iPod classic, nano batteries beat Apple claims | iLounge News

iPod classic, nano batteries beat Apple claims

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



wooooow, just waiting for my classic 160 gb to arrive home ¡¡¡

Posted by gonzalo in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 12, 2007 at 12:23 PM (CDT)


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-› in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 12, 2007 at 12:26 PM (CDT)


What type of audio files & bitrates were used during the test?  Very impressive results, indeed!

Posted by redsoxnation in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 12, 2007 at 12:34 PM (CDT)


Holy Schnikes!  I wish the 160 gigger would hurry up and arrive in stores.

Posted by Galley in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 12, 2007 at 12:43 PM (CDT)


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 in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 12, 2007 at 12:46 PM (CDT)


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 12:53 PM (CDT)


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 in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 12, 2007 at 2:43 PM (CDT)


* go buy the classic 160.Black :P

Thank for theses tests

Posted by m3tallikris in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 13, 2007 at 3:51 AM (CDT)



Can I put the battery from the new ipod classic 80gb in my “old” iPod Video 30gb?


Posted by João d'Oliveira in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 13, 2007 at 5:47 AM (CDT)


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 in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 13, 2007 at 8:10 AM (CDT)


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 in East Amherst, NY, USA on September 13, 2007 at 6:08 PM (CDT)

Subscribe to iLounge Weekly

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2019 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy