Related Sections: Apple
UPDATE: iPod Touch and Classic compared with predecessors: What got worse
As some of you have already noticed, Apple's new generation of iPods isn't much of a generational leap. And if you looks at the details, they're actually a step backward in some ways.
Follow: Our comparison chart for the iPod Classic shows the new model gets a 40GB bump to 160GB — a capacity it had previously enjoyed in 2007 — and its screen isn't as crisp as it was the previous generation, going from 480x320 to 320x240 pixels.
And that's not all. The iPod Touch took a similar step down. Click Continue to find out more.
UPDATE: After reviewing the specs for the first generation iPod Classic, we've found that we got its resolution wrong. Both the 1G and the 2G iPod Classic screen resolutions are the same, with no downgrade — as we reported — between the two. Errors of this on the site have been fixed.
The iPod Touch suffered a loss of about 15% of its battery life. Since it didn't get a fancy new camera as many thought it would, the culprit is most likely that faster processor it's packing. That, or something's changed with the battery architecture.
In fact, most of the iPod family has been bleeding away battery life lately. Back in '07, the 160GB Classic was rated for 40 hours and the Shuffle enjoyed 12. Now they're at 36 and 10, respectively. Only the Nano has shown improvement, adding one extra hour for video playback. To be fair those high 2007 numbers came after improvements in battery tech allowed for iPods that lasted almost twice as long as their '06 predecessors, and now we're seeing the modern iPod line doing more and, in turn, taxing the batteries more.
What do you think? Do these downgrades matter? Or is the answer simply, "What else are you going to buy?" Let us know, and you can see all of the new iPods (and iTunes!) compared to their predecessors here.
By BlueThen at 11:01 PM ON 09/11/09
Maybe long term life, as in, the battery doesn't lose as much charge potential when being recharged repeatedly. Just a guess though
By Psycho Dayv at 1:29 AM ON 09/12/09
I was really surprised when I saw the screen resolution of the iPod Classic downgraded. Apple has a great track record of making products better than the previous generations. With the iPod Classic that is just not the case.
However, rumor was that the Classic was going to get the axe. Should we be happy that it didn't?
One could pretty much bet on the iPod touch coming with a built-in camera the next time that it's updated. My guess as to why it didn't happen this time is that Apple didn't want it competing with the iPhone. You'll notice that the Touch has always been one step behind.
By MitchRapp at 8:17 AM ON 09/12/09
I actually DON'T feel bad for all apple suckers... you people who buy an ipod or an iphone when it comes out, only to see that Apple releases a newer, better product 3-4 months later. The iPhone has seen 3 generations in what... 18 months? First iPhone didn't have 3g or video recording (wow??), 2nd iphone didn't have this and that ... now iphone 3Gs .... next iphone 4g etc....
Apple is a genious at making people buy crap they can just upgrade a couple months later and call it a "generational leap" ...
By twinpharaoh at 9:08 AM ON 09/12/09
I wish it were a 3 to 4 month window untill Apple upgrades their hardware. Now I have to wait a year to see more of what I wanted to see in the either iPhone or iPod Touch. Seriously, 3 to 4 months? Try a year before hardware updates. June - July for iPhone and around September for iPod(s). Your old age must be "settin" in MitchRapp...
By Realist at 3:06 PM ON 09/12/09
I'd rather have a ZuneHD. No more money to a company that sells its brand more so than its product. You fanboys who run out to buy the 'latest' piece of (Cr)Apple hardware simply because they added a 'feature' that has been built into cell phones for nearly a decade are sad.
By answerman at 4:31 PM ON 09/12/09
The iPod classic info is wrong. Both models are 320x240. You are probably confusing it with the iPod touch, which has the 480x320 screen. Nothing to see here!
By malachi at 10:25 PM ON 09/12/09
For reference here is the previous 120 GB iPod Classic -
http://support.apple.com/kb/SP498
Display
* 2.5-inch (diagonal) color LCD with LED backlight
* 320-by-240-pixel resolution at 163 pixels per inch
And here is the current 160 GB iPod Classic -
Display
* 2.5-inch (diagonal) color LCD with LED backlight
* 320-by-240-pixel resolution at 163 pixels per inch
Looks absolutely the same to me!
By monster at 10:37 AM ON 09/16/09
so close to not reading dvice anymore.
You're actually complaining about losing 6 hours of audio in favour of the faster processor? WHAT?? I'm not sure if I'm being dense but I'm not following the logic here...
By nvg70 at 4:29 PM ON 09/19/09
hmm, well nothing really compelling to make the switch from zund hd to this. .....esp with the ipod's pathetic audio quality. the screens on the touches were never all that great, they need a upgrade. def need a better audio system, but apple(Im a mac user, so save the microsoft fanboy crap, I hate windoze)
By tofulover at 9:09 AM ON 10/04/09
I actually bought an iPod classic for its memory and better battery life. Although, if you think that you'd rather have all those free apps on iPod Touch. I'd say go for Touch. I just hope that this is a good investment.
By ipod touch classic at 8:32 PM ON 01/30/10
IPod Touch or Classic?
I'm wondering if it's worth it to get the iPod Touch, or if I should stick with getting a classic, 80 GB. If I get the Touch, it'll be 16 GB.
With the Wi-Fi, is it possible to make pages where you can view them offline? I love reading fanfiction, and it would be great if I didn't have to convert them into note format.
Basically, the only difference for me between the two would be the Wi-Fi, and the cool touch screen.
on your cellphone!
Text DVICE to 72434
editor@dvice.com
ipod touch classic:
IPod Touch or Classic? I'm wondering if it's worth it to get the iPod Touch, or if I should stick with getting a cl...More »