[doublem9876]

It seems to me that the iPod nano, with all its new features, will soon become the new standard iPod. At some point in the near future, the nano will catch up to the touch in capacity, and the classic may last for one more generation. However, as flash is becoming more and more common, it is not out of the question to believe that the nano will eventually (okay, maybe in two more cycles) reach 128 GB. At that point, we really won't need our classics any longer. The scroll wheel will never be "outdated," but will be survived only on the nano. The touch will be the alternative to the nano that doesn't focus on music. After two more cycles, I predict that we will see the name "nano" no more, and "classic" will be extinct. Thoughts?

[thegeriatric]

Nano touch maybe?

[nikstar101]

Yeah i think you are right. I think the iPod Classic will eventually go and be replaced by a flash based player. So we will end up with the Nano, Touch and Shuffle.

Maybe Apple has something more long-term up its sleeve but i cannot see the classic staying around forever. The Nano will take up the role of music player, the touch will become the fun device that does everything (music, movies and games) and the shuffle will continue its cheap/exercise role.

I think that Apple may create a web access device, either a bigger iPod Touch or adapt the Touch, as i see "cloud" access to information becoming the new big thing.

[adamb]

I am not sure about a Nano Touch. Im not sure something much smaller than the current Touch / iPhone would work that well with a touch screen interface, and it leads to the question about seperate app development for iPhone & Touch and for the Touch Nano, what with probable different screen resolutions.

That and it was piss all the people off that like the physical interface of the Classic / Nano, and imo they have a valid point, though somewhat taken away by the headphones with volume and track skipping controls.

[chucker]

Apple calls a product "classic" when its characteristics are on the way out. We see this particularly this year when they've actually dropped the higher-end model, and not added all of the nano's new features to the slightly bumped lower-end one.

The classic offers capacity, a bigger, but same-resolution screen), and more battery life. But other than that, it doesn't have anything going for it any more — the nano is now more durable and more environmentally friendly, offers accelerometer features, has Nike+ support of course and — it does matter to some people — comes in many more colors. It also weighs a little over a quarter as much.

The tougher question is whether or how Apple will eventually merge the nano and touch lines. I think they just won't for a while. They've clearly decided to port features across the lines and operating systems (rotate to go to CoverFlow from touch to nano; Nike+ from nano to touch), so they don't plan to discontinue one or the other any time soon.

[rasmits]

The only problem is capacity. There will always be people out there who, when it comes to purchasing a PMP, value capacity above all else. I don't see how any flash based player could compete with the Classic anywhere in the near future on that front.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by rasmits The only problem is capacity. There will always be people out there who, when it comes to purchasing a PMP, value capacity above all else. I don't see how any flash based player could compete with the Classic anywhere in the near future on that front.

Yes, there are those people, but they've always been a minority. You can tell by graphing the average selling price development of iPods:



As you can see, this is well below what an iPod classic sells for.

iPod classics have now reached an amount of capacity that even those few rarely exceed (hence the killing of the thicker model), and a few generations down the line, even they will be obsolete. After all, the touch is currently at 32 GB, and within two years, it should be able to offer 128 GB — slightly more than the new classic.

[psmith2.0]

I think the HDD-based "classic" as we know it isn't long for this world. Another year or so (gone by spring 2010). Just a hunch.

I think the line will get down to the shuffle (which is just about perfect for what it is/what it does) at an even cheaper price ($29 or $39 eventually?), the iPod nano (eventually hitting 32GB or so) and the iPod touch will become the full size iPod (64 and/or 128GB), and, in a nice nod to the past, be available in white (metal or plastic).

An all flash-based iPod lineup within 12-18 months is what I expect. I think as iTunes gets smarter and as people realize they don't have to have all their music, etc., the need/demand for 120GB+ HDD iPods simply wanes. I said here, a year or two ago, "how far are these supposed to go?". At some point, it just gets insane (a 256 or 512MB iPod?) and I think trying to keep up with the minority of people's music collection numbers just becomes a rabbit chase.

