Apple overhauls entire iPod line

Apple announced today a new range of iPods ready for the holiday season.

Big on the list is the iPod touch which is near identical to the iPhone apart from that it's thinner and has no phone functionality. The nano has been updated to include video support and is a little fatter than previous versions but still incredibly thin.

The iPhone has now dropped in price so the new price is $399 for the 8GB model. There will no longer be a 4GB model.

View: iPod Touch
View: iPod Nano

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

UltraDefrag 1.1.0

Next Story

Bioshock videocard performance

94 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Hahahhaha !!! I am better off with my 30gb iPod video .... I am yet to fill it up to the brim .... Its hardly even filled up to some 10gb's, WTF!!! are you gonna do with a 160gb MP3 player lol!!!

I got a 60Gig iPod and its about 70% full with only bout 6000 songs and a few videos. It'll fill up sooner then later. But 160gigs, dang, would need to put lots of vids on it to fill it up!

I'm a bit dissapointed with the new lineup alltogether. The shuffle is still more expensive than most its rivals in its class, many small mp3 players come cheaper with more functions (namely a screen). Nano was a sleek impressive device but now it just looks like a cheap chinese nano clone. I see no point in watching videos on mobile devices but I get that some people do. Still I think smaller flash players should be designed with music interfaces in mind first and then video if it's necessary at all. iPod classic has a much better interface and more capacity which still seems like the best deal of iPod over there. Touch.. well it's nice and all but I don't see how useful it can be. It's maximum capacity is not enough for many serious music audience, it's harder to handle than a classic iPod (size and scratch wise) and I find the giant screen coverflow thing to be a little overkill for such a small capacity music player. Video playing should be good on it, but you'll have shuffle your music like you would on a small flash based player if you want to get both videos and music in that thing. Internet? Still, nice, but many of you probably have phones that are able to connect to the web so it'd be wiser to buy an iphone and get rid of one of the devices you carry.
I seem to get on the wrong side of the bed today, but seriously this wasn't the brand new lineup I was expecting.

Don't think anyone has mentioned that the iPhone has also seen a $200 price cut on the 8GB version. The 4GB has been discontinued.

Wow. They look really nice. I might just get one if the reviews come out good.

But is it just me or do the images on Apple's website of the new iPods look a bit..uh.. photoshoppy?

As per some others guess I'm a bit disapointed. Was looking to perhaps replace my iAudio X5 since the batteries ending its life and the cost along with the need for more capacity has me thinking I could try for something in the region of 80GB or so. Not being interested in the flash players it seems the HD based one got a bit left to the side with this update. Guess I can hope that in the comming months a real update comes out. Duno, we'll see.

I was considering buying the latest and greatest iPod from Apple, but it seems they've messed up this time (IMO). Actually this gives me good perspective and I can snag some good deals on people getting ready to dump 5.5 gen iPods.

Messed up? They've only improved on every aspect of the player. Faster hardware, new OS, MUCH longer battery life, big capacity boost.

What you don't like it being rounded?

Danrarbc said,
Messed up? They've only improved on every aspect of the player. Faster hardware, new OS, MUCH longer battery life, big capacity boost.

What you don't like it being rounded?

I'm assuming all the qualities you mentioned are for iPod classic. I dont care much for the new OS (is there one on classic?), and the capacity boost to 160 gigs isnt for me (I would be happy with 30 tbh). To me, its a music player, not a way of life.

Please explain what you mean by faster hardware. More responsive? I didnt find 5.5 gen iPods to be sluggish.

Longer battery life could be useful though.

the ipod touch is pointless... i mean it would of been ONE HELL OF AN IPOD if it had more than 16 damn gigs...

what can u do with 16gigs these days... your going to have to make a TON of compromises to make it all fit especially if you want to put videos on it :eek: . i mean its nice and all and id love to have one, but 8 and 16 gigs is just not enough, specially when u can get 10x the amount of space for less...

i also dont really think the whole metallic thing will look too fancy with the new ipod classics, i liked the 5g look its a lot slicker..

im kind of disapointed in this new lineup i have to say =|

Ev!L-aLphA said,
16 gigs is just not enough, specially when u can get 10x the amount of space for less...

You can get a 160GB player for less than $299? Where? As far as I know, the only company making a 160GB player right now is Apple, and theirs costs $349.

8GB/16GB is plenty for many people. I don't think you should be expecting 1080p HD movies on a 3.5/2.5 screen do you ? as for the rest, everyone has their own taste.

roadwarrior said,

You can get a 160GB player for less than $299? Where? As far as I know, the only company making a 160GB player right now is Apple, and theirs costs $349.

the 16gig costs 399 as far as i know, hence making the 160gig cheaper.

