Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
One more vote to keep the old gal around.

And another to keep giving it facelifts that:

a) Improve what it already does (without destroying its core philosophy),
b) Add new functions extending those functions (e.g., people have mentioned updating the DAC, allowing bluetooth and HD video out, etc. and faster syncing if TB will accomplish that (FW sustained transfer rates are faster than USB, but agree the FW port's not coming back on its own).
Plus etc., etc. and so forth as (generally) eloquently already laid down elsewhere.
c) Keep it a part of the modern Apple ecosystem via serving iDevices and ATV's as others have suggested and in many other clever, not unfeasible ways.
d) Keep it looking fresh and up-to-date. It does appear that the screen could be made larger without compromising the click-wheel functionality.

Another reason to have a lot of music/media BTW is not that you're a "hoarder" as someone suggested, but to include music that's not your fave but may be perfect when you have guest riders in your car - people of different ages and backgrounds and tastes so you can DJ for all (and at parties too). Call me a people pleaser but, hey.....

And if I have an 16 or even 32GB iPhone, I have little use for a Touch, but just as much a need for a Classic. My iPod Photo 60 is still looking/running like new and has been my car music server for years. But it's too low in capacity for me, so breaking 200GB + some of the above refinements would likely tip me.

There's also an aspect that hasn't been in this thread - and the "tech specs" on Apple.com no longer mention either target disk mode - nor using it to load up general files, but I remember an earlier gen being usable as an external hard drive that was also an iPod in the bargain!

One that a photographer, e.g., could have in a pocket to download pics from a DSLR to free up an SD card for more shooting in the field. Or today, back up an entire maxxed out MBAir for that matter. Voila: A mini Time Machine + all of the above.

If it does still allow that, add it to the marketing. It's an iPod. It's a mini-media server. It's an external HD. Music, Movies, Videos, Podcasts, Photos, Games, Storage, Backup. In less than 5 ounces.

What's not to like for 2 and a half Ben Franks??

Finally I get a kick out of the people dissing people who prefer uncompressed music. The ONLY advantage of compression is to store more files/GB and it ALWAYS degrades the quality of the recording. Always. And you're championing this as preferable because......?????

Apple already has algorithms for optimizing file size on the Mac side when maxxing out files to be placed on an iDevice. With our multi-terabyte setups, why wouldn't we want the best originals available?

And most who want uncompressed music (and those who want better than CD's already dumbed-down wave forms) actually CAN discern the diff (tho' some only think they can, as tests have shown, to be frank).

But seriously, guys, you remind me of people who've been conditioned to think a McDouble is a gastronomic improvement on the T-bone steak. Sheesh.

:rolleyes:
 
One more vote to keep the old gal around.

And another to keep giving it facelifts that

Great post bigpics, agree with everything you have said. Its adding good useful functionality (which you listed) to an already great product and just tweaking the design a little to keep it faithful but current. This would make an iPod Classic update a real winner! :)
 
I've never had an iPod, only an iPhone and iPad, but can the iPod classic be used as a hard drive for storage? I didn't know that. How does that work?

If it would allow that, I think I might buy a classic, if it updates in september. I could use more space for my videos and music and if it also functions as a portable hard drive, I can justify buying it even more.
 
The ONLY advantage of compression is to store more files/GB and it ALWAYS degrades the quality of the recording. Always. And you're championing this as preferable because......?????

Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.

Because it doesn't, full stop.
 
I do think if the Classic stays around, you will see two changes:

1. It will switch from hard drive to SSD storage once SSD technology matures enough.

2. It will get a larger and higher resolution display, but keep the Click Wheel interface in a slightly smaller version to accommodate the bigger screen.

Don't be surprised we see a Classic with a larger screen and 192 GB of flash memory within two years.
 
I find it hard to believe anyone keeps their music uncompressed thats just dumb and plain lazy.

Good grief. The ignorance of some postings here is just breathtaking.

Course, it IS an Apple forum :D

All I have is an iPod mini from 2005. I use it almost everyday, but the battery is fried and I need an upgrade. I'd probably go for a 220GB, but I absolutely do not need a touch screen. Someone else remarked about the click wheel being easier to use in tactile-only situations, which for me is 99% of the time I'm using it. I bike to work and don't want to take the thing out of my pocket to change the volume, skip tracks, etc.

But Apple isn't about niche products, so I don't know what sort of chance the Classic stands. Probably not good, I'm guessing.
 
