen to push the next-button is inconvenient when I'm driving.
 
Ah, those were the days.

I don't get it, this was well after the iPhone reveal. Why did people think the new iPod's UI would be a virtual clickwheel?
 
GregA said:
I think there's room for a big HDD iPod in Apple's lineup, hope it continues. But I'd like to see it do something different.

For example - reverse our current model. If I have a 64GB laptop, why not have all my data on the 220GB iPod, and when I connect it it syncs a subset of that to my computer. ie: my computer has a few photos and music but most resides on the iPod.

Or, similarly, give the iPod Classic wifi capability, and auto syncing with our future MobileMe cloud systems.

Oh.. no reason not to dump the 'classic' but introduce a 220GB iPod Touch (HDD based).
Click to expand...

I agree. Personally, I love my 120GB iPod. I have music, tv shows, podcasts audiobooks. I just added it all up and my iTunes library is currently at 150.92GB. and it keeps growing. I am a member of Audible.com and let me tell you, those audiobooks are pretty big. You can download them at different quality levels and they keep improving the formats and they have doubled in size compared to what used to be the highest quality. I sometimes think that we are too obsessed with making something small. What would be wrong with an iPod touch with a hard drive? It isn't like the iPod classic is thick and chunky. I do not want to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for an iPod touch with a 2GB HD that is the thickness of a playing card and minutes of battery life. I have never understood the desire that so many have to purchase a MacBookAir. Good grief, 64GB of storage and it doesn't even have an optical drive. Have you folks ever heard of diminishing returns?
 
Last edited:
Foxer said:
Why is there so much hate for the Classic?
Click to expand...
It's not hatred.

It's simply the lack of interest from Joe Consumer. iPod sales have been dwindling over the past couple of years and the iPod touch is now the top-selling model.

I used to want to have all my music with me. These days, it's not that important, particularly if I have a WiFi connection. I can use a streaming music service like Pandora, or I can simply stream from my Mac at home using Audiogalaxy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back