comments

1st picture has a bottom headphone port, so it seems to be the new Nano, not the 6G iPod.

Posted by Mr. E. on September 5, 2007 at 2:14 PM (PDT) Comment 1

That's fixed. Now the 3rd pic from the bottom appears to belong to the iPod Touch. Nice pics, though. 160GBs has me drooling, but I'll probably stick with my 5G for a while longer.

Posted by Mr. E. on September 6, 2007 at 7:59 AM (PDT) Comment 2

was wondering if the screen is still plastic, of if they've moved to optical glass like on the iPhone?

Posted by Lawrence Mikkelsen on September 6, 2007 at 1:35 PM (PDT) Comment 3

Wow! First review!! Congratulations!

Posted by misaelt on September 7, 2007 at 12:24 PM (PDT) Comment 4

My iPod died on my so I happen to be in the market for one. The only thing stopping me from jumping on the Classic wagon is that the dull, unattractive aluminum face. Is this enough to warrant out-of-date purchase, coz most people get the newest technology, but I'm seriously considering buying the 5.5 gen.

Posted by orionpkmyz on September 7, 2007 at 1:15 PM (PDT) Comment 5

How does the new 'Playing Now' screen work? What are the options for each press of the iPod's select button?

Posted by misaelt on September 7, 2007 at 1:34 PM (PDT) Comment 6

What if my songs don't have cover art for them? Will the right side of the iPod be blank, or what?

Posted by daviddd on September 7, 2007 at 1:37 PM (PDT) Comment 7

Are you sure the camera connector doesnt work? On the product page in the Apple Store website it notes it's compatible with the iPod Classic & the iPod Nano 3rd Gen.

The Camera Connector's been known to be persnickety at times, perhaps that's what happened here during your review?

Posted by rafaelc378 on September 7, 2007 at 2:01 PM (PDT) Comment 8

so the ipod classic is out of date? As far as im concerned a 400 dollar 16gig digital media player is out of date...oh but it has wifi and safari....yeah but it simply does not have enough space....for now the ipod touch is a high priced fashion accessory...a very cool one, but a toy nonetheless. Give a media player that actually holds some media and i'm happy.

Posted by jimmy76 on September 7, 2007 at 3:18 PM (PDT) Comment 9

Accessories: Does the Video Out function work with the first gen Apple Universal Dock?

Does the first gen Apple Universal Dock have the authentication chip?

Posted by alexarch on September 7, 2007 at 3:41 PM (PDT) Comment 10

Hey there,

Based on this review, it's definitely not B+ worthy, more a B or even B-. I'm not appreciating Apple removing features/limiting features for a supposedly updated product.

Posted by JazzyMac on September 7, 2007 at 3:58 PM (PDT) Comment 11

What about the new access to shuffle feature? This to me was something that was long overdue. Also, as alexarch mentioned, does this work with the Universal Dock for the previous iPods and if so, can on use the Composite Out from that Dock to a TV?

Posted by Boris34 on September 7, 2007 at 5:28 PM (PDT) Comment 12

Hollywood is most likely behind the change in video out support. Since the iPod classic and 3G nano now support 480p output via a component cable, pretty decent-quality analog copies could be made from protected content. As long as my current Apple Universal Dock is supported, it won't bother me.

Posted by Galley on September 7, 2007 at 5:49 PM (PDT) Comment 13

If I back up the "Ipod_Control" folder on my 5G ipod (windows), could I restore it to the new classic?

Posted by gregwlsn on September 7, 2007 at 11:12 PM (PDT) Comment 14

What about EU-volume limitation? Will previous unlocking tools work? Otherwise I´ll keep my 5.5G!

Posted by rudolfraith1 on September 7, 2007 at 11:23 PM (PDT) Comment 15

How's the color banding on this one? The 'old' iPod w. Video had a screen that wasn't true 8bit (or 24bit, if you like) resulting in terrible color banding!