And not only songs

I have way more than 50,000 songs, and even the worst of them is more necessary than your comment.

Way too narrow minded to think that iPod is only used for music. It is a great place to back up movies and carry then around. not to mention it is an external hard drive!
 
Ipod Classic + ??? = Another Apple innovation

Is time for Apple to get edgy again. imagine the possibilities of merging two not as popular but full featured products!!!

If Apple were to merge iPod classic with Apple TV we can have a non existent a carry on TiVo/iPod gadget!

Or what about iPod Classic merged with Mac Mini? we get a Carry on computer. For a full computer feel just add monitor and keyboard (which can find available pretty much anywhere where ever you go: Libraries, while visiting friend, etc)

Imagine the explosion of customers after these devices? Plus there would be a plethora of gadgets I am sure third party companies would like to get on board.

I WANT ONE OF EACH!!

C'mon apple time to come up with the new It innovation!:D
 
Woulda been funnier if the conversation looked like this:

Q: Apple killing iPod?
Sent from my iPhone
A: We have no plans to
Sent from my HTC Hero

I'd like to see a new Classic though, preferably before summer. I'm out of space and there's 40+ gigs in my iTunes that I can't sync to my pod. Don't want to go the whole summer without an updated pod.
 
Dude, I'm sorry to inform you that what you're saying is an outright lie, and there are guys from the Lossless Compression Clan, called "Apple Lossless codec", "FLAC", and "APE", standing with heavy cluebats in their hands, ready to perform a painful reality sync on anyone thinking compression ALWAYS degrades quality.

Because it doesn't, full stop.
You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)

So as for the "lossless" CODECs, my reach exceeds my grasp. When it comes to photo files I pretty much understand the principles of ZFW lossless compression in TIFF files and have thousands of 'em. And in case anyone doesn't know, if you work on JPEG's and do multiple editing sessions on a photo, you do introduce new compression artifacts every time you re-save even at the highest settings. I've done tests for kicks and giggles - repeatedly opening and saving .jpg's and you reach a point where the image looks like a (very) bad xerox copy.

Back to audio, I've plowed through a few articles on formats - years ago - and I've seen slightly differing conclusions about Apple Lossless and FLAC ('tho all felt that these were alternatives worth considering for at least the great majority of people serious about sound), but, frankly, I lack the chops to have an informed opinion of my own, and know nada about APE.

And, no, while I can appreciate friends' systems that are tricked out with vacuum tube amps, "reference" speakers and high-end vinyl pressings, I'm hardly one of the hard-core audiophiles in practice. My files are mostly 256 and 320 kbps, my home speaker placements are wrong and I use preset ambiance settings that totally mess with the sound to produce surround effects from AAC's.

Worse, the great majority of my listening is on the mid-level rig in my car at freeway speeds or in city traffic, meaning I and millions of others are constantly fighting like, what, 20-30 db of non-music noise that totally overwhelms delicate nuances in sound. And worst, some of my earliest pre-iPod rips (back when I had a massive 20 GB HDD) were done in RealPlayer at 96 or even 64 kbps - before I sold or traded those CDs - and yeah, in the car, some of those still sound "pretty good" to me (tho' some clearly don't).

Add the (lack of) quality of most ear buds and headsets used by most people, and there's probably less than 5% of music listeners experiencing "true high-fidelity." To turn around an old ad campaign, no, our music listening today is "not live - it's Memorex."

But my point was and is that there's no reason to champion lossy compression per se other than for the economies of storage space it provides, and for fungible uses like topical podcasts.

As long as we have the space, "data fidelity" is desirable so that the files we produce which will be around for many years - and get spread to many people - don't discard signal for no real gain. No one would put up with "lossy" word processing compression that occasionally turned "i's" into "l's" after all.

And those audio files will still be around in a future of better DAC's, speakers, active systems which routinely monitor and cancel out things like apartment, road and car noise (in quieter electric cars with better road noise supression in the first place), better mainstream headsets and who knows what other improvements.

Compatibility between players (software or hardware) used to be another reason to choose, say, mp3's, but there's really no meaningful competition to Apple's portable sound wonders any more.

So please keep those "cluebats" holstered! No offense intended. ;)
 
You're (very probably) right. My comments were aimed at those who were saying the Classic is overkill because who could ever "need" anything more than 128 or even 256 kbps AAC's or mp3's. (Nobody even mentioned 320, at which many of my fave songs are ripped.)....

