Apple boosts iPod classic storage to 160GB | iLounge News

2014 iPad iPhone iPod Buyers' Guide from iLounge.com

News

Apple boosts iPod classic storage to 160GB

Author's pic

By Charles Starrett

Contributing Editor
Published: Wednesday, September 9, 2009
News Categories: iPod

Apple today announced its latest update to the iPod classic. The new model—the third iteration since the hard disk-based model was given the “classic” moniker—features a 160GB drive, up from 120GB in the prior model, but retains the same dimensions. In addition, the new model retains the $249 price of its predecessor, and remains available in both silver and black finishes. The new iPod classic 160GB is available now.

« iPod nano 5G gains larger screen, video camera, FM radio

iPhone OS 3.1 adds BT Voice Control, Genius for Apps, Ringtones »

Related Stories

Comments

1

I’m very happy they’re increasing capacity for the Touch too. As soon as it hits at least 80 GB, I’ll jump on it.

Posted by Chondog on September 9, 2009 at 11:25 AM (PDT)

2

Not really a boost as I have one that is already over a year old

Posted by Andre Adams on September 9, 2009 at 12:15 PM (PDT)

3

Now thats an impressive amount of storage! having an ipod classic and one of the brand new nano’s is a winning combination for me! Until the “iPod Omni!” comes out in 3 years which “could be ” a 160gb touch with camera , voice recorder , FM radio- and dishwasher app. (smiles)

Posted by Hatman on September 9, 2009 at 12:19 PM (PDT)

4

Wow, they upgrade the classic to 160gb, so it’s back to what it was a year or two ago. Great, where’s the really large capacity iPod?

Posted by Pat Carty on September 9, 2009 at 12:30 PM (PDT)

5

Interesting behind-the-scenes problems implied here with the Nano getting all sorts of goodies and the Touch, clearly the Flagship iPod, not—there’s no real reason the Touch couldn’t/shouldn’t get FM radio and camera. Similarly, why not stick an FM radio in the Classic?

Also, it’s nice to see flash capacity going up and prices going down so quickly… another year or so and i’ll have a Touch with enough room for my 80+gigs of stuff.

Posted by Yoshi on September 9, 2009 at 12:45 PM (PDT)

6

My thoughts exactly Pat Carty
I really don’t think people would mind a 300GB iPod brick. People care more about GBs than size.

Posted by Simon on September 9, 2009 at 1:13 PM (PDT)

7

Retains the same dimensions? I’m pretty sure the 120GB Classic was thinner than the first 160GB model. I wonder how they were able to maintain the dimensions?

When I think of the word ‘pod’ I picture the little space capsule that allows astronauts to easily travel back and forth from the mother ship. To me, the high capacity iPods like the Classic are more representative of what I think the iPod was originally meant to be: a small, lightweight package to carry your media from point A (home) to point B (car, friend’s home stereo, etc).

The continued presence of the dock connector’s line-out and the lack of graphic EQ (something that is almost required to be able to enjoy listening to music through earphones) basically just reaffirms my suspicions that the guys at Apple considered direct earphone listening as an afterthought - not as the primary way to use the iPod.

Then again, who needs graphic EQ when you have a $500 pair of earphones? raspberry

Posted by Paul on September 9, 2009 at 1:17 PM (PDT)

8

The 160GB Classic was announced in Sept 2007 along with an 80GB version. In Sept. 2008, the storage was consolodated to 120GB. Now, it’s consolodated at 160GB. This is good news. I bought by 160GB in Sept 2007 and, if I had to replace it, I can now get a 160GB model again (at $100 cheaper). I’m just now going over the half full point so the 120GB model would likely have been ok until some really big change in the iPods took place and I wanted the new features. Perhaps some people with 160GB Classics that were loaded had to try to hunt up a 160GB model somewhere. I suppose though that there are collections that won’t fit on even 160GB—especially if they want to use lossless compression.

I wonder if there are 120GB buyers who are pissed because of falling in the hole between 160GB model years?

Posted by MelM on September 9, 2009 at 1:20 PM (PDT)

9

The people who *need* more than 120 or 160 GB on their iPods are a tiny minority of the overall iPod market. Apple could easily make a larger-capacity iPod, but the projected sales would hardly make it worth their while.

Of course, this leaves an opening for all the non-iPod manufacturers. Does anyone else currently make a comparably-sized 200GB+ MP3 player? (Not a brick, but something at least in the ballpark of the iPod in physical size.)

Posted by BJ Nemeth on September 9, 2009 at 2:05 PM (PDT)

10

When the 160GB Classic came out in 2007 I was extremely excited, yet somehow still disappointed. Even two years ago I had expected something with at least 200 gigs, and now instead of realizing that possibility they’ve simply returned to a two year old standard. And I still can’t carry all of my music with me. I’ve never had any real issues with the iPods I’ve owned, but I surely won’t be buying another until Apple releases something with enough room and space to grow.

Posted by Kevin on September 9, 2009 at 2:10 PM (PDT)

11

The thinner difference is really unnoticeable in day to day use to warrant an “upgrade” from the 2007 model I already have.

However, I’d like to know about the interface. If it supports:
+ Genius
+ Shows the cover art of the song now playing on both full screen (like the 5.5G 80GB) and the right half of the main menu (not just a gray musical note) and
+ Allows me to turn the clock screensaver off
I’m shurely buying. But for those things only, the thinness, I could care less.