Still no WMA support :disappointed: :cry:

For once I agree with Jobs, Zune has a long way to go in comparison. MS should take some serious consideration here as Apple hasn't done a mere change to the casing of an existing product, they've delivered big time.

Digix said,
converters have been around a long time, even audacity can solve that problem >_>

Screw converting. I want my music to play as is. Besides, I don't want to convert 15,000+ files.

Mathachew said,

Screw converting. I want my music to play as is. Besides, I don't want to convert 15,000+ files.

If these are legit songs then rip them again from your cd.

betasp said,
I don't think you should get upset at Apple not supporting a closed, proprietary format.

Yes, you're only allowed to use Apple's closed proprietary format. :cheeky:

excalpius said,

Yes, you're only allowed to use Apple's closed proprietary format. :cheeky:

AAC is an iso standard. Its specification is completely open and there are numerous implementations of AAC.

I think it looks like an awesome product. But I agree with most of you in regards to waiting for the 2nd generation of iPod touch.

I hope they upgrade the 'old' 30GB and 80GB iPod video firmware to take advantage of the new software that they've put on the 160GB iPod Classic such as the coverflow.

they wont. they never do. they would lose selling points.

there was never even an update for 5g ipods to have the search facility of 5.5g ipods.

Zip said,
they wont. they never do. they would lose selling points.

there was never even an update for 5g ipods to have the search facility of 5.5g ipods.

That sucks. I wanted those features on my 5th generation iPod.

NOT updating the firmware because they would lose selling points, is already a lost selling point: they lost ME as their future customer.

miguel_montes said,

That sucks. I wanted those features on my 5th generation iPod.

NOT updating the firmware because they would lose selling points, is already a lost selling point: they lost ME as their future customer.


These new iPods have totally different hardware. Completely.

The firmware isn't related to the original in ANY way. Most likely the horsepower isn't even there to do some of the new things.

Danrarbc said,

These new iPods have totally different hardware. Completely.

The firmware isn't related to the original in ANY way. Most likely the horsepower isn't even there to do some of the new things.

Source, please. I would like to know more...

The only overhaul they need is dropping the price to something more appropriate. They cost more than their worth when you see what non-Apple players offer at the same price.

They also could use a "just copy the damned songs with their original name without having to install iTunes or a 3rd party program" function added. All my other MP3 players can do that--why not one that is supposedly nicer?

Is it just me or does the ipod touch make a perfect internet tablet device similar to the Nokia N800? The 4GB version costs less than the N800 (which i currently own) and Safari on the iPhone/iPod Touch is far superior than the N800 Opera 9 browser besides lacking Flash support.

Looks like they had some Iphone shells left over so what did they do??> rip the phone components out and leave the music section in there...

The nano is an improvement tho... yet again... how small is it really... looks like the whole thing fits in ya palm.... screens got to be bit to small for any real movies dont it..

The iPhone shell and the iPod touch shell are completely different, so there goes your theory. The screen of the new nano is 80% of the size of the screen on the iPod Classic, so it should be acceptable for watching videos. I've watched videos on smaller screens than that before (1.2"), and once you get used to it, you can live with it.

Hmm.. nice toys there most definately but its mostly meaningless addons that my 1st Gen Nano still manages just fine.

I mean.. I dont *need* coverflow, or the ability to play video's on my iPod - I had video capability and a hoofin great memory card on my last mobile phone and I never played video on it beyond the test one I put on there to make sure it worked!

Don't get me wrong though.. some seriously nice additions to the line up. The iPod Touch does look gorgeous and feature packed and 160GB in the classic is just.. well.. insane frankly.

ipod touch is yum, completely changed my mind from considering zune now!


ipod touch
how much? $299 8GB $399 16GB
how long does the battery last? 22hrs audio 5hrs video
how much is the battery? it's built in as usual
can "we" replace it? no.

brent3000 said,
could u ever replace apple batteries...

probably by buying a new ipod and rip the battery out and re connect it but why do that when can just use it lol

Good God, when are people ever going to stop spouting such nonsense? It's been perfectly possible to replace an iPod's battery for ages now. Stop being ignorant fools.

roadwarrior said,
Good God, when are people ever going to stop spouting such nonsense? It's been perfectly possible to replace an iPod's battery for ages now. Stop being ignorant fools.

Not the new touch ones <snipped>!They are just like the iPhone. Pay attention to the topic rather than protecting the holy throne of Jobs.

Kojacked said,

Not the new touch ones tard! They are just like the iPhone. Pay attention to the topic rather than protecting the holy throne of Jobs.

