Home > Consumer Reviews > Apple iPod classic 120 GB Black (6th Generation) [Previous Model]
Apple iPod classic 120 GB Black (6th Generation) [Previous Model]
See it at Amazon.com for $279.00Average Customer Rating
(4.5 out of 5)
Amazon Customer Reviews
Most Helpful First | Newest First | + Share39 of 41 people found the following review helpful:
They call it the "Classic" for a reason
(4 out of 5) by Marko Kloos on Oct 14, 2008 (Enfield, NH)The iPod classic is a bit of a relic. In the current iPod lineup, it looks a bit tawdry and bland next to the new iPod nano and touch. It does, however, offer something all the other iPods don't--lots of storage space.
While the iPod nano and touch are sleek and streamlined devices, they only hold a maximum of 16 and 32 GB, respectively. That's plenty of storage for the average user, but there are some people out there whose music and video libraries would fill up even the highest-capacity iPod touch instantly.
The iPod classic has one reason for its existence: it's the only iPod choice for people who a.) have iTunes libraries bigger than 30GB, and b.) want to carry all their music and videos around with them at all times, without having to mess with play lists and selective syncing.
The iPod classic doesn't have the beautiful glass screen of the iPod touch, and it's much more bulky than the sleek little iPod nano, but it holds a lot more data on its internal hard drive, and the screen size (2.5" at 320x240 pixels) is an agreeable compromise between the "squint-o-vision" stamp-sized screen of the nano, and the incredible 3.5" widescreen on the touch.
The classic is the only iPod with a hard drive, which means that it's a bit more fragile than the flash-based nano and touch, but it also means that it has vastly more storage space. It's also by the best value when you compare the dollars-per-megabyte ratio of all the iPod models. If you go jogging with your iPod, this is not the best choice, but for everyday use (working and walking around with the iPod in your pocket, for example), the classic is plenty sturdy enough. (Mine has taken two falls from my desk onto our hardwood floor while the hard drive was copying data, and the iPod survived both falls just fine.)
The hard drive isn't as fast as the flash memory in the nano and touch, but in everyday use, the slower read speeds are not an issue. You'll mainly notice that it takes the Cover Flow view a second to replace the placeholder graphics with the proper cover art as the hard drive tries to catch up while you scroll through your album covers. On the plus side, the hard drive has much faster write speeds than flash memory, which makes the sync process with iTunes faster.
The classic's click wheel allows for one-handed changing of tracks and volume without looking at the screen, which is not possible with the iPod touch. It also offers superior battery life to either the nano or the touch at 36 hours of music and 7 hours of video playback. (I routinely get 40 hours out of mine, so Apple's battery life estimates are a bit on the conservative side.)
The technology under the shell of the classic is not the latest and greatest, but it's the evolution of a proven, user-friendly concept. It lacks the Wi-Fi connectivity and large screen of the iPod touch, and it's not nearly as svelte as the iPod nano, but it combines lots of storage with a decent screen, a proven and intuitive user interface, and excellent battery life.
Lastly, you can use the iPod classic as an external USB hard drive for backups and data transfer, which is a bit pointless with the nano (because of its low capacity), and not possible at all with the touch.
Like any other piece of kit, the iPod classic has a few weak spots. The back is still polished chrome, which collects scratches extremely well, and the screen is plastic rather than glass, which means it's more prone to marring. If you want to keep it pristine, you won't get around purchasing a good case for it. (The slick chrome back also makes it a bit slippery in the hand if you use it without a case.)
It doesn't do Internet access, you can't make calls with it, and it's not a PDA...but for just listening to music and watching videos on the run, the iPod classic is still one of the best devices on the market.
While the iPod nano and touch are sleek and streamlined devices, they only hold a maximum of 16 and 32 GB, respectively. That's plenty of storage for the average user, but there are some people out there whose music and video libraries would fill up even the highest-capacity iPod touch instantly.
The iPod classic has one reason for its existence: it's the only iPod choice for people who a.) have iTunes libraries bigger than 30GB, and b.) want to carry all their music and videos around with them at all times, without having to mess with play lists and selective syncing.
