Not much classic about the new iPod Classic.
Okay, so could someone please explain to me what the hell Apple Inc. was thinking yesterday when they refreshed the iPod Classic? It's no secret that Apple's corporate mentality is that "thin is in," as evidenced by the anorexic MacBook Air and ad slogans proudly proclaiming "just -insert size here- inches thin," but this is getting to be ridiculous.
I admittedly didn't have high hopes for yesterday's iPod Classic refresh; at most I expected a size increase and maybe a wider screen for viewing the (then-rumored) iTunes 8 HD content that was announced at the Rock On media event yesterday, but I was definitely not expecting the let-down that I was actually in for.
Apple angered drive space junkies and made an outright dumb move when they side-graded the iPod Classic rather than upgrading it. The "new" iPod Classic (Seventh Generation,) comes in a 120GB model only, down from the sixth generation iPod Classic's 80GB and 160GB models. Apple's reasoning for this, according to CEO Steve Jobs, is that for the past few years Apple has released iPods in "a thin and a thick version, and fewer people buy the thick version." Of course, fans of the 160GB iPod Classic immediately went up in arms upon this announcement; many of them--myself included--were hoping for yet another size increase which would make storing videos, entire music libraries, and photos on our iPods with room for expansion a much more viable option than it is now. Some 160GB iPod Classic owners are already complaining that they can no longer store their entire music libraries on the new iPod Classic because of the 40GB decrease. Admittedly, this is indeed an even smaller group of a small group of people, but then again, isn't that what started the iPod revolution in the first place?
The new iPod Classic admittedly does have some redeeming qualities to it. First off, it's a "greener" iPod than the previous 80GB and 160GB iPods, but being green alone doesn't sell a product; just ask Honda how well the Insight is selling. Second, the new iPod has the "Genius playlist" feature that was introduced on the iPod Nano yesterday and previously seen on the iPod Touch, although it lacks the "accelerometer" feature that was introduced in the iPod Nano, and previously seen on the iPod touch and the iPhone. Granted, I consider the "Genius" feature to be a gimmick, but it's a gimmick that ironically enough, only makes sense on an iPod Classic; even with the iPod Classic's current capacity, there's a lot of potential for the genius algorithm to create a really unique playlist around a single song--the kind of playlist that isn't possible on the iPod Nano or iPod Touch, even with 32GB worth of storage space. The real advantage of the new iPod Classic though is that it's $250 across the board now, rather than $399 for a 160GB iPod, and that's definitely a major plus since we're in the middle of an economic recession. However, the most positive aspect of the 120GB iPod Classic ironically lies in its thinness. The "thick" iPods, such as the 160GB iPod Classic used hard drives with multiple platters ("discs" that data is stored on,) which increases the chances of hard drive failure on portable devices; especially devices that are used while in motion. This is admittedly why the iPod Nano, Shuffle, and Touch are flash-based devices, and why the iPod Mini is no longer manufactured; it had a hard drive. In fact, the only reason that the iPod Classic still has a hard drive (rather than flash memory) is that large amounts of flash memory are cost-prohibitive; even the 32GB iPod Touch is ridiculously overpriced because of what 32GB worth of flash memory costs--a 120GB iPod Classic with flash memory would cost more than a low-end MacBook at current prices making flash memory simply not an option for the iPod Classic just yet.
I admittedly wasn't sure what to do when I saw the new iPod Classic; on one hand I really wanted the 160GB iPod Classic (available on clearance,) but I really liked some of the features on the new iPod Classic. Bottom line: I'm at the point where I need a new iPod; not a second-hand iPod or an iPod repair, and if my four-year-old iPod's (fourth generation) battery dies on me this semester, I'm really screwed; I store my entire schedule, calendar, notes, etc.,etc. on my iPod, and when I can't play newer Apple AIFF files on my Apple iPod, there's a problem and it's time to upgrade, so waiting another year isn't an option for me.
