News
iPod classic, nano batteries beat Apple claims
By Jeremy Horwitz
Editor-in-Chief, iLounge
Published: Wednesday, September 12, 2007
News Category: iPod
When we posted our reviews of Apple’s iPod classic (iLounge rating: B+) and iPod nano (iLounge rating: A) last week, our early tests had already shown that their battery performance exceeded Apple’s claims. This wasn’t a complete surprise, as Apple became conservative with battery promises two years ago, and has consequently delivered iPods that generally exactly meet or surpass the company’s stated performance levels.
Final test results for the iPod classic and new iPod nano are in—at least, mostly—and they’re impressive. Apple promises that the new iPod nano, regardless of storage capacity, will deliver 24 hours of continuous audio playback and 5 hours of video before the battery expires. In our tests, holding volume at 50% and keeping equalizers off, the new nano played audio of various types for 30 hours and 21 minutes before shutting down. Video tests with test 640 pixel wide videos from the iTunes Store ran for 5 hours and 47 minutes, also longer than Apple’s estimates.
Even more impressive were the run times of Apple’s iPod classic models, which vary in battery claims based on capacity. The 80GB model promises 30 hours of audio playback and 5 hours of video playback. Our tests with the same audio content used on the new iPod nano ran for 36 hours and 16 minutes, while the same videos played for 6 hours and 46 minutes. Apple claims that the 160GB iPod classic will do better, suggesting 7 hours of video play time and 40 hours of audio. Our results were better: the 160GB model played videos for 9 hours and 28 minutes before expiring. And our audio test has been running for more than two full days at this point: this model has been playing our test audio in loops for over 56 hours. The battery still shows some remaining power. (Updated: Our 160GB iPod classic finally ran out of juice after 58 hours and 14 minutes of playback.)
As promised, we’ve been updating the battery sections of our reviews with the final numbers as they come in, but given how impressive the numbers are, we felt that they were worth bringing to your attention in a separate news story. The iPod classic and iPod nano reviews can be seen in their entirety here, with comparisons against past iPod models.
Related Stories
- Key iPhone, iPod executive left Apple last year
- Apple seeds iOS 5.1 beta 3 to developers
- Corning details Gorilla Glass 2: 20% thinner
- Code found in iOS 5.1 points to quad-core chips
- GameStop sees ‘strong’ interest in iOS trade program
- Kindle app adds magazines, PDF document support
Comments
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.
Recent News
- iLounge Weekly coming early Monday, giveaway reminder
- iBackFlip launches Somersault case for iPad
- Motorola loses third patent case against Apple in Germany
- Apple rushing to pick demo apps for next iPad launch
- Apple airs new Siri-focused iPhone 4S ads
- Periscope Audio Lab releases SpaceSampler
- Evernote Hello improves contact entry features
- eMailGanizer Pro adds Universal Inbox, Smart Folders
- Scosche rolls out bassDock for iPad
- German court rejects Apple bid to ban Galaxy 10.1N
Recent Reviews
- Cygnett Apollo for iPhone 4/4S
- Case-Mate Pop! ID for iPhone 4/4S
- Case-Mate Pop! for iPhone 4/4S
- Case-Mate Pop! With Stand for iPhone 4/4S
- Solid Line Products RightShift 2 Removable Keyboard Case for iPad 2
- Spigen SGP Kuel F60Q Battery Pack
- Just Mobile Highway + Highway Pro for iPod, iPhone + iPad
- Speck CandyShell and CandyShell Satin for iPhone 4/4S
- Jensen JiPS-310i Docking Speaker for iPod, iPhone & iPad
- FrappeDesign Smart Sleeve for iPad 2
Recent Articles
- iOS Gems: Adventures of Tintin, Reckless Racing 2 + Scramble With Friends
- Ask iLounge 2-3-12
- Making The Case For - And Against - An Apple iTV Television
- Instant Expert: iTunes U for iPad, iPhone and iPod touch
- Instant Expert: Secrets & Features of iBooks 2.0
- iLounge’s 2012 CES Best of Show Awards: Honorable Mentions
- iLounge’s 2012 CES Best of Show Awards: iPod, iPhone, iPad + Mac
- iOS Gems: Bug Princess, Dora Hops Into Phonics, It’s A Small World, Sleepy Jack + X Is For X-Ray
- The Complete Guide to Managing iTunes Videos
- Editorial: As CES Grows, Will Microsoft’s Loss Be Apple’s Gain?