I was responding to the comment "could u ever replace apple batteries", <snipped>

ok now for the real questions?

how much?
how long does the battery last?
how much is the battery?
can "we" replace it?

and how soon will i have to replace it once i'm tried of being ripped off by apple.

Have you read Apple's website at all?

Assuming you're talking about the "Touch" - the battery lasts 22 hours playing audio, 5 playing video. I imagine the battery should be the same as the iPhone - as such it should hold roughly 80% of the original charge after 2 years and gradually degrade (with average usage).

eAi said,
Have you read Apple's website at all?

Assuming you're talking about the "Touch" - the battery lasts 22 hours playing audio, 5 playing video. I imagine the battery should be the same as the iPhone - as such it should hold roughly 80% of the original charge after 2 years and gradually degrade (with average usage).


2 years? Yea, keep dreaming my friend. Lithium Ion batteries lose 20% of their charging capacity after roughly 1 year and after two years, they hold about 65% of their charge.

Unless of course Apple is using a patented, custom made battery

L3thal said,
2 years? Yea, keep dreaming my friend. Lithium Ion batteries lose 20% of their charging capacity after roughly 1 year and after two years, they hold about 65% of their charge.

Unless of course Apple is using a patented, custom made battery :blink:

Source? Usage? or are we just spouting here...

L3thal said,

Both, actually. Good thing you asked.

Here's a very detailed description of lithium ion batteries and their durability, lifetime, etc.

http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/generic...cname=c00596784

Not sure how you think this applies to the ipod given that it talks about moderate use being 300-500 charges a year. I know that if I had one I wouldn't be using my ipod for the 5 hours video or 25 hours audio over 300 times a year...

to be honest at least apple are trying and doing well!!!
compared to the zune, creative m vision etc
both brought very little to the market

ive owned both!

at least the ipod is a well developed and finished product!

still hate it

an iphone without the phone?
red shuffle?
starbucks?

meh

And one more thing!
An ipod that doesnt play music!

woooooboring

8gb ... so why in the video does it show capacity of 7.08? ... oh yeah, cus when they say 8gb they really mean about 7.45, and then all the software and stuff installed on that thing leaves you with over 10% less space than they advertise!

Its about time they started labeling up the real size of the hard drive that is usable, not just Apple - everyone.

Other than that it looks pretty nifty

I suppose they get away with it because at the bottom they reference:

1GB = 1 billion bytes; actual formatted capacity less.

Whereas 1GB actually = 1,073,741,824 bytes

plastikaa said,
I suppose they get away with it because at the bottom they reference:

Whereas 1GB actually = 1,073,741,824 bytes

For manufacturers 1GB = 1,000,000,000 and not what you listed.

Giga means billion (base 10) so they're actually right, same with hard drive manufacturers. Operating systems use the term incorrectly, they should be using GiB (base 2)

1 GiB = 1,073,741,824 bytes (2^30)
1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes (10^9)

Even if they are technically right - theres only one reason they do it, and thats to make it look like they are selling more than they are. If inside OSX is uses GB to base 2.. then their advertising should too.

Well, unlike most people I'm disappointed, I wanted a 160GB widescreen, touchscreen iPod, I didn't get it!

Instead we got:
Shuffle: No change (bit pointless anyway in my opinion)
Nano: Known for being cute and gadgety, now fat! (who would watch video on that tiny screen)
Classic: Same as my 5G from 2 years ago but just higher storage
Touch: Fancy but full of useless features and half the storage of my 5G from 2 years ago

I won't be buying any! I know most disagree but I think these are poor iPods from apple

agree with you lets wait for a second or third generation, so far the early adopters of iphone got screwed with the price

i would like to see a shuffle cost less than 50 dollars like it should.

Yup, fully agree. iPod classic not enough of an improvement over the 5th Gen to spend money to replace mine. I wanted the touch, but 16GB Flash is a no go for me. Should have put even 40GB/80GB drives in there to keep the price down.

Had money waiting on a purchase, but looks like I'll have to wait for the touch Gen2.

Also, I pity those who purchased the iPhone 8GBs originally. 200 dollar price drop .. ouch. I guess the iPhone wasn't selling as much as Apple hoped. They'll see the same issue with the iPod Touch. If there was a hard drive in there, we had a winner.

In the same situation, have a 5g but the touch would be a step backwards in terms of size, which is just silly.

Ah well, might have to go get myself an actual video device rather than an iPod. If only the touch had a hard drive.

eilegz said,
agree with you lets wait for a second or third generation, so far the early adopters of iphone got screwed with the price

i would like to see a shuffle cost less than 50 dollars like it should.

