Jump to content

Talk:IPod Classic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.16.83.60 (talk) at 18:48, 1 January 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

merge with ipod

No, it shouldn't be merged, all the other models have their own pages. I'm removing the template --80.86.74.135 21:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, this is really just like the iPod photo. Can be considered the 6th generation iPod. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well the 5th generation and the photo have their own pages as well. It's different from the photo because it can play videos, and and it's different from the video because it has the design of the photo (though updated slightly). it also has some new interface--80.86.74.135 21:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's new, and deserves its own page. Not to mention IT'S NOT WHITE that should be noted that apple ditched their iconic white iPod for silver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.226.61 (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It only takes a sentence to describe the color change. This article is just redundant information and a big fair use image. The new interface can be added into iPod where it can refer to the new nanos as well. Please do not remove the merge template as the issue is still being discussed; a few hours is not sufficient time. I don't want to pull the logged-in superiority card, but JohnnyBGood and I do have more experience and have a better feel for what's appropriate under the Notability Policy. I will, however, contact the non-anonymous creator of the page and ask for his/her input.--HereToHelp 23:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, please go ahead and put back the template, it just seemed obvious that it was misplaced. The page called ipod is about all models of ipods (nano/shuffle/mini/photo/video) of all generations, while most of those have their own pages as well (especially the newer ones). Therefor, for consistency this one should have it's own page as well. If, instead, all the models with their own pages were to be merged to the ipod page, it would become too long, or a lot of information would have to be deleted. Also, This page will probably be expanded eventually, it was only announced a few hours ago.--80.86.74.135 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too think it's a little too soon to merge the page... but the argument could also be made that it was too soon to create it in the first place. Pele Merengue 23:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Merge The Nano has its own page, for example. --Julian (http://beautifulrecords.org/) 00:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, the iPod page address the iPod brand and family, not the iPod product. To maintain that, the classic should have its own page (the utterly stupid 5G article should be modified to accomondate the 1G-5G iPods).Butterfly0fdoom 08:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, we have two choices for keeping the ipod articles consistent. In both choices there is one general article for all types of ipods. In the first choice, there is one article for classic (including "all iPods with the traditional 'large' HD-based form factor and interface"), one for minis one for nanos, one for shuffels and one for touch. The second choice is one article for each generation/model (although updates, such as 5.5g, would be included in the 5g article). These aticles would incude full technical details, release dates, known common bugs or defects, details on how well they sold, and other relevant details. I prefer the second choice, but I sense that most people want to scale it down as much as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.74.137 (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Merge I view this as a new product.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont merge why should they they are two product lines its the same as merging the Gamcube and the Wii its stupid and pointless. Updates like 6.5 or whatever they might be called can be but it has no need. You would have to merge everyone causing a massive super article called iPod Classic (iPod) not fun 76.114.13.255 23:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Merge --DogGunn 00:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth generation?