I for one misunderstood you too. Thanks for the elucidation.

I know there's no hope for anyone willing to listen to 128,000 bps noise, or worse yet pay money for it. I don't know about 320k, but my feeling on the subject of compression is this:

I was one of the people convinced by the propaganda that led to the DVD Audio and SACD fiasco. I have since done a lot more reading and am convinced by the math that CDs are about as good as there is any reason for them to be, human hearing being what it is. (I always thought increasing the sampling rate was stupid.)

As far as Apple Lossless and other codecs of the same type—if they can compress video signals losslessly to 2% of their original size for DVDs, why should I doubt you can compress music to 40 or 50%? The thing about going below that is, maybe at first listen, the difference doesn't leap out at you—but maybe it would with extended exposure, and with better equipment than you're using right now. What you're assuming is that you're never going to have better equipment, and that "small" differences in quality are inconsequential.

My problem with that is that then you've been set up for the next decrease in quality, and the one after that, and the one after that. Eventually you're buying 128,000 bps tracks and making fun of "audiophiles" who can tell the difference, and then one of the true triumphs of 20th Century technology—really good audio reproduction—is lost.

Video that can't be told from the real thing is never going to happen in my lifetime, but with sound we were there—and then threw it away!
 
My problem ... is that then you've been set up for the next decrease in quality, and the one after that, and the one after that. Eventually you're buying 128,000 bps tracks and making fun of "audiophiles" who can tell the difference, and then one of the true triumphs of 20th Century technology—really good audio reproduction—is lost.

Video that can't be told from the real thing is never going to happen in my lifetime, but with sound we were there—and then threw it away!

All of what you said! Especially the part quoted -and the true nut of it that I took the liberty of bolding. The "dumbing down" of our ears continues apace.

And I forgot to mention things like what (even "HD") radio stations are doing to the signal - e.g., compressing nearly all popular music to a 20 db maximum dynamic range, and in some cases even speeding up the play (while "correcting" for frequency), allowing a better fit with their commercial breaks.
 
All of what you said! Especially the part quoted -and the true nut of it that I took the liberty of bolding. The "dumbing down" of our ears continues apace.

And I forgot to mention things like what (even "HD") radio stations are doing to the signal - e.g., compressing nearly all popular music to a 20 db maximum dynamic range, and in some cases even speeding up the play (while "correcting" for frequency), allowing a better fit with their commercial breaks.

I wasn't aware of that. I suppose in a car, for example, where there's a high noise floor, reducing the dynamic range might be a good idea—but that should be a knob on your unit, not theirs!

Edit: The frequency thing kind of reminds me of the old days, when the electric utilities used to bitch and moan that: "We're not selling a timekeeping service!" Even so, while there might not be exactly 60 cycles in every second all day, they'd speed up or slow down a little bit towards midnight to make sure there was exactly 5,184,000 cycles in a day. If your TV picture started rolling late at night, that was probably why!
 
Last edited:
As for the person who said the sound quality sucks, I don't know what the hell they're smoking. Maybe they should stop using the default earphones and buy some decent ones, cause the sound quality is perfect!

That would be me ;)

And yes, the quality does suck. I don't think Shure SCL3's are hardly "low end" headphones. My iPhone sounds miles better than my iPod and it's a real shame, because even my old iPod 5G (Video) sounds better :(
 
the classic that i'd love to see...

...is an ipod that is just about music and nothing else. and yeah the sound quality of the classic thats out right now does suck...i'd like to see improved battery life, higher quality chips (DAC, amps,...), digital output, maybe airplay - and all of that in a sexy, indestructable metal case with a click wheel and a small non touch display...
 
The iPod Classic is the best iPod ever released, period. I love it since day 1. Only downside is you can´t use it for sports, due to its sensitive hard drive. The device does look awesome, goes well with my aluminum book.

..is an ipod that is just about music and nothing else. and yeah the sound quality of the classic thats out right now does suck...i'd like to see improved battery life, higher quality chips (DAC, amps,...), digital output, maybe airplay - and all of that in a sexy, indestructable metal case with a click wheel and a small non touch display...

Sounds like an awesome idea for a new Classic.
 
Last edited:
I know this is venturing into iOS territory, but the single feature that would drive Classic well into the future for me is AirPlay. No other touchscreen BS; keep it rugged, keep it click wheel, just 160+GB of your fixed and lovingly maintained library, in your hand, poised to beam to the big stereo.