The iPod classic doesn't have the beautiful glass screen of the iPod touch, and it's much more bulky than the sleek little iPod nano, but it holds a lot more data on its internal hard drive, and the screen size (2.5" at 320x240 pixels) is an agreeable compromise between the "squint-o-vision" stamp-sized screen of the nano, and the incredible 3.5" widescreen on the touch.
The classic is the only iPod with a hard drive, which means that it's a bit more fragile than the flash-based nano and touch, but it also means that it has vastly more storage space. It's also by the best value when you compare the dollars-per-megabyte ratio of all the iPod models. If you go jogging with your iPod, this is not the best choice, but for everyday use (working and walking around with the iPod in your pocket, for example), the classic is plenty sturdy enough. (Mine has taken two falls from my desk onto our hardwood floor while the hard drive was copying data, and the iPod survived both falls just fine.)
The hard drive isn't as fast as the flash memory in the nano and touch, but in everyday use, the slower read speeds are not an issue. You'll mainly notice that it takes the Cover Flow view a second to replace the placeholder graphics with the proper cover art as the hard drive tries to catch up while you scroll through your album covers. On the plus side, the hard drive has much faster write speeds than flash memory, which makes the sync process with iTunes faster.
The classic's click wheel allows for one-handed changing of tracks and volume without looking at the screen, which is not possible with the iPod touch. It also offers superior battery life to either the nano or the touch at 36 hours of music and 7 hours of video playback. (I routinely get 40 hours out of mine, so Apple's battery life estimates are a bit on the conservative side.)
The technology under the shell of the classic is not the latest and greatest, but it's the evolution of a proven, user-friendly concept. It lacks the Wi-Fi connectivity and large screen of the iPod touch, and it's not nearly as svelte as the iPod nano, but it combines lots of storage with a decent screen, a proven and intuitive user interface, and excellent battery life.
Lastly, you can use the iPod classic as an external USB hard drive for backups and data transfer, which is a bit pointless with the nano (because of its low capacity), and not possible at all with the touch.
Like any other piece of kit, the iPod classic has a few weak spots. The back is still polished chrome, which collects scratches extremely well, and the screen is plastic rather than glass, which means it's more prone to marring. If you want to keep it pristine, you won't get around purchasing a good case for it. (The slick chrome back also makes it a bit slippery in the hand if you use it without a case.)
It doesn't do Internet access, you can't make calls with it, and it's not a PDA...but for just listening to music and watching videos on the run, the iPod classic is still one of the best devices on the market.
203 of 238 people found the following review helpful:
1 step forward, 2 steps back
(3 out of 5) by Herucles... Doh! on Oct 11, 2008My 4th Generation photo ipod broke this week and I was forced to purchase the latest 6th generation ipod.
Whilst this new slimmer version looks better, has more capacity and runs longer, there are a few things it doesnt do aswell.
There is some backward technology here that annoys me.
I have over 4000 songs categorically filed in their respsective albums with cover art. Everytime I delve into an artists directory Im annoyed by the (albeit momenatary) load up time of the cover art. It is a small lag, but the delay is frustrating. I hate load up times. And this is something I never had to endure in my 4th Generation ipod. Perhaps it is a software weakness.
And this small minute but gigantically annoying lag also exists everytime I want to skip a track. There is a small but noticable lag between pressing the button and processing the change. Its small... I know... but it wasnt a problem before.
And my biggest gripe is the lack of sturdiness in the ipod itself. It looks flashy but I'm scared its going to break the first time I drop it. ANd I will drop it eventually. The original ipods were wrapped in a layer of thick acrylic. This thing is glasshouse in my overly excited hands.
Ultimately Apple needs to remember that a percentage of its original customer use the ipod for what it was intended. A huge portable collection of music that they wish to access with ease, speed and safety. The bigger screens, the flashy metal and the video capacity comes second. Leave that stuff for the ipod touch.
The ipod classic as it is intended is a step forward but two steps back.
Whilst this new slimmer version looks better, has more capacity and runs longer, there are a few things it doesnt do aswell.
There is some backward technology here that annoys me.
I have over 4000 songs categorically filed in their respsective albums with cover art. Everytime I delve into an artists directory Im annoyed by the (albeit momenatary) load up time of the cover art. It is a small lag, but the delay is frustrating. I hate load up times. And this is something I never had to endure in my 4th Generation ipod. Perhaps it is a software weakness.