I sat back and took a good look at the specs of the 160GB iPod Classic on clearance and the new 120GB iPod Classic before deciding on which one to purchase. The new iPod Classic is exactly three times as large as my current iPod, the battery power is still better than my previous iPod, and on par with previous 80GB iPods, the new iPod Classic is "greener" than the old one, and I could actually see myself possibly using the "genius" feature. What really made me decide to get the 120GB iPod though was that even on clearance, the 160GB iPod is still almost $400, while the 120GB iPod is roughly $250 dollars. I still think that the new iPod Classic is fairly lackluster compared to its predecessor, but I have my suspicions about the next generation of iPod Classic portable media players.
It seems like Apple only releases really awesome iPod Classics in odd-numbered years, and only every other year (fifth generation iPod Classic in 2005, sixth generation iPod Classic in 2007,) while only releasing really awesome iPod Nanos in even-numbered years, and only every other year as well (second generation iPod Nano in 2006, fourth generation iPod Nano in 2008.) In other words, the iPod Classic and the iPod Nano are never both given "totally awesome" updates at the exact same time. This was definitely a year for the iPod Nano to take the spotlight, after all, last year's iPod Nanos were a joke, and were quickly criticized for being fat--a wide load--and worst of all "square," which is a term Apple prefers to use when referring to the competition from Redmond, WA.
So what do I expect from the iPod Classic come September 2009? The following is a short list of "updates" I expect the iPod Classic to receive next year in keeping with the pattern of iPod releases that I've previously mentioned:
1. The iPod Classic returns to a 160GB or larger hard drive in 2009; if prices of large amounts of flash memory drop drastically, the next iPod Classic will be flash-based--however, I find this to be unlikely.
2. The Silver iPod Classic gets a minor face-lift based off of the current silver iPod Nano; rather than sporting a white click-wheel, the next iPod Classic will feature a black click-wheel; in truth, I'm surprised that Apple didn't implement such a cosmetic change this year.
3. The "eighth generation" iPod Classic will sport a "long" form factor like the new iPod Nanos, feature "acellerometer" technology--also like the new iPod Nanos, and be capable of playing back iTunes 8 HD videos in HD resolutions; subsequently justifying the need for a 160GB or larger hard drive for more than a few people with large music libraries.
4. The next iPod Classic will likely sport P.A. Semi chips and other advances that have been getting a lot of press this year, but clearly weren't going to be available in time for this years iPod refresh.
5. The next iPod Classic will require Mac users to be running OS X 10.5.x or greater (the current iPod Classic requires 10.4.11 or greater,) on an Intel-based Mac. Such a move would be consistent with OS X 10.6 being Intel-only and I could see this as a push by Apple to move Mac users to Intel-based machines.
Please note that the above is pure speculation, and as such, is not grounded in any form of fact or rumor whatsoever, and is purely based on my observations of the way Apple has handled the iPod line in the past; I could be partially correct, entirely correct, or entirely wrong about what Apple will do next year.
In sum, while I have purchased a new 2008 iPod Classic, I fully intend to be putting money aside as quickly as possible for the purchase of a new 2009 iPod Classic as I believe that it'll be far superior to the current model. What's more, rather than having to spend $413.02 as I did this year for an Applecare Protection Plan, Universal Dock, and USB A/C adapter, as well as the iPod itself, I'll only need to purchase the iPod and an Applecare Protection Plan since I'll already have the Universal Dock and the USB A/C adapter. Needless to say, this will bring the cost of a new device down significantly. This was definitely not a year for the iPod Classic the way 2007 was, but rather, a year for the iPod Nano which 2007 wasn't, as well as for the iPod Touch which Apple is positioning directly against the Nintendo DS and Sony PSP.
Finally, it's worth noting that I was quite impressed with the new iPod Nanos, just as I was let down with the new iPod Classic; in fact, I was as impressed with the iPod Nanos this year, as I was disgusted with them last year, and impressed with the iPod Classic last year--in other words, I think Apple did a really good job on the current generation of iPod Nanos. In truth, if I had extra money to blow on multiple iPods, or if I didn't need the capacity and features of the iPod Classic, I probably would have purchased a yellow fourth generation iPod Nano. Of course if anyone wants to buy me a fourth generation iPod Nano as a gift (I have a birthday, potential graduation, and Christmas is coming up,) that's fine with me, and if I run into a nice cash surplus, (and have money set aside for Sentai 2009 and a 2009 iPod Classic,) then I'll probably grab a yellow fourth generation 16GB iPod Nano anyway. As I said before, trust me--I'll find a use for yet another iPod.
