Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Good. The classic controls are far superior IMO when using quickly and trying not to look at it. This is the reason I will not purchase an iPod touch for use in the car.

I've used iOS since June 2007 and it had never even got close to the perfection of the click wheel. When I go on any trip of more than 100 miles, I always take my 60 GB 5th Gen iPod. For me, part of it is space - but it's mostly for I/O.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

I lost my 160gb and I've been waiting for a classic update to buy. There's no chance I'll buy until it updates with a 220 drive so I can put all my videos and music. Let's go Apple!!
 
As for the Classic, no reason to update it, no reason to EOL it either.

I still have my "CarPod" for road trips - an old but pristine 30GB iPod Photo, still love it.

Bit of custom job when I got bored a while back - white body but with a red (U2) clickwheel, white centre button, and a smooth brushed Alu back.
 
I would need a 2.4 TB iPod to store all of my Music.
Right now I'm using an 80 gig and choosing different playlists on my monthly sync.
I only use it for the car so I'm not too concerned with upgrading.

With my iPhone I use the app "ORB" and have full access to the home server anytime but that depends on DATA and is sometimes slow or in bad coverage areas.

I only need this for the car, so no big deal.

But if they stop making the classic I would be bummed out
 
Of course! No need to do this. Apple can try something innovative on the existing iPod classic like adding bluetooth etc. That would be pretty handy :)
 
ThunderBolt wouldn't make any difference

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but people keep going on about ThunderBolt like it's gonna fill 200gig ipods in a minute and how you can copy 500gig files between computers in minutes...


That may be the case between ThunderBolt connected RAID arrays, and Macbook Pros with lightning fast SSD write rates,

but isn't the case that the 1.8inch HDD in the ipod wouldn't be able to write files to it's disk at anything close to ThunderBolt speeds, I wouldn't be suprised if USB2.0 nearly saturates these 1.8inch drive write speeds.


Another thing, even if you take two brand new MBP's with TB, unless they both have SSD's you're not gonna see anything like 10gbps when transfering between them because even there 2.5inch 7200 disks cannot write at 1Gigabyte a second.
 
they won't ! iPod classic is the best selling for 

On the last iPod event SJ said the best selling iPod used to be the nano and now is the Touch. I doubt it suddenly became the Classic.
Highest profit per Unit Sold, that I might believe, but only because they no longer invest in updates/upgrades.
 
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!

220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.

Totally necessary...You never know when you are going to want to listen to that random Engelbert Humperdinck song that's been stuck in your head
 
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!

220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.

Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.

You also forgot movies and other content too. I have a 160gb iPod and I filled up over 100GB from video and photos. Some people like to have all of their media with them.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but people keep going on about ThunderBolt like it's gonna fill 200gig ipods in a minute and how you can copy 500gig files between computers in minutes...


That may be the case between ThunderBolt connected RAID arrays, and Macbook Pros with lightning fast SSD write rates,

but isn't the case that the 1.8inch HDD in the ipod wouldn't be able to write files to it's disk at anything close to ThunderBolt speeds, I wouldn't be suprised if USB2.0 nearly saturates these 1.8inch drive write speeds.

I agree that Thunderbolt is overkill until we have raided SSD, but my old FW400 ipod fills much faster than my new USB2 iPod Video, so I do not think that USB2 is saturating the drive. There are plenty of benchmarks out there showing that FW is significantly faster for sustained read/write operations. Thunderbolt could be thought of as the new firewire because it supports fast sustained transfer, can be daisy chained, and supports other protocols such as networking and video. Its potential is amazing! Imagine a computer of the future with one port on to which you can daisy chain your monitor and all your peripherals, and still have bandwidth to spare!
 
As I think I've mentioned before at some point, my next iPod purchase will most likely be the classic. My wife has a touch; while I find it somewhat nifty, I'm not a fan of the iPod app.

My wishes for the 10th Anniversary classic:
  • Storage bump, of course. Flash-based memory would be nice, but not at the cost of storage space.
  • Keep the clickwheel, and don't worry about adding any touch-screen nonsense.
  • Unibody Aluminum case, in silver, black... and the same colors as the nano. I'd risk angering the wife for a classic in blue.
There's only one other thing that would make the classic even better, and it has more to do with the classic's database. The iTunes database schema on the classic apparently uses 16-bit pointers, which limits the number of songs that can be shuffled at any one time to less than 33,000 (32,767 to be exact, assuming a 16-bit signed integer). Attempting to "Shuffle Songs" with more than that has been known to crash a classic. I use my nanos on shuffle most of the time, so while this is not a big deal for me yet, I can see how it would be for serious collectors or DJs.
 
Apple is totally a lone player in this market of HDD-based high capacity MP3 player. The only thing prohibiting me from nabbing one of these is the highly scratchable chrome back. If Apple goes with full unibody aluminum enclosure, I'll nab one for sure.

Seriously? The only reason that you haven't picked up a high-capacity iPod is because you might scratch the back side? :confused:
 
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!

220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.

Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.

My classic is full, mix of music from my CDs (and old LPs I digitized myself) and a few audio books. I've re ripped my entire CD collection at the highest rate on my Mac but cannot re sync my iPod now as it would overflow like mad. I'd love at least 220 GB. I've wondered about trying to do it myself but decided against it as I've no idea if it would work ... I should google that! ;)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattsasa
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!

220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.



As mentioned above,some people want to listen to their songs uncompressed.

Further.... many folks, including myself, listen to MANY podcasts and archive them.... especially mystery radio shows from the past....
 
drive dongling

I wonder if they'd give a revamped Classic Airplay capabilities... in addition to being the pocket media player we all know and love make it an addition to your other devices as a bulk mobile storage capable of pushing audio/video out to Apple TV, iPad, iPhone, etc. I'd buy another one then. I mean, I have a terabyte Toshiba drive that i carry in my laptop case, but that requires the USB cable. Who wants to dongle their drive?

dongle their drive
There must be a potential joke there :)
 
My 60GB iPod is beat to hell; buttons barely work, display has breaks in it, battery barely holds a charge anymore. Plus it only holds about 25% of my music collection. I'll buy a 220GB iPod the day it comes out.
 
The chance that the iPod Classic is updated to 220GB is zero. Apple has no plans to ever update a hard drive based non-touch portable device (they would not waste their time), and they've shown even less interest in increasing the capacity of any device beyond even 64GB flash.

Tony

Wasn't there a decrease from 160 to 120? But I see now it's back to 160.

I'd like to see Apple take it to the next level -- 500gb - 1TB. I have a 500gb Archos (as well as two 240gb iPods) and none of them makes it past an altitude of 33,000 songs.
 
Last edited:
Speak for yourself

Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!

220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.

Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.

I currently have 34,000+ songs in my iTunes Library, just north of 205GB. I'd buy a 220GB in a heartbeat. I realize not everyone needs that much space, but I currently have to swap out older material (usually live albums and alternate versions) whenever I get a new album (I tend to buy or rip a couple of new albums a week.) And I do indeed listen to everything on my iPod at least occasionally. New albums get a solid two or three day rotation, but most of the time I have it on shuffle. I don't consider this a problem, I just really love music, and variety is important to me.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.