[Quagmire]

It was bound to happen now that NAND has caught up in storage and price to make the iPod Touch a true replacement for it. But, the Classic has disappeared from the iPod section and the online store.

[Mac+]

I noticed this too.

Was thinking of picking up the final model just for the car - I simply want a music repository and don't need extra apps or touch screen UI. (Extra rationale being the iPod would handle lossless files and be able to play them through the car system since the in-car system doesn't recognise those files.)

[Dorian Gray]

My brother got one of these recently, figuring it would soon be discontinued. It’s a beautiful thing that fills me with sadness for what was.

[chucker]

Odd that they didn't wait until an iPod touch with 128 GB is available. Both the iPad and the iPhone now feature such a configuration, and it's close enough to the iPod classic's that it would fully replace its purpose.

Do miss the clickwheel, though.

[murbot]

Oh man. I love that iPod. I use mine a lot in the car or out on the deck with my Bose SoundDock. It's a great device. Shame.

[Yontsey]

I use to have a silver Classic. Loved it because it held all of my music without having to mess with my phone. Anymore though, I listen to a lot of podcasts and Spotify so I am always downloading or streaming.

[psmith2.0]

You'd think Apple might see a market/demand here (but with streaming and all, maybe all that's changed?) and create a modern version of the regular iPod...basically the functions/capabilities of the iPod classic (not iOS-based, no camera, etc.), but pair that with a 128GB SSD. Basically an iPod nano on steroids, but with the smaller display and the traditional click-wheel of the Classic? That could be their new high-capacity iPod?

Looking at Mactracker, it seems the iPod classic had 160GB hard drive and sold for $249.

So what would a tweaked version of this (thinner, etc.) sporting a 128GB SSD go for, realistically? A nice hybrid of the Classic (click-wheel, screen size, navigation) and nano (SSD, thin, light)? Is there a market for that? If people liked their high-capacity, music-centric 160GB HDD-based iPods, they'd surely love a faster, quieter and thinner 128GB SSD-based one. And what about a 256GB model? Could both of those come in well under $500?

Or are we just past that point, with custom playlists, syncing, auto-fill, streaming, etc.?

Apple could do this, please a lot of people and just call it iPod. Or iPod Air if they wanted to go with a theme? And as a nod to the past, make it with a white plastic front and metal back. I know a lot of people who'd like that (they have gigantic music collections, and are still using the Classic iPods...but they probably know they're not going to last forever, and now Apple no longer offers such a thing).

[turbulentfurball]

I was planning on clubbing together with my sisters to get an iPod Classic for my Dad for Christmas. He had a 6th generation Nano until the sleep/wake button broke, and couldn't really work that anyway. The classic is a good physical size for him mainly because of the large click wheel, as well as having a high capacity. Back to the drawing board I guess.

[drewprops]

Are all the 3rd party channels empty now?

[turbulentfurball]

The obvious ones nearby, yes. No doubt I'll find one somewhere.

[Chinney]

I just looked at the Apple online store a couple of weeks ago and was surprised and happy to see that they still sold it. Sad that it is now gone, but I guess that its time had passed. It is odd though that Apple has not replaced it with anything of equivalent capacity. Is there no more market for that category of device? I would have thought there would be. Actually, my thought a couple, of weeks ago when checking out the Apple Store was that I would want to get another one when my current old Classic inevitably one day bites the dust.

[turtle]

I'm not shocked to see this one gone. It's the move from spinning disks to flash. Plus with many things being able to stream there is no need to have storage when you can just stream it.

I have an older Nano for my truck, but most of the time I'm playing stuff I stream from my iPhone connected to it instead.

[Robo]

We still have one at my Target!

I've sold one, maybe two the entire time I've worked there, but we've always had it in our case. I'll be sad when it's gone.

If Apple had just waited a little bit longer, it would have become "retro" and hipsters would have rediscovered it and started saying that music sounded better, warmer, on good old-fashioned spinning disks.

Now that the classic is gone, I wonder if that means the iPod touch is now free to just be iPod. iPod touch was always a terrible name; it encourages "iTouch" (which Apple just hates) and it just sounds so awkward with the other iOS devices: "for iPad, iPhone, and iPod...touch." And it isn't even the only iPod with a touchscreen!

I really hope the next iOS iPod is just "iPod." It's the sixth generation iOS iPod, and there was officially never an "iPod (sixth generation)" before, because they changed the name to "iPod classic" with the sixth HDD design. So they should just call the new one "iPod", the sixth generation, like it's taking up the "true" iPod mantle now that the classic is gone (and nobody cares about the nano).

[drewprops]

If I was brimming over with money I would rush out and buy one now, just to have it.

As it is, you guys are going to have to do an indie go go whip-round to raise the money to buy it for me, for my birthday.

Hurry.



...