1
wooooow, just waiting for my classic 160 gb to arrive home ¡¡¡
Posted by gonzalo on September 12, 2007 at 9:23 AM (PDT)
2
Very impressive!!
I hated the battery life of the videos on the first 5G iPod (which I had before purchasing my classic a couple of hours ago). I’d watch a video and my battery would go before I got home from school.
It is very good to see Apple not advertise thier battery life over what it was and even better to see them under-estimate it.
I just hope, with the battery life impressing me, the playback is excellent (and doesn’t stutter like the classics I tried in Sheffield’s Apple Store!!)
Posted by ‹-cJr-› on September 12, 2007 at 9:26 AM (PDT)
3
What type of audio files & bitrates were used during the test? Very impressive results, indeed!
Posted by redsoxnation on September 12, 2007 at 9:34 AM (PDT)
4
Holy Schnikes! I wish the 160 gigger would hurry up and arrive in stores.
Posted by Galley in Greenville, SC on September 12, 2007 at 9:43 AM (PDT)
5
This is so awesome.
Remember when weak battery life was the biggest issue with our iPods?
But now we have to complain about not having enough capacity…or if your new iPod will play your old video games…or that it doesn’t come in “white”.
Ahhhh, when things were simple.
Can’t wait to get a 160gb Classic and finally listen to my War & Peace audiobook in its entirety.
Posted by Knifestyles on September 12, 2007 at 9:46 AM (PDT)
6
We try to use varied audio files in our tests. The list is composed predominantly of 128kbps and 192kbps CBR MP3 files, with a number of VBR tracks at mid to high rates, a handful of Apple Lossless test tracks, and a few others tossed in. It’s worth noting that one of the tracks is an extended interview, like an audiobook, to give the iPods a chance to show what they can do when playing a longer file; not everything on iPods is music these days.
Posted by Jeremy Horwitz in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 12, 2007 at 9:53 AM (PDT)
7
I bought the 160gb classic 2 days ago (replacing my 60gb 5g) and I am glad to hear about the battery tests.
I now have an iPod that holds ALL of my freelance art jobs as portable backup. And I have more room than I need for my music. How cool is that?
Because this iPod fits my needs so well, I would give it an A-. (The - for the fact it runs a bit slower because of all the graphics)
Well done, Apple!
Bill Henderson
Posted by Avalon0387 on September 12, 2007 at 11:43 AM (PDT)
8
* go buy the classic 160.Black
Thank for theses tests
Posted by m3tallikris on September 13, 2007 at 12:51 AM (PDT)
9
Hello,
Can I put the battery from the new ipod classic 80gb in my “old” iPod Video 30gb?
Thanks
Posted by João d'Oliveira on September 13, 2007 at 2:47 AM (PDT)
10
Joao d’Oliveira:
As far as I know, the battery in the 80GB Classic is the same model as the one found in the 5.5G 30GB iPod Video. I saw this in the tear down of the Classic and the Nano that surfaced online the other day. So I’m assuming you COULD put the battery in your 30GB, but it wouldn’t make a difference. Much of the battery performance improvement in the Classics is probably due to energy management upgrades int he firmware and the rest of the internal circuitry.
But any who, those battery life figures are amazing!!
Posted by Mike on September 13, 2007 at 5:10 AM (PDT)
11
I keep the backlight on 24/7 on my 2G iPod nano and now on my 3G iPod nano. The 3G’s battery definately does not last as long as my 2G, I assume because of the bigger, brighter display. Kind of a bummer really. It seems like it’s really slow to charge also. Does anybody else think so?
Posted by aaronsuspect on September 13, 2007 at 3:08 PM (PDT)