Try looking at the opening sequence of the movie 'Delicatessen' on an iPod w. Video...

Posted by aapl87 on September 8, 2007 at 6:02 AM (PDT) Comment 16

My biggest question: Does it work with the Apple Radio Remote? I don't use it much for radio, so if the radio isn't supported, it's no big deal, but I want to use the remote controls.

Posted by Japester on September 8, 2007 at 6:38 AM (PDT) Comment 17

I don't really like that you conclude the article by comparing apples to oranges (or Classic to iPhone/iPod touch). They're very different products and cater to very different user-bases. The Classic is as much the music-player-first-iPod that Steve Jobs always said it would be. The touch, on the other hand, is basically a PDA (*cough* Newton? *cough*). I would have been sad had Apple solely unveiled the iPod touch (even if it had larger storage) and discontinued anything resembling previous iPods.

For me, someone replacing a broken 20gb 4g, the Classic is PERFECT. It offers the updated interface I've been wanting since the debut of color screens, a slim profile, amazing battery life and a great value in GB/$.

I don't think Classic looks like it's trying to tag along with the touch/iPhone, I think Apple's just going for a continuity in its interface designs. Would it have made sense for them to give it a design that didn't resemble their other products; or to maintain the old one that didn't? I don't think so.

I think the Classic is exactly what it is. It is a great sixth generation of a great product and extremely deserving of its name.

Posted by israldebruin on September 8, 2007 at 8:58 AM (PDT) Comment 18

I must say that I feel this review, though appreciated, was fairly incomplete. What of line in recording capabilities, shuffle features, etc. I can't expect that iLounge try every accessories, but they should try the the accessories that activate a particular function, such as a Tunetalk, or Radio attachment. Since Apple took the step to make certain peripherals non functional, it would be nice to know what generally works and what doesn't.
I also have to agree with israldebruin when he says you're comparing the wrong player. The comparison should be with the 5.5 Gen iPod since the Touch is a whole other category altogether. It's my hope that Jeremy writes a secondary piece that covers the missing bits.
B.

Posted by Boris34 on September 8, 2007 at 9:26 AM (PDT) Comment 19

One word of warning to OS X 10.3.9 users - the iPod Classic will not work for you. Yes, it says 10.4.8 is required on the product page, but it also says 10.3.9 in the PDF manual. There is a discussion about the contradiction on the Apple Support Disscusion for the classic (http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5283860&tstart=0)

This is perhaps something that should be reflected in the requirements section of this review.

Posted by rjglasse on September 8, 2007 at 10:25 AM (PDT) Comment 20

Wow. I guess no one else here likes carrying all their music around with them at once, or ever wants to hear a particular song out of their collection at a particular time. I have a 100 gig collection, and so far had held out buying a high-capacity player as none were high capacity enough. I mean, I have a phone (Verizon, not Cellular, so I can actually make calls) that browses the internet, also plays mp3s, plays TV, etc. I have a 1st gen nano (1st MP3 player thin enough for me) so I can listen to day-trip music and run out of batteries, but still be able to make phone calls. Video - watch those on my PSP between games (4.3 inch screen). So, when people are tired of only carrying 16 gigs of music around with them, hopefully Apple won't have phased out hard disk based large capacity players.

Posted by drunken.monkey on September 8, 2007 at 7:45 PM (PDT) Comment 21

Well, I think the only reason Apple has kept the classic style around is specifically to offer a high capacity hard drive style player. I think as putting a strike on the classic b/c is doesn't have a iTouch interface is wrong, the click well is an excellent interface provided on a less expensive device. The move to nand based memory is just the way things are going, so it makes a lot of sense to include in on new tech (iTouch) players. But, for now, capacity just isn't going to be there for awhile. I'm very pleased with Apple's decision to keep the classic style on as a high capacity drive. Clearly the volume of sales Apple has been doing with it's music player lines has allowed it to keep this model as opposed to eliminating it all together. I also believe that a plus for this device is it's ability to be used as an external hard drive, with it's available capacity it usefulness is now more so. Strikes that make sense are any elimination of features and the like. So this iPod classic should be rate based on past iPods of this style, for example, the iPod Shuffle don't have a touch screen either, nor can the iPod classic make a phone call, the point is that the model should be rated for it's intended design and use, which don't believe this review has done very well.