[psmith2.0]

Does anyone not like, or agree with, my idea above of a 128GB SSD-based high-capacity music-centric iPod (no iOS, no touch screen, etc.)? That might screw up Robo's idea for the iPod touch to just be called "iPod", but maybe they'd give a new name to the 128GB model...iPod Air, iPod Plus, etc.

If you're the type who has the 160GB iPod with all your music, other than the unfortunate 32GB hit on capacity (which could be addressed by also offering a 256GB version), what's not to like? If you're serious about it all and love having all your music - and you're currently filling up 149GB of a 160GB iPod, then you can probably justify stepping up to the 256GB model, knowing you just added a lot more growing room). But anyone with ~100GB collection (that's still about, what...438 trazillion songs?) would be all set with the 128GB model.

Is that just too limited-appeal of a product to manufacture and stock? I don't see how it can be, as all I'm seeing/hearing this week is everyone lamenting the loss of the large-capacity iPod classic (so it obviously has its fans and market). But I've not heard anyone else mention this obvious solution/replacement. Apple probably figures with streaming and all that, its just not like it was 5-8 years ago when all this stuff was stored/accessed locally, etc.

[Mac+]

Someone's on it already - been doing it for a while.

http://mapplesyrup.webs.com/apps/webstore/


$280 for a 128GB SSD or $650 for a 256GB SSD iPod Classic.

Also available is a 240GB HD version for $399.99.

I've been researching.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 You'd think Apple might see a market/demand here (but with streaming and all, maybe all that's changed?) …

We used to sell a half-dozen or more a day. Now we sell perhaps 2/month. That Apple has kept the thing around this long shows they did see a market for them, but clearly that market is fading into iPhone land. Even the iPod Touch and Nano are down to about 1 per week. We keep them around for some reason.

There are still people out there who just want a music player (runners with the Nano?) or a non-iPhone iPhone (kids?). I don't know. The market has evaporated for almost all iPods, actually. I'm sure Apple will show us a new Nano/iPod Touch this year (or maybe the same thing with new colors), but the market for them has all but vanished.

It is what it is.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by Robo Now that the classic is gone, I wonder if that means the iPod touch is now free to just be iPod. iPod touch was always a terrible name; it encourages "iTouch" (which Apple just hates) and it just sounds so awkward with the other iOS devices: "for iPad, iPhone, and iPod...touch." And it isn't even the only iPod with a touchscreen! I really hope the next iOS iPod is just "iPod." It's the sixth generation iOS iPod, and there was officially never an "iPod (sixth generation)" before, because they changed the name to "iPod classic" with the sixth HDD design. So they should just call the new one "iPod", the sixth generation, like it's taking up the "true" iPod mantle now that the classic is gone (and nobody cares about the nano).

Makes whopping good sense to me!

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by turbulentfurball The obvious ones nearby, yes. No doubt I'll find one somewhere.

We still have them. Worst case, I could get one to you. But don't wait too long.

[psmith2.0]

Linked from DF, this little article about the death of the iPod classic.

While a bit overwrought and maudlin in places, it's an interesting read. It's fun to think back to those pre-2004 years, a decade or more ago, and how all this stuff was new and we were all converting our CDs and realizing how nice it was to have everything in a single, easily-accessible location. This was before streaming and all the rest, so it was more of a hands-on, "gotta put a little time and effort in" undertaking. But I loved it. I loved ripping my CDs, filling in the info fields (or correcting some of the auto-filled fields that you knew weren't entirely accurate). There was a period, between 2001-2003, where I was very focused and "into" all that. That attention to detail paid off and is still present in my iTunes library to this day, more than a decade later. Good, solid complete info about artists, genre, album, track number, etc. (I have to have one of the most meticulously organized, info-rich iTunes libraries in existence ). I know for a fact that the presence of iTunes (and iPod) kinda turned my head around a bit, regarding music. I started listening more. And better. I quit ignoring the "non-hit" tracks, and I would give more songs an honest chance than every before. Before all that, I did what everyone else did...brought along a half-dozen or so CDs on a road trip, or would load them into my mini-system at home. And then get up and swap them out when I wanted to hear others. That was all we knew, so it wasn't the "ohmigosh, you had to churn your own butter?!" pain-in-the-butt we'd view it as today.

I really think Apple is missing an opportunity here. Everyone's bummed over a discontinued piece of tech, but the solution just seems so simple. Hopefully everyone who's crying in their beers about the iPod classic on blogs and social media this past week is also doing something useful, and perhaps writing Apple and making the case for a re-worked, music-centric high-capacity iPod. If all the people who've had their heart broken this past week over the iPod classic being no more were to actually channel that grief and disappointment in a useful direction, and not just writing sappy eulogies and laments, Apple might listen?