And this small minute but gigantically annoying lag also exists everytime I want to skip a track. There is a small but noticable lag between pressing the button and processing the change. Its small... I know... but it wasnt a problem before.
And my biggest gripe is the lack of sturdiness in the ipod itself. It looks flashy but I'm scared its going to break the first time I drop it. ANd I will drop it eventually. The original ipods were wrapped in a layer of thick acrylic. This thing is glasshouse in my overly excited hands.
Ultimately Apple needs to remember that a percentage of its original customer use the ipod for what it was intended. A huge portable collection of music that they wish to access with ease, speed and safety. The bigger screens, the flashy metal and the video capacity comes second. Leave that stuff for the ipod touch.
The ipod classic as it is intended is a step forward but two steps back.
68 of 80 people found the following review helpful:
DRM crippled device
(1 out of 5) by Wesley Robinson on Mar 14, 2009 (The Mythical State of Jefferson)For this latest generation of iPods Apple added authentication chips which check to see whether your accessories are genuine Apple or Apple licensed. As a result, many popular accessories such as AV cables and camera adapters no longer function--because Apple doesn't want them to. For me, this means I can no longer use my inexpensive Belkin AV cable to connect the iPod to the TV. Instead, my only option is the spend $49 on Apple's cable.
This will be my last iPod. I never would have purchased it had Apple been forthcoming about this new limitation. Shame on them.
This will be my last iPod. I never would have purchased it had Apple been forthcoming about this new limitation. Shame on them.
33 of 37 people found the following review helpful:
Still bought it!
(4 out of 5) by Judge J Drhedd on Sep 11, 2008This is my review after buying this fresh incarnation.
I have the fifth generation iPod. Did not acquire the 6th gen because I feel that that update last year was not much of an upgrade. Now, this offers no major improvement as well, but I still bought it for the following reasons:
1) At 120 GB and 249 USD, it still offers a good USD over gigabyte value. Good as an extra external harddisk for my other hobby: photography. 2) Im planning to buy the new in-ear iPod earphone with controls that might not be backward compatible with my 5th gen. Although I wasnt able to test this in-canal two-drivered, tweetered earphone (not in the stores yet), Im betting that Apple tweaked and appropriately consulted with expert sound engineers. Im still a believer in Apple's meticulousness in sound. I wont forget that iPod offered best mp3 sound (you would think it's coming from an audio-discman) in its first launch. The one with controls is in demo, control 'pad' is very thin and convenient, sounds about the same,
3) the battery of my 5th gen is now performing to just about 60% of its original capacity
4) I like the new black color, it's not black black, but approaching charcoal. A rugged color to me that doesnt 'get dirty' easily.
5) Ive been wanting the song search function since my library is now 3000+. (why didnt Apple apply a firmware for this for the 5th gen?)
6) Substantial battery improvement as well.
7) There's a considerable reduction in size. With silicon case added, it's equal to my 5th gen's size.
8) Less lags compared to my 5th gen (although fed a library of 3000+ songs plus several movies and video podcasts)
Now, my objections:
1) Why didn't they include the shake/shuffle function. Is it because it's hard-drive based? Do people really shakesohard to do that big damage on the hard-drive?
2) There's a general impression that this iPod classic is being `left out'," for example just with upgrades that's only firmware-based. The word "classic" in itself already connotes "old," and other negative things. I hope Apple doesnt put this previous flagship down so much. In forums, there's already much comment on how "this update is not included in the classic..." are all these intentional so the iPod Touch would increase its sales? No gratitude at all to this iconic model which brings so much memory. No gratitude when it comes to business strategy? Just for me, I wont consider iPod Touch until its flash-based memory breaks 60 GB at least and price gets below 300 USD. With all the video podcasts available, 32 GB (at 400 USD at that!) is just not enough.