Posted by kaioslider on September 9, 2007 at 7:25 AM (PDT) Comment 22

Why in the heck are the old iPod games incompatible with the iPod Classic? Since the iPod games are a new feature, wouldn't it have made sense to make them work with all iPods 5G and up? WOuld it have hurt Apple to ensure that at least the GAMES would work on the updated iPods?

And what about those of us who have already purchased iPod games and decide to upgrade to the classic? Do we get free upgrades or do we have to buy them all over again?

Posted by ahMEmon on September 9, 2007 at 6:28 PM (PDT) Comment 23

I was at the apple store on saturday and when i used coverflow while listening to a song...the song skipped...pretty sad ! (I don't mind the display coming on a little slow...but for heaven's sake...I can't have anything interfere with the music playback...)
when I asked the guy at the store he said a lot of the previous ipods have had the issue too...and thats how it is...
Have any of you seen this ?

Posted by Ashwin on September 10, 2007 at 10:59 AM (PDT) Comment 24

I am glad that Apple is still keeping the EQ options limited - user adjustable EQ is a virtual guaranty of bad quality sound in the hands of 99% of users, and I think it wise to eliminate it as a feature altogether. It is only "needed" in cases of truly wretched recordings and/or playback gear (e.g., headphones). Otherwise is an invitation to clipping and tacky bass boosts.

Apple's preset approach is the best compromise IMHO, but I keep mine OFF at all times.

Posted by BradPDX on September 10, 2007 at 3:12 PM (PDT) Comment 25
 1 2 >
related reviews

Congress passes bill to legalize phone unlocking
Bose sues Beats over noise-canceling patents
iLounge Game Spotlight: Modern Combat 5: Blackout
Apps of the Week: ShipAntics, Modern Combat 5, This American Life 3.0 + more
Report: Apple could launch own mobile wallet this fall
Report: Apple ‘tentatively’ plans mid-September iPhone event
Apple faces class action suit in California for labor violations
Apple, AT&T now sending $40 checks to some iPad 3G owners
Apple denies iOS “back door” access in new report
Notes from Apple’s Q3 2014 earnings call

related reviews

Incipio offGRID Smart Bluetooth Low Energy-Enabled Portable 6000mAh Backup Battery
Divoom Voombox Travel Rugged Portable Wireless Speaker
Logitech protection+ for iPhone 5/5s and +trip
Beats Powerbeats2 Wireless
Incipio Steno Ultra-Thin Bluetooth Keyboard Folio for iPad Air
OtterBox Resurgence Power Case for iPhone 5/5s
Gumdrop Cases FoamTech Case for iPad Air
Ztylus Camera Case + RV-2 Revolver Lens for iPhone 5/5s
JBL Synchros Reflect In-Ear Sport Headphones
JBL Synchros E50BT Over-Ear Headphones

related reviews

What’s New in iTunes 12
iLounge Picks: Five Great Summer Party Speakers
Editorial: Endings And Beginnings
Live From CE Week 2014: Brand New iPad, iPhone + Mac Accessories!
What’s New In iOS 8 For iPad, iPhone + iPod touch
iLounge Multi-Editorial: WWDC 2014’s iOS 8, OS X Yosemite + More
The Complete Guide to Apple TV Channels
iHistory: From iPod + iTunes to iPhone, Apple TV + iPad, 2001 to 2010
iHistory: From iPod + iTunes to iPhone, Apple TV + iPad: 2011 to Today
Viewing only downloaded iTunes Match tracks