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

iPod What do you want from iPod Classic?

What do you want iPod Classic to be next?

  • High Capacity, around 250GB

    Votes: 66 74.2%

  • Thinner, but still around 160GB

    Votes: 20 22.5%

  • More battery life

    Votes: 28 31.5%

  • More functions (built-in radio tuner, camera, mic, ect. )

    Votes: 23 25.8%

  • Ability to down-convert on transfer to 256kbs

    Votes: 10 11.2%
  • Total voters
    89
  • Poll closed .
Is old fashioned spin drive fast enough for multi-touch interface? If yes, lose the physical click wheel, keep the same form factor of iPod Classic, boost storage to 220GB (Toshiba or some other has managed to produce such micro sized HDD), slap the current iPod Touch on top of it. Yes, the iPad 1G's aluminum back would look fantastic on iPod Classic.

Or just keep the form factor (I love the width & length), use iPad 1G aluminum back, put in iPod Touch 4G internals & modified LCD, 128 GB max, voila, you have a larger iPod Touch or an iPad Mini for extreme mobile gamers.

"iPod Classic Re-Defined."
"The Classic as You've Never Seen It Before."
"The Classic. Still Here."
 
I imported all my CD's onto iTunes in a WAV format so the file sizes are not compressed at all but it does take up a lot of space. I would love for the next iPod classic to have 250GB or a possible 320GB of memory space & improved battery life. If the sound quality isn't very good, I honestly haven't noticed a problem but I am still pretty new, then I would like improved sound quality. That is about it.
 
I want a thinner a slightly larger case and of course I want more space. A classic between the size of what it is now and the size of an iPhone with 250GB of space. Also a speedier version would be cool and a larger screen to see some awesome album covers! Anything more than that would be even better but this is what I would love!
 
A more elaborated list:D
Do's:
-> Light sensor (when navigating trough music library at late night)
-> No more shinny back (it's only great on the first week or so, mine is still good but is in a leather case)
-> Solid state option (one with hdd and other with flash)
-> No lag when opening lyrics (bigger cache perhaps?)
-> Either and faster to recharge battery or an bigger battery
-> Decent dac
-> An ips screen maybe (asking too much?)
Don'ts:
-> NO gimmicks, just an audio player
-> NO crappy oled screens that you can't see anything outdoors (like my walkman)
 
Rawkfist said:
I want more storage, the more the better. A better DAC, like the 5g and 5.5g had. Like the title says, I want a MUSIC player. A Classic doesn't need to multi-function. I really like the no look function of the scroll wheel. The thickness or thinness of it is no big deal to me because mine spends 90% of it's time in my glovebox anyway. When I do take it out, the scroll wheel suits my simple needs and my simple mind. I might be in the minority on these views, but my iPod needs to do one thing and do it well. Nothing does it better than the Classic.
Click to expand...
Agree 100% with your comments. 256 GB SSD is now available in 1.8" size, that would be perfect. That and a better DAC than the cheapo one they're using now. Lastly, I'd like the headphone jack to be like the one on the MBP, where it's an electrical audio jack, but it's also a mini-Toslink SPDIF jack... for when I want to use my serious home DAC and stereo system.

I absolutely do not want a touchscreen. Real physical buttons only please, that I can feel in my pocket without having to take the thing out to look at it. And I don't give a crap about thinner. The current thickness is perfectly fine. And keep the polished metal case. It feels really nice, like a high end piece of hardware. I don't care that it gets scuffed easily, it still feels so much better than any cheap plastic would.

And don't clutter the thing up with 1000 useless functions like wifi or games or apps. Keep it simple, make it do one thing, and do it well. Doing one thing well is far better than doing 1000 things poorly.
 
Last edited:
GSPARKY said:
I imported all my CD's onto iTunes in a WAV format so the file sizes are not compressed at all but it does take up a lot of space. I would love for the next iPod classic to have 250GB or a possible 320GB of memory space & improved battery life. If the sound quality isn't very good, I honestly haven't noticed a problem but I am still pretty new, then I would like improved sound quality. That is about it.
Click to expand...
Why WAV? Apple lossless is identical 1:1 quality as WAV. So is FLAC and any other lossless compressed formats.
 
killr_b said:
I have to ask the people of this forum:
Do you want a thinner Classic, more storage, ect? Select multiple options and lets see where we are.

I want a 250GB iPod Classic. I love music and my library is about 50% Apple Lossless now, and I can tell the difference in the quality. I don't want to down convert to 128kbs EVER, and I'm not sure 256kbs is good enough either (what I used before Apple Lossless and 2TB hard drives). I don't care if it is as thick and heavy as the iPod Photo, I was cool with that then.

What do you all want and why?
Click to expand...

I love claaic ipod.
 
I wanted the Classic updated with one of the 220GB Toshiba drives, but I couldn't wait another 6 or so months and picked up the Classic a couple of weeks ago. I still have my 8GB Fatty and my phone with 16GB of memory to pickup the slack since I'm just over and growing. But other wise I just want a super large capacity iPod that's for playing music, hence getting the Classic.
 
dime21 said:
Why WAV? Apple lossless is identical 1:1 quality as WAV. So is FLAC and any other lossless compressed formats.
Click to expand...

Because WAV is completely uncompressed & it is the full file. If you buy the totally uncompressed file, you can still import it in a lossless format but it doesn't go the other way around. You can upconvert lossless to WAV but it wont be 100% the same quality as the original WAV file would have been. Let me buy the uncompressed file & do with is what I want.
 