Yeah.
 
All this discussion is apple's cap of tea for :) because we don't speculate if there is any mp3 player better than classic ipod. The only enemy of apple is apple.
I have now big problem, because i ve got Nokia C7, which has everything i would like from ipod touch, but ipod classic is not a really good choice for me... the only thing i apreciate in it is an enormous hdd, but due to its communicating only via itunes - i can't use it for different files than multimedia. If i could store there other files i would buy it. So i hope Apple will release new model with OS which will solve the problem :)
 
Timeless formula

After owning every iPod out there, I can honestly say Apple's next approach to the Classic lineup could be something familiar yet adding updated features to take advantage of the newest tech, but no major changes to an otherwise timeless layout. I still use my 80gb model, and wouldn't change anything personally. I've used the Touch, the Nano, and the Classic, to me, for pure music enjoyment the Classic is all I will ever need or use. I have spliced together a possible direction Apple could/ would go in, and I believe it makes the perfect iPod Classic. Basically, anyone familiar with the older Nano style Touch Wheel is going to be right at home, as the the wheel is smaller by about 25% compared to the Classice, but still being more than accessable. At the same time adding a larger, higher def screen makes viewing song selection, videos, podcasts, and coverflow much easier and appealing to the eyes now, yet using todays AMOLED screen which is lighter, brighter and easier on the battery life. A standard 320 gb hard drive keeps you up to date on all the latest hi def content that is released over iTunes, but keeping a smaller overall form factor makes it lighter in the pocket. These are my ideas which I feel would be popular for newer users and older ones as well. Just for an added bonus, you could implement a streamlined touch interface using the classic style menu, adding nice features such as the App Store and even some touch based games.
 

Attachments

  • iPod Classic.JPG
    iPod Classic.JPG
    28.5 KB · Views: 129
  • iPod Cover Flow 1 and 2.JPG
    iPod Cover Flow 1 and 2.JPG
    25 KB · Views: 118
Last edited:
follow up

after flipping through some more pages on this forum, i came across someone's incredible mockup that shares similar features as what i was hoping for, mainly the larger screen. otherwise, his wasn't a simple 5 minute cut and paste like mine, but overall i think this is the direction apple should go in.
 
charlesdjones1, I think the picture you showed is a very likely new "look" for the iPod classic--the "7G" model. It will get a smaller click wheel but larger display for better viewing of video, and will up the storage capacity from 160 GB to 220 GB with the new 1.8" hard drive.

Though I'm sure Apple wants to ditch the iPod Classic in favor of a 128 GB iPod touch, the current tight constraint on flash memory production may conspire against doing this.
 
The best upgrade: combine iPod Classic & Touch

I read through a bunch of these posts and I agree with some of you who think the iPod Classic is the best one, based on capacity alone. But the screen is too small now. I too also like to travel with my entire music library and videos - I never know what I'll be in the mood to listen to or watch. That said, if I could offer advice to Apple, I'd say give us the 160GB or 220GB capacity with an iPod Touch interface. Make it as thick as the current iPod Classic if you have to, but give me a larger screen and the same icon-driven interface of the iPhone and iPod Touch. Keep the price at $249 or $299 even, and I'll wait in line for it.
 
I read through a bunch of these posts and I agree with some of you who think the iPod Classic is the best one, based on capacity alone. But the screen is too small now. I too also like to travel with my entire music library and videos - I never know what I'll be in the mood to listen to or watch. That said, if I could offer advice to Apple, I'd say give us the 160GB or 220GB capacity with an iPod Touch interface. Make it as thick as the current iPod Classic if you have to, but give me a larger screen and the same icon-driven interface of the iPhone and iPod Touch. Keep the price at $249 or $299 even, and I'll wait in line for it.

I'd buy that. Touch style interface is much faster (for me) when managing large libraries of music. Give me an iPod Touch with the newest high capacity hard drive.
 
Ipod touch with a storage of classic... But then we say classic good bye :(
I think apple made mistake calling an Ipod touch - Ipod :) they should call this staff - Itouch :D and there would no be anny problem. Because both machines wouldn't compete with each other and there wouldn't be any discussion which one is better - they would be just different apple staff. And "classic" wouldn't be considered as something old and out of fashion but would sit on his throne of best and timeless mp3 player on market :)
Now if they want turn classic on his road they have to call him "holly grahl of sound" :D and of course improve it a bit.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.