Hey people, even though it is a new breed of iPod it is still classic, meaning it should still be similar to the fifth generation, maybe we name the iPod classic the 5.5 generation, and the iPod touch the sixth generation? That makes more sense... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.86.28.34 (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think classic is meant to imply that it is a 'descendant' of the original ipod (similar design, similar functions), which would make it sixth generation. As steve jobs said when he presented it, this line of design has never had a suffix like (like nano) so they have now decided to call it classic. This implies that they intend to maintain this line in the future, and develop it parallel to the 'touch', so it would be wrong to say classic is 5.5 (besides, 5.5 already exists, i believe). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.74.135 (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6G seems an appropriate term, especially as 'iPod Classic' doesn't just seem to refer to this specific model. Steve Jobs called the 5G models 'iPod Classics' before introducing the 'new iPod Classic' (around 26 minutes into his presentation). My interpretation of this would be that 'iPod Classic' is an Apple retronym that now refers to all iPods with the traditional 'large' HD-based form factor and interface. - Rdwperl 13:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the Talk:IPod page, I think the "iPod classic" covers all generations of the original (AKA classic) iPod. From the original 5GB 1G iPod all the way up to the 160GB "classic" iPod. -- MacAddct1984 18:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo. As a result this page should describe each hard-drive-based iPod (gens 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5.5, 6, and each special edition version (No Doubt, Madonna, Beck, Tony Hawk, U2 (original, color, 5G), and Harry Potter (4G, 5G))) under their own section and iPod (5G) should be merged and redirected to this page. iPod should be reserved for talking about the iPod brand and line in general with most of the content about specific iPods pushed to the links iPod classic, iPod mini, iPod shuffle, iPod photo, iPod nano, and iPod touch. PaulC/T+ 20:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fantastic, now all we need to do is reach a consensus with the nay-sayers... -- MacAddct1984 21:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just went ahead anyway and spent the day adding information that I could get off of iLounge (I don't know how to cite/reference a PDF file, since I got the information from one of their digital books) and merging the 5G iPod and iPod photo articles in (hence the photo and 5G sections. All I've laid down, though, is just a basic framework. People that know more about the previous iPod classics, please fill in the blanks! It's still possible to un-merge the photo article anyway. The 5G article, at any rate, should never be un-merged. Butterfly0fdoom 03:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, butterfly, thanks for the help! :D -- MacAddct1984 03:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought - You can add a pdf citation just like any other
<ref name="pdffile">[http://www.site.com/file.pdf Filename], ''[[Site]]'', (date created), {{accessdate|2007-09-06}}</ref> and then <ref name=pdffile/> for any other occurance. -- MacAddct1984 04:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the Ipod Classic is not 5.5 but 6g. The iPod has never been sold as iPod Classic befor the current model was released, and it is far from the same as 5G. The HD space has doubled, the interface is all-new, and it's thinner than the 5G (6G iPod classic 80GB vs. 5G iPod video 80GB). And btw, the iPod touch has been released as a new model, and have got more in common with the iPod nano than the iPod classic, it doesn't have a HD, it's equipped with flash memory. These are completely different technologies.--193.217.58.211 13:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job butterfly--80.86.74.135 09:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the photo should be merged--80.86.74.135 11:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Features

This article lacks a full list of features, can we please list them 80.229.169.189 18:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll take care of that after we resolve the merge/delete issue. Butterfly0fdoom 19:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There should be some info on the dimensions of the different models...?--193.217.58.211 13:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to compile that information, go ahead. But make sure you do so in a neat and organized manner (like a table, don't put it in the infobox). Butterfly0fdoom 18:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs and Glitches in ipod 6G

I added the info but someone ask for citation. I don't how to add it but here is my source: http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/ipod-classics-exhibit-random-crashes-lockups/11429 60.50.196.92 06:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Font

What was the original font for iPods before they changed it to Myriad. --PJ Pete

1st, 2nd, 3rd, and monochrome 4th gen iPods use the Chicago font. iPod mini used Espy Sans. And until the iPod classic, colored iPods actually used Podium Sans, technically not Myriad. AquaStreak 13:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article about Ipods or "classics"?

Letting Apple's marketing strategy determine the naming of articles ("retronym"??? Please. What is this, Star Wars?) leads to absurdities like this: "The first batch of iPod classics has been reported to crash trying to load album art and connecting to iTunes after syncing for the first time. " Excuse me, but according to the article, all' Ipods are "classics." The article, under this name, should refer only to the latest generation -- if it's needed at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.45.200 (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The first batch of iPod classics has been reported to crash trying to load album art and connecting to iTunes after syncing for the first time." should be "The first batch of sixth generation iPod classics have been reported to crash trying to load album art and connecting to iTunes after syncing for the first time. "--160.5.225.172 14:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it means anything, the latest iTunes update I got from Apple mentioned "iPod Fifth/5.5 Generation" and iPod Classic as two seperate products. I would think that the classic suffix applied to the Sixth Generation iPods. And if it does apply to all, then I would imagine there is a source (or it would reasonably easy to find one) saying that Apple has adpoted that retronym. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 19:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4 Pin remote jack

I changed the article to say that the remote jack on the 3G is a 4-pin connection next to the headphone port and someone has reverted it back to say it's 10-pin. Here is a link to a picture of one side of the remote's connection, showing a 3-channel mini jack and 2 of the 4 connections on the remote connecter.[1] It's possible that the extra channel on the mini jack is used for the remote, but even if it's included then the remote connection uses only 5 contacts.

JP Godfrey (Talk to me) 13:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why no radio[still]?

Does anybody know why this latest Ipod still does not incorporate an FM radio? What is the best mp3 player out there which does have a radio? 78.16.83.60 (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPod_Classic&oldid=181421846"