Posted by Arturo on September 9, 2009 at 2:11 PM (PDT)

12

“Retains the same dimensions? I’m pretty sure the 120GB Classic was thinner than the first 160GB model. I wonder how they were able to maintain the dimensions?”

Before 2008’s update, there were always two models, the smaller based off of a single platter hard drive, the larger based off of a double platter hard drive. In 2008 they went to just the single platter model. Although I never saw a public announcement, evidently, Toshiba began making and supplying Apple with 160GB single platter drives and here we are.

Posted by Code Monkey in Midstate New York on September 9, 2009 at 2:12 PM (PDT)

13

Re: #10 by Kevin,

If you don’t mind, I’m curious about the collection you’d like to put on an iPod—number, rough genre mix, and compression format you’d want. In Sept 2007 when I bought my 160GB model, I had a awful time trying to determine the size I needed (80 or 160). I found one set of good data for lossless compression on 10CDs and various formats. (Lossy compression data was also available.) I used an average space per CD for the Apple Lossless data but it turned out to be way too high. There was only one classical CD in the mix and, although it compressed way down, I ignored that one data point and went with the average. Later, I ended up concluding that my error came up because my collection is mostly classical. As it turns out though, I’ve bought a lot of CDs since then (way more than I’d expected) and the 80GB model would now not be big enough. At this point, I have 289 CDs (in lossless format) and 5 movies on it with 84.6GB used and 64.2GB free (148.8 of the 160 is usable). Anyway, I’m curious about why you don’t think your collection will fit on 160GB.

Posted by MelM on September 9, 2009 at 3:25 PM (PDT)

14

many people have significantly larger collections than what it sounds like you have/want. I have well over 700 physical CD’s, and that goes without considering my mp3 collection. I have a 500G drive of music and numerous 80G drives full of the stuff. I bought $80 on iTunes just today. I have 3 iPods (one is the 160G) and they are all stuffed full at 192 kbps. It is mildly annoying having to have to have my music segregated by genre onto different devices.  When I leave the house I have to figure out what I may be in the mood for listening to that day, or take them all. Swapping out iPods on the Alpine in the car is annoying when I want a song/genre that is on the other iPod… not even a 1TB iPod would serve some people the way we wish it could be.

Posted by bryan on September 9, 2009 at 5:02 PM (PDT)

15

I’m also among the people who are disappointed Apple didn’t do to a 200+GB Classic.  I bought a 120GB Classic last year, and definitely would have bought a new Classic right away if it were at least 200 GB.  For those who say, how would you use all this capacity, I store CDs in Apple lossless format on my iPod, and I own over 2,000 CDs.  If I put all of them on my iPod with Apple lossless, I figure it would take about 600GB.  Plus, I’d want more room for more purchases!  Maybe next year…

Posted by Bob S. on September 9, 2009 at 5:04 PM (PDT)

16

Ok, bryan and Bob S. could use 1T iPods right now. I’ve heard of big collections, but what I don’t have much of a clue about is how many there are. I suspect that there are lots of them although not enough to sell 100million iPods.

Swapping out iPods would be a pain; besides the portability, a huge advantage of the iPod is the manageability of the music. But, swapping seems much better than the damn CD racks. Anyway, having two people write about their large collections gives me hope that Apple will continue to pursue that end of the market.
Thanks.

Posted by MelM on September 9, 2009 at 6:33 PM (PDT)

17

Basically they were able to keep the same dimisions as the 120GB due to higher density of the HD platters, which make the new 160GB smaller then the older 160GB I not sure by how much though.  and I am sure that the new 160GB will have better battery life due to technology and less mass in the HDD.  Yes you would’ve thought that Apple would have increased the capacity past the 160GB storage point.

Posted by duckee on September 9, 2009 at 7:46 PM (PDT)

18

I hope Apple doesn’t do a backwards step in capacity again. I’d have been rather upset if I’d had to replace my 160GB Classic and found out that I had to pay $400+ for a new one or settle for a used device. (Check out “Apple iPod Classic 160 GB” at amazon.com.) I was a bit worried that Apple might go backwards again today but going up to 160GB again means I’m ok for another year. I would be quite unhappy if Apple were to bring the Touch up to 100GB or so and drop the Classic line.

Posted by MelM on September 9, 2009 at 9:08 PM (PDT)

19

I agree with you MelM as the classic and iTouch are vastly different pieces of technology.  When you buy the classic you know exactly what you’re getting but I have owned the iTouch 1st generation since it came out and I always find something I never knew about the machine, it take the place of several different products in the market, MP3 player, gaming machine, etc.  I only wish that it had real GPS so that I could do away with my garmin or tomtom.  It really is a marvel at work, but until the capacity approaches the classic capacity there will still be a need for the classic in the market place.

Posted by duckee on September 9, 2009 at 9:21 PM (PDT)

20

Some people, like me, want to have high quality MP3 or ACC music, so iPod Classic should have at least 250Gb+, it would be good if Apple can introduce 500Gb+ with the same size of 160Gb.  I am still using 60Gb and wait for replacement when Apple has 500Gb iPod.

Posted by raymond on September 10, 2009 at 1:56 AM (PDT)

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.

Email:

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Shop for Accessories: Cases, speakers, chargers, etc.