That 128GB seems like a nice sweet spot. That's a crap-load of songs, movies, photos, etc. and I have to believe that is more than enough for the typical user and consumer. And Apple has proven, in many areas, they're not that interested in catering to a small sliver of the user base (otherwise we'd have a $1,199 mid-range mini-tower/headless iMac by now, right?), so I don't think they'll continue making increasingly roomy iPod classics into the stratosphere for a smaller group of customers.

1-2GB shuffles, 16-32GB nanos and 64-128GB touch would be a really nice, well-rounded line-up in a year or so's time, IMO. I have to believe that those three offerings would easily satisfy 90-95% of the public. You're always going to have the hardcore types with 268GB worth of Stevie Ray Vaughan, Ben Folds Five or Phish bootlegs and outtakes or whatever , but I don't think Apple is going to forever provide them with terabtye-capacity iPods for their needs. Most people, I believe, fall into that 16-64GB camp...

[doublem9876]

Originally Posted by adambrennan That and it was piss all the people off that like the physical interface of the Classic / Nano, and imo they have a valid point, though somewhat taken away by the headphones with volume and track skipping controls.

The physical interface will remain because, as much as Apple is a trendsetter, I just don't think they'll be able to convince all third-party headphone-makers to implement universal track skip controls on their headphones.

Originally Posted by rasmits The only problem is capacity. There will always be people out there who, when it comes to purchasing a PMP, value capacity above all else. I don't see how any flash based player could compete with the Classic anywhere in the near future on that front.

With each succeeding generation, the base flash capacity doubles.
HDD based iPods had an increase of 50GB (30 to 80), then 40GB (80 to 120), so maybe (just as a very vague estimating figure) we can say that the next HDD will add only 30GB, so...

next nano: 32GB; 64GB; 128GB; 256 GB
next classic: 150GB; 170GB; 180GB; 190GB

I realize that's kind of lousy math, but that's the idea here. Eventually, the advances in HDD technology just won't be as rapid.

[screensaver400]

Originally Posted by doublem9876 next classic: 150GB; 170GB; 180GB; 190GB[/b] I realize that's kind of lousy math, but that's the idea here. Eventually, the advances in HDD technology just won't be as rapid.

I know you're extrapolating based on past increases, but hard drives are rarely made at those sizes.

More likely, we'll move to 160GB, followed by 200GB, then 250GB. But I really doubt we'll make it past 200GB when it comes to HDD-based iPods.

[spotcatbug]

Regarding a "touch" nano, I just can't see that working. By definition, the nano is meant to be small. The touch interface requires a certain minimum, physical size for the screen simply because peoples' fingers are big. The current touch is pushing the screen size limit right now, in terms of being able to use the interface with fingers and thumbs.

[Kraetos]

The classic will soon die. chucker is right, when Apple sticks the word "classic" after something it means funeral preparations have begun. At this point the distinction between "iPod classic" and "iPod nano" becomes superfluous. When the classic dies, we will have only one device called "iPod" and it will be the descendant of todays nano.

I predict we see one more classic, at either 160 or 200 GB, alongside 16/32 GB nanos, and 16/32/64 GB touches. The nanos will probably pick up WiFi during this rev as well. Then the next cycle (September 2010) sees the demise of the classic, at which point we have 32/64 GB nanos, and 32/64/128 GB touches. I think a $200 64 GB iPod nano in 2010 effectively eliminates the need for the classic. Especially considering local storage will be less relevant, because who knows where cloud technology can take us. (Hence the WiFi equipped nanos.)

iPod touch will always be the phoneless-iPhone. iPhone will always be the flagship of Apple's portable device line.

The only thing we're missing is an iPhone nano. Just a music playing phone. Much cheaper than the iPhone, possibly even free with contract. Interestingly enough, whether or not we see an iPhone nano probably depends on whether or not FairPlay survives. I doubt Apple wants to get into a segment where margins are so thin and the market is so saturated. However, if FairPlay lives on, Apple has an instant in, since iPhone nano would have the distinction of being the only non-Smartphone music phone with iTunes compatibility.

