iPod classic is dead people. Its a whole bag of hurt. King Steve has decided that flash based memory is the way forward. It was good while it lasted but its so 1995.6,7. And we all know that when Steve speaks then we all have to listen.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New Toshiba Hard Drives Could Boost iPod Classic to 220 GB
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It COULD but it WON'T.
I think the classic will be around until apple decides to put 128GB into a touch (probably next year) at which point it will just disappear.
FLASH IS THE FUTURE.
NO, the ipad will NOT get a hard drive.
And NO, the classic will not get a bigger hard drive
YES, the classic will disappear next year (at the latest)
I think the classic will be around until apple decides to put 128GB into a touch (probably next year) at which point it will just disappear.
FLASH IS THE FUTURE.
NO, the ipad will NOT get a hard drive.
And NO, the classic will not get a bigger hard drive
YES, the classic will disappear next year (at the latest)
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd be on the hook for one of these if Apple produced them. Over they years I've gone from 30GB to 60GB to 160GB iPods. Every time I've made the jump I've said to myself I'll never be able to fill up all that extra space, and I've always proven myself wrong. Now that my iTunes library has swelled to well over 160GB I have to pick and choose what I sync to my iPod Classic. At this point I only sync music; no pictures, no movies, and 160GB still isn't enough.
Heck, I don't know if 220GB is big enough...
Heck, I don't know if 220GB is big enough...
With Apple soon to unveil it's cloud based iTunes....really....what is the point of an iPod with a 220 gig physical HD?
I'm sure some will go for it, but for me, a 64 gig flash based iPod touch is more than enough for me.
And when a cloud based iTunes comes out where you can access your music library from any of your Mac products....then those who want more space will have more choice.
I understand you won't always have wifi coverage on your iPod touch to access a cloud based iTunes....but again...not an issue for me.
I'm sure some will go for it, but for me, a 64 gig flash based iPod touch is more than enough for me.
And when a cloud based iTunes comes out where you can access your music library from any of your Mac products....then those who want more space will have more choice.
I understand you won't always have wifi coverage on your iPod touch to access a cloud based iTunes....but again...not an issue for me.
Ooh, that really hurt my feelings.
Sorry I had to tell you that a 4200-RPM HDD in an iPad was and is a horrible idea.
Agreed. The uneducated don't understand the key differences between technologies here. The iPad is meant for Apps, not music. If it were a device strictly for movies and music, HDD would be better than flash any day other than weight/durability. But try launching games/apps/navigon and other 100+MB apps on a harddrive slower than a laptop hard drive and seee how well that works out for ya.
I have a great deal of patience for the uneducated, but i absolutely cannot stand the stupid. Don't insult others without something to fall back on, some would say its throwing stones in a glass house.
Absolutely NOT! Two decades ago we got by with a tape or CD or two for protable music and survived!
What we need and what we WANT are two different things.
I don't use my ipad for music (maybe a file here or there if giving a presentation). however, why 64gb is doing the trick? Most of the iOS apps are only a few mb, where as desktop / laptop apps are traditional software that takes up 100's mb or even 1 gb. With the full blown iOS apps out there, I think and this proves that most desktop apps are bloatware.
true - I would need a 128 gb ipad if I was to sync everything that is in my itunes. all my podcasts, music, iTuneU, apps, and shared documents are taking up 92gb on my hard drive and that does not include the home and downloaded videos that are in a separate folder.
And what is taking up most of the space on my ipad- is the loops I extracted out of garage band and loaded into studio.HD - so I could make podcasts on the road - should I wish to work on one and not be at home. I bought a few loop packages that did not come with garage band.
I think if more and more companies get rid of the old bloat in traditional software - we would see the need for hard drive and ram requirements go down. I think the Mac App Store might just prove that.
Why is this front page material? Does MRs really think that Apple is going to upgrade their iPod Classic line? No, it is basically a dead-end line. Adding a higher capacity to the iPod Classic isn't going to suddenly make people want to buy one. All it will do is erode Apple's profit margin because the drives will cost more than the current ones.
Normally true. But some maufacturers have 160GB and other odd sizes. I have an Intel 160GB SSD.
Double the storage at half price, people don't buy the classic for the interface, they buy it for its simplicity and capacity.
Costs Apple $0 advertise, no R$D, low manufacturing costs on a well established assembly process; as long it remains profitable, Apple will make it because they love audiophiles and audiophiles love the classic.
I said "generally" because I know this.
I was the one that said the iPad won't be getting a 256GB storage option so explain to me again why you are responding to me? Also Apple buys flash storage in bulk at a discounted price. When you buy things individually they cost a lot more. You can't go by retail price. You have it backwards. A 256GB SSD in an iPad would not cost more than the MSRP, it would cost less.
Last edited:
That is generally true of on-board flash memory.
SSDs do not follow that path. There are arbitrary disk sizes like 100GB and 160GB.