I admittedly didn't have high hopes for yesterday's iPod Classic refresh; at most I expected a size increase and maybe a wider screen for viewing the (then-rumored) iTunes 8 HD content that was announced at the Rock On media event yesterday, but I was definitely not expecting the let-down that I was actually in for.
Apple angered drive space junkies and made an outright dumb move when they side-graded the iPod Classic rather than upgrading it. The "new" iPod Classic (Seventh Generation,) comes in a 120GB model only, down from the sixth generation iPod Classic's 80GB and 160GB models. Apple's reasoning for this, according to CEO Steve Jobs, is that for the past few years Apple has released iPods in "a thin and a thick version, and fewer people buy the thick version." Of course, fans of the 160GB iPod Classic immediately went up in arms upon this announcement; many of them--myself included--were hoping for yet another size increase which would make storing videos, entire music libraries, and photos on our iPods with room for expansion a much more viable option than it is now. Some 160GB iPod Classic owners are already complaining that they can no longer store their entire music libraries on the new iPod Classic because of the 40GB decrease. Admittedly, this is indeed an even smaller group of a small group of people, but then again, isn't that what started the iPod revolution in the first place?
The new iPod Classic admittedly does have some redeeming qualities to it. First off, it's a "greener" iPod than the previous 80GB and 160GB iPods, but being green alone doesn't sell a product; just ask Honda how well the Insight is selling. Second, the new iPod has the "Genius playlist" feature that was introduced on the iPod Nano yesterday and previously seen on the iPod Touch, although it lacks the "accelerometer" feature that was introduced in the iPod Nano, and previously seen on the iPod touch and the iPhone. Granted, I consider the "Genius" feature to be a gimmick, but it's a gimmick that ironically enough, only makes sense on an iPod Classic; even with the iPod Classic's current capacity, there's a lot of potential for the genius algorithm to create a really unique playlist around a single song--the kind of playlist that isn't possible on the iPod Nano or iPod Touch, even with 32GB worth of storage space. The real advantage of the new iPod Classic though is that it's $250 across the board now, rather than $399 for a 160GB iPod, and that's definitely a major plus since we're in the middle of an economic recession. However, the most positive aspect of the 120GB iPod Classic ironically lies in its thinness. The "thick" iPods, such as the 160GB iPod Classic used hard drives with multiple platters ("discs" that data is stored on,) which increases the chances of hard drive failure on portable devices; especially devices that are used while in motion. This is admittedly why the iPod Nano, Shuffle, and Touch are flash-based devices, and why the iPod Mini is no longer manufactured; it had a hard drive. In fact, the only reason that the iPod Classic still has a hard drive (rather than flash memory) is that large amounts of flash memory are cost-prohibitive; even the 32GB iPod Touch is ridiculously overpriced because of what 32GB worth of flash memory costs--a 120GB iPod Classic with flash memory would cost more than a low-end MacBook at current prices making flash memory simply not an option for the iPod Classic just yet.
I admittedly wasn't sure what to do when I saw the new iPod Classic; on one hand I really wanted the 160GB iPod Classic (available on clearance,) but I really liked some of the features on the new iPod Classic. Bottom line: I'm at the point where I need a new iPod; not a second-hand iPod or an iPod repair, and if my four-year-old iPod's (fourth generation) battery dies on me this semester, I'm really screwed; I store my entire schedule, calendar, notes, etc.,etc. on my iPod, and when I can't play newer Apple AIFF files on my Apple iPod, there's a problem and it's time to upgrade, so waiting another year isn't an option for me.
I sat back and took a good look at the specs of the 160GB iPod Classic on clearance and the new 120GB iPod Classic before deciding on which one to purchase. The new iPod Classic is exactly three times as large as my current iPod, the battery power is still better than my previous iPod, and on par with previous 80GB iPods, the new iPod Classic is "greener" than the old one, and I could actually see myself possibly using the "genius" feature. What really made me decide to get the 120GB iPod though was that even on clearance, the 160GB iPod is still almost $400, while the 120GB iPod is roughly $250 dollars. I still think that the new iPod Classic is fairly lackluster compared to its predecessor, but I have my suspicions about the next generation of iPod Classic portable media players.