On the other hand, when Apple finally convinces the old guard to axe FairPlay, I'm sure Apple would be more than happy to let the LGs, Motorolas and Samsungs of the world duke it out over phones with a $3 profit margin.

[artesc]

I went to the new (realatively) apple store in boston by newbury and played with the stuff there. I must say though, that the most impressing things at the moment are the nano's (so, so colorful) and the Touches (they are so freaking thin! ) the iphone is commonplace/passe and the computers are just woefully unexciting. I spent most of my time there shaking the nano to change the song and downloading stuff onto the touch.

[Robo]

I think the current nano form factor is here for a while. There's room to drop the price ("limited quantities" of 4GB nanos have shown up in Europe and Canada, so Apple obviously considered a lower-end model this year), and there's even room to make the screen bigger (or, more accurately, wider). If the iPod nano had a 2.5" (or even 2.7") widescreen (or iPhone-esque pseudo-widescreen), would anyone still want the classic?

That's what I'd like to see in the future, really. I'd like to see the iPhone/iPod touch go truly widescreen (come on, it'd only take a bit of a reduction to the large home button/earpiece areas, and a 4" widescreen would fit on there nicely) and an iPod nano to follow suit. I know no one really buys the iPod nano for its screen, but what else can Apple add, going forward? A wider screen would help make up for the larger-screened iPod classic's seemingly imminent demise.

[turbulentfurball]

Originally Posted by Roboman That's what I'd like to see in the future, really. I'd like to see the iPhone/iPod touch go truly widescreen (come on, it'd only take a bit of a reduction to the large home button/earpiece areas, and a 4" widescreen would fit on there nicely)

Don Bagles? Is that you?

Back on topic...

I think the iPod Classic is on one of its last revisions. I'm currently more interested on the next iteration of the iPod Touch/iPhone platform. Apple's just spent a lot of time setting up the App store for the current platform, but what's next? The current platform can't stay as it is forever, and where does that leave the current models when a new platform comes out? Will there be apps with differing system requirements?

[zippy]

Originally Posted by Roboman I'd like to see the iPhone/iPod touch go truly widescreen (come on, it'd only take a bit of a reduction to the large home button/earpiece areas, and a 4" widescreen would fit on there nicely) and an iPod nano to follow suit. I know no one really buys the iPod nano for its screen, but what else can Apple add, going forward? A wider screen would help make up for the larger-screened iPod classic's seemingly imminent demise.

I always thought they should do a true widescreen too, until recently. After watching a movie or two and a handful of TV spots on my iPhone, I don't think it really needs a 16:9 screen. The screen they have shows all the truly necessary bits of image - anything cut off on either side is not really that important. And my fear would be that if they went to 16:9, it would end up being smaller on the vertical than it is now, effectively shrinking the videos. Personally, I'd rather lose a bit on each end than show everything, but show it smaller.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by zippy I always thought they should do a true widescreen too, until recently. After watching a movie or two and a handful of TV spots on my iPhone, I don't think it really needs a 16:9 screen. The screen they have shows all the truly necessary bits of image - anything cut off on either side is not really that important. And my fear would be that if they went to 16:9, it would end up being smaller on the vertical than it is now, effectively shrinking the videos. Personally, I'd rather lose a bit on each end than show everything, but show it smaller.

I don't think it'd have to be smaller in any dimension. (It couldn't be, if it was to keep compatibility with all the not-quite-widescreen current iPhone apps.)

It's not exactly a make-it-or-break-it thing for me, the extra half inch or so of wideness (so no, I'm not Don Bangles). And I don't think it will happen tomorrow. But I do think that future iPhones will make the current iPhone look kind of chunky, with regards to the unnecessarily large empty spaces on the top and bottom. We all remember the 1G iPod, after all.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Roboman I don't think it'd have to be smaller in any dimension. (It couldn't be, if it was to keep compatibility with all the not-quite-widescreen current iPhone apps.) It's not exactly a make-it-or-break-it thing for me, the extra half inch or so of wideness (so no, I'm not Don Bangles). And I don't think it will happen tomorrow. But I do think that future iPhones will make the current iPhone look kind of chunky, with regards to the unnecessarily large empty spaces on the top and bottom. We all remember the 1G iPod, after all.