FatJeff said:
Like most of you all I want is a larger hard drive. I use mine in the usual fashion as a music player, but I also do large file transfers with it, so an extra 10-12 gigs of available storage space is valuable to me.

Keep the storage big.
Keep the features simple.
Keep it reliable (still using a 30g Photo version)
Keep the price low.
Keep making it!
Click to expand...

Finally, a MR newbie with some reasonable, well-thought out opinions. I agree with all of those. The current size of the classic is perfect, not too thin, not too thick, with enough weight to be solid but not too much to be bulky. Great battery life built into the form factor, but also at a good price point. The only thing I think I'd even think of changing is bringing back Firewire support, specifically FW800. As the capacity increases it will be increasingly useful for file transfers, where a faster connection becomes increasingly important.
 
GSPARKY said:
Because WAV is completely uncompressed & it is the full file. If you buy the totally uncompressed file, you can still import it in a lossless format but it doesn't go the other way around. You can upconvert lossless to WAV but it wont be 100% the same quality as the original WAV file would have been. Let me buy the uncompressed file & do with is what I want.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you've been misinformed. Apple Lossless as well as FLAC indeed store a perfect bit-for-bit representation of the audio data that a .WAV or .AIFF file contains; the Apple Lossless and FLAC codecs are simply more efficient with its method of storing those bits. Reconverting the Apple Lossless or FLAC file into .WAV or .AIFF indeed restores every single original audio bit, in a very similar way that .ZIP files do to documents/binary data.

No sound data, and thus no sound quality, is lost at all; that's why it's called lossless.

EDIT: Another thing you may notice: Apple Lossless and FLAC have standardized metadata sections that allow information like artist and song title to be recognized across applications and even OS platforms. WAV files don't; metadata stored in a WAV file by one application are not guaranteed to be readable by other applications.
 
Last edited:
hleewell said:
Is old fashioned spin drive fast enough for multi-touch interface? If yes, lose the physical click wheel, keep the same form factor of iPod Classic, boost storage to 220GB (Toshiba or some other has managed to produce such micro sized HDD), slap the current iPod Touch on top of it. Yes, the iPad 1G's aluminum back would look fantastic on iPod Classic.

Or just keep the form factor (I love the width & length), use iPad 1G aluminum back, put in iPod Touch 4G internals & modified LCD, 128 GB max, voila, you have a larger iPod Touch or an iPad Mini for extreme mobile gamers.

"iPod Classic Re-Defined."
"The Classic as You've Never Seen It Before."
"The Classic. Still Here."
Click to expand...

....yeah i really dont think so...


The iPod Classic and 5th Gen Nano's are perfect in my opinion. Good, cheap, rugged, no fuss, yet still beautiful devices that don't need the multi-touch perks and fancy UI's. I think this is what has made the classic iPod devices so successful and what made them so popular.

The new Classic imo should:
-KEEP THE CLICK WHEEL FTW! love it really
-Increase Data Capacity HDD FTW
-2Gigs (or less i dunno) of SSD for OS
-Slightly revamped UI (by this i don't mean iOS, but maybe a slightly more minimalistic, simple, and slightly cooler interface...i dunno Apple you think of it!
-Keep the Same Form Factor (come on its awesome and if anything need be changed, change the back or the build of the device...not the shape or dimensions)
-FW and/or Thunderbolt Connection
-Wifi Syncing/Software Upgrade (more for calendar/notes sync than media sync

Bring Back the ClickWheel Nano...No one wants a touchscreen shuffle!

The reason I would love getting an iPod Classic, would be storing my data in Lossless format. I've never liked MP3 or purchasing MP3's through the internet because I'm always scared the media I'm getting is not a true representation of the quality the artist wants to give you. Although this is never ever truly possible, I feel lossless is the only way to quench this need inside of me. Please Apple dont destroy the product that built you back up again. The new Nano is crap! I have literally seen no one with it, bring back the nanochromatics!
 
Last edited:
I don't care about the size or battery, it sits in my car, plugged in. Bigger capacity is my BIG thing. VOICE control would be REALLY nice! Just for music. "Play artist ____, album ____".

250GB should be good!

Not a big deal but some more powerful guts would be good, I HATE how the classic "OS" lags a bit.
 
dXTC said:
Perhaps you've been misinformed. Apple Lossless as well as FLAC indeed store a perfect bit-for-bit representation of the audio data that a .WAV or .AIFF file contains; the Apple Lossless and FLAC codecs are simply more efficient with its method of storing those bits. Reconverting the Apple Lossless or FLAC file into .WAV or .AIFF indeed restores every single original audio bit, in a very similar way that .ZIP files do to documents/binary data.

No sound data, and thus no sound quality, is lost at all; that's why it's called lossless.

EDIT: Another thing you may notice: Apple Lossless and FLAC have standardized metadata sections that allow information like artist and song title to be recognized across applications and even OS platforms. WAV files don't; metadata stored in a WAV file by one application are not guaranteed to be readable by other applications.
Click to expand...

After reading his post I was going to type the exact same reply. Then I read your post, LOL!
 
blackburn said:
...this "Ability to down-convert on transfer to 256kbs" can be implemented in software (iTunes side)
Click to expand...

I understand that it is software side, not hardware. I included the option in the poll so people could expand on their thoughts if they were so inclinded. They could select "thinner, but still around 160" and also select "ability to down-convert" to express that they are happy with storage but would like slightly higher quality, or what have you.
 
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