It seems like Apple only releases really awesome iPod Classics in odd-numbered years, and only every other year (fifth generation iPod Classic in 2005, sixth generation iPod Classic in 2007,) while only releasing really awesome iPod Nanos in even-numbered years, and only every other year as well (second generation iPod Nano in 2006, fourth generation iPod Nano in 2008.) In other words, the iPod Classic and the iPod Nano are never both given "totally awesome" updates at the exact same time. This was definitely a year for the iPod Nano to take the spotlight, after all, last year's iPod Nanos were a joke, and were quickly criticized for being fat--a wide load--and worst of all "square," which is a term Apple prefers to use when referring to the competition from Redmond, WA.
So what do I expect from the iPod Classic come September 2009? The following is a short list of "updates" I expect the iPod Classic to receive next year in keeping with the pattern of iPod releases that I've previously mentioned:
1. The iPod Classic returns to a 160GB or larger hard drive in 2009; if prices of large amounts of flash memory drop drastically, the next iPod Classic will be flash-based--however, I find this to be unlikely.
2. The Silver iPod Classic gets a minor face-lift based off of the current silver iPod Nano; rather than sporting a white click-wheel, the next iPod Classic will feature a black click-wheel; in truth, I'm surprised that Apple didn't implement such a cosmetic change this year.
3. The "eighth generation" iPod Classic will sport a "long" form factor like the new iPod Nanos, feature "acellerometer" technology--also like the new iPod Nanos, and be capable of playing back iTunes 8 HD videos in HD resolutions; subsequently justifying the need for a 160GB or larger hard drive for more than a few people with large music libraries.
4. The next iPod Classic will likely sport P.A. Semi chips and other advances that have been getting a lot of press this year, but clearly weren't going to be available in time for this years iPod refresh.
5. The next iPod Classic will require Mac users to be running OS X 10.5.x or greater (the current iPod Classic requires 10.4.11 or greater,) on an Intel-based Mac. Such a move would be consistent with OS X 10.6 being Intel-only and I could see this as a push by Apple to move Mac users to Intel-based machines.
Please note that the above is pure speculation, and as such, is not grounded in any form of fact or rumor whatsoever, and is purely based on my observations of the way Apple has handled the iPod line in the past; I could be partially correct, entirely correct, or entirely wrong about what Apple will do next year.
In sum, while I have purchased a new 2008 iPod Classic, I fully intend to be putting money aside as quickly as possible for the purchase of a new 2009 iPod Classic as I believe that it'll be far superior to the current model. What's more, rather than having to spend $413.02 as I did this year for an Applecare Protection Plan, Universal Dock, and USB A/C adapter, as well as the iPod itself, I'll only need to purchase the iPod and an Applecare Protection Plan since I'll already have the Universal Dock and the USB A/C adapter. Needless to say, this will bring the cost of a new device down significantly. This was definitely not a year for the iPod Classic the way 2007 was, but rather, a year for the iPod Nano which 2007 wasn't, as well as for the iPod Touch which Apple is positioning directly against the Nintendo DS and Sony PSP.
Finally, it's worth noting that I was quite impressed with the new iPod Nanos, just as I was let down with the new iPod Classic; in fact, I was as impressed with the iPod Nanos this year, as I was disgusted with them last year, and impressed with the iPod Classic last year--in other words, I think Apple did a really good job on the current generation of iPod Nanos. In truth, if I had extra money to blow on multiple iPods, or if I didn't need the capacity and features of the iPod Classic, I probably would have purchased a yellow fourth generation iPod Nano. Of course if anyone wants to buy me a fourth generation iPod Nano as a gift (I have a birthday, potential graduation, and Christmas is coming up,) that's fine with me, and if I run into a nice cash surplus, (and have money set aside for Sentai 2009 and a 2009 iPod Classic,) then I'll probably grab a yellow fourth generation 16GB iPod Nano anyway. As I said before, trust me--I'll find a use for yet another iPod.