Absolutely NOT! Two decades ago we got by with a tape or CD or two for protable music and survived!
What we need and what we WANT are two different things.
This is true. But with all the DJ apps out there for the ipad, makes it much more portable. I used to do some DJ'ing back in my early 20's. I had to carry two tubs of CD's, 1 tub of cassettes, a huge cabinet that had my mixing board cd players cassette player and amp, and huge speakers.
Now - most DJ's use a laptop or ipad, hooked to a smaller amp (with just as much power), and smaller speakers that put out just as much wattage. They get buy with a small 4 channel radio shack mixer just to connect their mic, Laptop/ipad, and a portable CD player for someone that may have brought their own music for a song or two. If you DJ a wedding, most of the time you would have met with party and have the music pre-loaded.
I am beginning to do this for my ministry and finding I can do a lot more; with a lot less. Itunes turned many people into being portable DJ's as needed. Why do you think so many DJ's are struggling - beside the economy issue. And lights for the dance floor are now becoming more automated and compact.
I can't imagine the iPod classic would last too much longer, now that we're in the touch screen era.
I totally agree. All Apple needs to do is release a 128G or larger Touch and the Classic will be history. Using a hard drive in a portable music device is 'old school'. Evolution has taken its toll and while the iPod rocked the world, silicon is the way to go.
And ALL of my music fits on my 160G Classic with slightly over half of it free. There comes a time when big is just... Big...
Alternate Apple TV
Personally I use my classic (which I've affectionately named "Fatty") as the media hub for my entertainment center. I've got it permanently set up to my stereo and TV through the 30pin to component (which gives excellent quality by the way).
I love having all of my music and digital movies instantly accessible without having to fuss with cables or cords from my laptop. Even streaming is imperfect since the computer has to be present. With the iPod though, it's always connected and ready for playback.
Personally I'd welcome a larger capacity iPod classic. Furthermore, I'd be disappointed to see it disappear off the product line, but addmittantly I see that the classic days are numbered. I foresee a repeat of the iPod mini to iPod nano transition -- Apple cutting the current "loved" form factor with larger memory for a technologically superior product that costs more per gigabyte but is fancier. This time though it will be for the iPod touch; which it seems Apple would be in a rush to push since it's part of their iOS environment.
Personally I use my classic (which I've affectionately named "Fatty") as the media hub for my entertainment center. I've got it permanently set up to my stereo and TV through the 30pin to component (which gives excellent quality by the way).
I love having all of my music and digital movies instantly accessible without having to fuss with cables or cords from my laptop. Even streaming is imperfect since the computer has to be present. With the iPod though, it's always connected and ready for playback.
Personally I'd welcome a larger capacity iPod classic. Furthermore, I'd be disappointed to see it disappear off the product line, but addmittantly I see that the classic days are numbered. I foresee a repeat of the iPod mini to iPod nano transition -- Apple cutting the current "loved" form factor with larger memory for a technologically superior product that costs more per gigabyte but is fancier. This time though it will be for the iPod touch; which it seems Apple would be in a rush to push since it's part of their iOS environment.
well, just my .02 : the current iPod classic uses PATA (IDE) disc & controller. Sounds like a bit of hardware development would be needed to "just replace" the current 160 gigs hdd with the newer, 220 gigs SATA one. Hopefully i'm wrong (in that case let's get ready for some DIY session sooner or later)
LMAO let it go dude. You are right, they do GENERALLY follow that path, with a few exceptions. For some reason this needs to be restated several different times, with several people putting the emphasis on different parts of your original statement.
Honestly I'm thinking of just editing my original post and making generally the largest font size possible while being bolded and underlined in caps.
They play the numbers game and lock in suppliers ahead of time and at a certain price point so that when they need them or the parts are available Apple gets the best price. I'm sure they talk to Intel to pre-order chips that aren't generally available so they have a pipeline to get them. All the OEM's do it.
And the retail versus large OEM price is true, as you can imagine. Do you think that Apple is paying over a thousand dollars for the top level Xeon chips they use in their Mac Pros? I would hope not because then they wouldn't make much money. Still I'd like to know what their margin is on some of the stuff they sell. The 'true margin' rather than that guessed at by others. I'm sure it could be an eye opener...
Actually Apple could go with the same physical format as the Classic and just use flash memory in bulk. I imagine that Apple could stuff a lot of goodies into the current Classic shape. They could call it the 'Classic Plus'...
And brilliant. I never thought of using the Classic for a media center. With the dock and a remote you're covered... Interesting idea.
I like the iPod Classic still. Back when it was known as the iPod Video 5th Gen, I'd still say that was my favorite iPod ever. That iPod got me eventually switch and become a Mac user.
I wonder if there is a Zune that can make me want to switch back to Windows
I wonder if there is a Zune that can make me want to switch back to Windows