Perhaps they'll bump the iPod touch up to 128GB on its next go-around? Not an ideal solution, I realize, for those who don't want or need all the overhead and power/functionality of iOS just to "listen to music" - and just want a simple, non-iOS music player - but I guess it's better than nothing? The fact that the iPads have had 128GB for a year now, and the iPhones just went to it...I think the chances are excellent for a 128GB iPod touch, coming soon. Apple won't have an event or make it a big splashy thing. But it might be the next best thing.

It's just too bad that users would be saddled with all that extra stuff (core apps, etc.) when all they want is a regular ol' iPod. Apple has a real opportunity here, I believe...update the beloved iPod to 2014-friendly hardware, and make a ton of folks happy. For what should be very little effort or expense to them, big picture.

[turtle]

Rather than creating a new thread:
Good by iPods of all forms!
RIP iPod 2001-2022: The complete history of Apple’s iconic music player
Apple has discontinued the iPod touch, ending a remarkable two-decade run for the iPod.

I still have a shuffle, nano (vertical style) and an 80GB one (Pirates of the Caribbean). I NEVER use them, but I still have them.

[kscherer]

I have an iPod nano in my truck. Love it for what I use it for.

At the shop, we've sold 2 iPod touch's in the 2.5 years we've been in our new location. iPods were dead five years ago, but, wow, what a run!

[chucker]

The iPods of the iPhone era were kind of weird.

[kscherer]

As far as I'm concerned, the 7th-gen Nano was the perfect iPod and should have continued rather then the iPod touch. It could have easily gotten to 256GB+ by now, and it served its job as "just an iPod" perfectly. That model was just a music player that could handle some photos and videos, but didn't ever need to. It was a great music player. It needed nothing else to be good, had an easy-to-use interface, and perfect size. It was "just right", and the only improvement would have been higher capacity. Instead, Apple pushed the Touch so they could sell apps. That decision relegated the iPod to who-cares status, since everyone had a phone that could do everything the Touch could do. However, no phone had the tiny, compact size and ease-of-use that the Nano afforded.

Were I in charge, I would have discontinued the Touch 5 years ago and kept the Nano going full-tilt, and given it ample storage for large libraries.

It would still be selling well today.

[709]

Just went down into the boneyard to see what I had: Original 1st gen, Mini 1st gen (blue), Nano 1st gen (black), Touch 2nd gen. Never went with any of the screenless versions like the clip-on or pregnancy test. Pretty much essential kit pre-iPhone... I'll pour one out for the little buggers.

[chucker]

The proto-Apple Watch 6th-gen nano was interesting, but all of those were wrong. An iPod with a touch screen running an iOS clone misses the point. The 4th/5th Gen (really just a shrunk iPod mini) was peak iPod.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by chucker The iPods of the iPhone era were kind of weird.

Yep. I have no need or want for an audio player with a camera and microphone. Never bought one, never going to buy one.
I have an iPhone already.

I also would vote for a sleek Nano that I can use for workouts, Bible listening, podcasts etc.

If not, just discontinue the whole category and let third parties (SanDisk?) make Mac-Compatible players.

[turtle]

I was reading an article about how so many can just use their Watch as an iPod. It is really true actually. I never really thought about it much but I do wear in iPod on my wrist all the time. Not the Nano with a band thing though.

I will say it might have done better as a market item if they left just the Nano around in the small form with more and more storage. Apple couldn't figure out how to make charging and music sync wireless though. It also doesn't continue their push to monthly subscriptions, where their real money is.

[psmith2.0]

Definitely the end of an era, and something that really helped Apple along.

Trying to think back on what I owned...I know I had a few.

The only ones truly coming to mind are the white "video iPod"...looked like the white classic, but I think it was the first with a color screen and could play video.

Then I had an orange (of course) shuffle for a while, but it was a little too random. But I loved how it looked (hopelessly shallow), so I kept it a nice while.

Then I wound up with a hand-me-down nano (in orange) from Mom, once she realized she never used it anymore. I don't recall the model, but it was the slim, taller one with the color screen. I had that around here until just a few years ago, and gave it to someone.

So...three, total, I believe? And all distinctly different...larger white, tiny shuffle and slim/sleek nano. The thing I remember the most about my white, larger video iPod was the case I got for it...an aged, rustic brown leather thing that just screamed "Indiana Jones". It looked so cool. I think I loved that case more than the iPod itself. I remember thinking "I want a wallet just like this, and a guitar strap too!"

[kieran]

I had a mini, then an orange nano, and then went straight to the iPhone.

I bought one of the original iPod Shuffles a few years after they were out strictly because I thought they were cool, but didn't really use it.

If Apple had kept the nano around, increased the storage, and allowed music to sync wirelessly/access Apple Music, they'd still be selling. I'd probably buy one to just have around, in the car, etc..

Just seems like a massive part of the Apple I really got interested in is gone., even though the iPod has really been gone for a while now.

I still remember it being on the first few iPhones. They called the music app "iPod" because of how strong the brand name was.