If you go into the refurb section of Apple's store, you can get a shuffle for $49. Not exactly the same, I know, but it's under $50 and comes with a warranty...

i dnt understand whats the point of paying $300 for an mp3 player. there r other mp3 players which cost $50, and they still do the same thing.

and also i see no point of watching vdieos on the tiny nano.

For once I can say you're wrong about other mp3 players. Most can't browse customized online music stores. Most can't browse the whole internet. Most don't have the slick interface the iPod Touch will have. Most don't look so cool.

You're comparing the iPod to other mp3 players when the iPod (at least the iPod Touch) isn't really just an mp3 player anymore.

I might look into this when my trusty Mini finally kicks the bucket. Or maybe it'll go on the X-mas list. At the moment, though, $300 is a lot.

-Spenser

Well solider, not everyone buys iPod because it can play music...some buy it as a fashion accessory or because their friends have one or because someone thought it was "cool" (hence they too can be "cool" for just $300)

Others think that Apple is God's gift to technology; therefore, it's iPod or die. Yep, they really exist.

And some just don't bother to look at anything else because iPod is now a household name. Just as people refer to any brand of tissues as "Kleenex" or any brand of bandage as a "Band-aid", some people refer to all MP3 players as "iPods".

... and some buy them because the technology is better, and some buy them because the design is better and some buy them because they are simply just easy to use.

Just like some people would rather b*tch about them than acknowledge a great product with a great set of features and services.

stifler6478 said,
For once I can say you're wrong about other mp3 players. Most can't browse customized online music stores. Most can't browse the whole internet. Most don't have the slick interface the iPod Touch will have. Most don't look so cool.

You're comparing the iPod to other mp3 players when the iPod (at least the iPod Touch) isn't really just an mp3 player anymore.

I might look into this when my trusty Mini finally kicks the bucket. Or maybe it'll go on the X-mas list. At the moment, though, $300 is a lot.

-Spenser

Online music store - No need for that. I download my music for free.
Internet - No need for that.
Interface - Don't like touchscreen. Way too easy to damage.
Coolness - Yeah, that I agree. iTouch looks sick!

So why would I buy an iTouch, that only has 16GB, when my 5th generation iPod has 60???? Or why would anyone buy an iTouch when iPod Classic has so much more storage space?

Why do people say the nano is fat?! It's still just as thin! :laugh:
No, he didnt' misread, there's the iPod classic 80GB and 160GB ;)

-Rich-

richardsim7 said,
Why do people say the nano is fat?! It's still just as thin! :laugh:
No, he didnt' misread, there's the iPod classic 80GB and 160GB ;)

-Rich-

Ah yes, my bad. I didn't see the "iPod Classic" in there.

richardsim7 said,
Why do people say the nano is fat?! It's still just as thin! :laugh:
No, he didnt' misread, there's the iPod classic 80GB and 160GB ;)

-Rich-

Because the nano looks overly wide at the bottom due to all the empty space, though people who have seen it for real say it looks nicer than in promo materials.

160 GB thats huge for an MP3 player wonder what percentage of people with 80GBs or even 30GBs fill then?
Still that Touch does look nice and the Nano is fat!

Ashl said,
160 GB thats huge for an MP3 player wonder what percentage of people with 80GBs or even 30GBs fill then?
Still that Touch does look nice and the Nano is fat!

160GB? I think you misread.

I have more than 80GB of music and that doesn't even count videos, while I know I am the exception rather than the norm I have been wanting more space for a long time. Which leads me to my largest complaint... the iPod Touch with a measley 16GB. Come on that is like what 5 movies? That is pathetic, at least it looks nice. I'll be waiting until I can get at least 30GB from the touch before I'm going to go for it.

xploit1030 said,
I have more than 80GB of music and that doesn't even count videos, while I know I am the exception rather than the norm I have been wanting more space for a long time. Which leads me to my largest complaint... the iPod Touch with a measley 16GB. Come on that is like what 5 movies? That is pathetic, at least it looks nice. I'll be waiting until I can get at least 30GB from the touch before I'm going to go for it.

I'd love to know what the situation is with *NIX is - I'm tempted to purchase one but I'm scared it won't be compatible.

Also, I think the one benefit with larger space which means superior quality music as well; for me, I like compressing at 256kbps for example.

bangbang023 said,

No, he didn't.

He did, the iPod touch is available in 8GB and 16GB.

It's the iPod classic that offers a 160GB modem. The poster was referring to the iPod touch.

kizzaaa said,

He did, the iPod touch is available in 8GB and 16GB.

It's the iPod classic that offers a 160GB modem. The poster was referring to the iPod touch.

I don't think he did, he just mentioned the touch later and said it "looks cool"