I *have* a 1G iPod, right here. Use it daily. Original battery, too.

[omem]

Originally Posted by Kickaha I *have* a 1G iPod, right here. Use it daily. Original battery, too.

I love those! Can't believe I let a new and sealed 1G iPod slip on ebay, back in 2005.

[Capella]

Original battery? How much life do you get on it? Mine was down to about an hour max before it gave up the ghost.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Kickaha I *have* a 1G iPod, right here. Use it daily. Original battery, too.

Originally Posted by omem I love those! Can't believe I let a new and sealed 1G iPod slip on ebay, back in 2005.

Originally Posted by Capella Original battery? How much life do you get on it? Mine was down to about an hour max before it gave up the ghost.

I have one too. Bought it in January 2005, immediately after it came out; if I remember right I paid £79 for the 512 MB version. It's been superb from the day I got it, and the battery still lasts about 8 hours or so. I know it's not supposed to do that after nearly four years and maybe 500 cycles, but it does. The 18-month-old battery in my PowerBook, on the other hand, delivers about 20 minutes of power after about 300 cycles.

[turbulentfurball]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray I have one too. Bought it in January 2005, immediately after it came out; if I remember right I paid £79 for the 512 MB version. It's been superb from the day I got it, and the battery still lasts about 8 hours or so. I know it's not supposed to do that after nearly four years and maybe 500 cycles, but it does. The 18-month-old battery in my PowerBook, on the other hand, delivers about 20 minutes of power after about 300 cycles.

Methinks Kickaha is referring to the first ever iPod released in 2001, and you're referring to the first gen shuffle. Correct me if I'm wrong though

[artesc]

sir kickah is most obviously correct in his assumption.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by turbulentfurball Methinks Kickaha is referring to the first ever iPod released in 2001, and you're referring to the first gen shuffle. Correct me if I'm wrong though

Hmm. How did I manage to think this thread had anything whatsoever to do with the shuffle?

[Kickaha]

No clue dude.

Capella - I can get about 2.5 hrs out of it. It was down to 20min, and I bought a replacement battery. I even pulled the old one to swap it, thought "Oh hey, I'll do one last full charge/discharge cycle to get an accurate time reading for comparison."

I went to put it back in, and dropped the battery on a concrete floor. Put it back in, and... nearly 3 hrs.

There's a number of people who believe that you can 'refresh' NiCd and Lion batteries by freezing them and smacking them hard. The theory is that crystals build up during the normal use patterns, and these are what degrade performance. Freezing them makes them brittle, and whacking them breaks them up.

I have no idea why it worked, or what happened, but it's still at over 2 hrs, easily. And I still have my spare battery sitting there.

Of course, now the drive is starting to make unhappy noises. (Still... 7 years!)

[rasmits]

My original iPod was stolen out of my backpack at high school.

My science teacher was telling the class about "the incredible new white music players that hold trillions of songs" so I decided to show it to him in person. I guess it was a bad idea to show the class how I kept it in my backpack. Never made that mistake again !

Kudos for keeping it so long. That thing is a real brick by today's standards... I also can't imagine it still works with newer versions of iTunes, does it ? I used mine under OS 9 and iTunes 2 !

[Kickaha]

Works just fine. 10.5.5 and iTunes 8.

[AWR]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Hmm. How did I manage to think this thread had anything whatsoever to do with the shuffle?

It's all about you, DG!

[rasmits]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Works just fine. 10.5.5 and iTunes 8.

And new Fairplay songs from the iTS ?

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by rasmits And new Fairplay songs from the iTS ?

I'd have to check, but I know I have some older Fairplay songs on there. A lot of them, actually.