I have the fifth generation iPod. Did not acquire the 6th gen because I feel that that update last year was not much of an upgrade. Now, this offers no major improvement as well, but I still bought it for the following reasons:
1) At 120 GB and 249 USD, it still offers a good USD over gigabyte value. Good as an extra external harddisk for my other hobby: photography. 2) Im planning to buy the new in-ear iPod earphone with controls that might not be backward compatible with my 5th gen. Although I wasnt able to test this in-canal two-drivered, tweetered earphone (not in the stores yet), Im betting that Apple tweaked and appropriately consulted with expert sound engineers. Im still a believer in Apple's meticulousness in sound. I wont forget that iPod offered best mp3 sound (you would think it's coming from an audio-discman) in its first launch. The one with controls is in demo, control 'pad' is very thin and convenient, sounds about the same,
3) the battery of my 5th gen is now performing to just about 60% of its original capacity
4) I like the new black color, it's not black black, but approaching charcoal. A rugged color to me that doesnt 'get dirty' easily.
5) Ive been wanting the song search function since my library is now 3000+. (why didnt Apple apply a firmware for this for the 5th gen?)
6) Substantial battery improvement as well.
7) There's a considerable reduction in size. With silicon case added, it's equal to my 5th gen's size.
8) Less lags compared to my 5th gen (although fed a library of 3000+ songs plus several movies and video podcasts)
Now, my objections:
1) Why didn't they include the shake/shuffle function. Is it because it's hard-drive based? Do people really shakesohard to do that big damage on the hard-drive?
2) There's a general impression that this iPod classic is being `left out'," for example just with upgrades that's only firmware-based. The word "classic" in itself already connotes "old," and other negative things. I hope Apple doesnt put this previous flagship down so much. In forums, there's already much comment on how "this update is not included in the classic..." are all these intentional so the iPod Touch would increase its sales? No gratitude at all to this iconic model which brings so much memory. No gratitude when it comes to business strategy? Just for me, I wont consider iPod Touch until its flash-based memory breaks 60 GB at least and price gets below 300 USD. With all the video podcasts available, 32 GB (at 400 USD at that!) is just not enough.
33 of 39 people found the following review helpful:
It's hard to improve on a "classic"
(5 out of 5) by Samuel Chell on Sep 14, 2008 (Kenosha,, WI United States)Apple's name for this device is aptly chosen. It was an "innovation" when the iPod was first introduced (my 10 GB is still running and looking great). Since then the "upgrades" to the non-solid state models have been changes reflecting the latest technology--video, color, storage capacity. It remains the most practical and convenient way for the user to back up, maintain and access a large collection of audio/video files--and my 10 GB was no longer nearly enough.
The negligible price difference (at Amazon) between the 160 GB Classic 6th Generation and the 120 GB Classic 7th Generation makes for a tough decision. The new Genius feature certainly was not a factor in my thinking (thank goodness Apple didn't go with multiple colors, FM capability, and other largely superficial add-ons to their "Classic" line). But after reading some of the negative consumer reviews on Amazon (perhaps not the best idea) for the previous, 160 GB model, I decided to sacrifice the extra 40 gigs and place my bets on the current model. I'm not sure that I "gained" anything, especially since I have no use for Genius or cover flow (hence, better performance of that feature is irrelevant to me), and I don't watch movies on anything less than a 20" screen. But it's true that this model is slightly thinner than Apple's previous largest-capacity model, and it still performs like the winner it always has been.
It's unclear to me why users of a device like this require files much larger than MP3 or AAC compression. In previewing all of the possible formats in WireTap Studio, including WAV and AIFF, the differences in fidelity between the compressed and non-compressed files are barely discernible to the best ears--even more so when using the Classic with one of the popular iPod speaker systems. And although I don't expect the iPod to replace my CDs, tapes and LPs, I'm surprised at how close its compressed files come to the original. Primarily, I regard it as an invaluable index and library. Unlike the Touch or iPhone, it's user-friendly even to those of us who don't have the patience for "texting," multitasking, reading maps, viewing movies on what are miniature, pocket-sized computers. The Classic is a different animal--a record library that's practically the equivalent of a Walmart store filled with LPs.
If you still have any misgivings about price and value, consider that the storage capacity of a Macbook Air is 60 GB and 80 GB, and the cost 7 to 10 times that of an iPod Classic, which lacks only the keyboard and internet capability (on the other hand, a Mac Air won't fit in your pocket).
The negligible price difference (at Amazon) between the 160 GB Classic 6th Generation and the 120 GB Classic 7th Generation makes for a tough decision. The new Genius feature certainly was not a factor in my thinking (thank goodness Apple didn't go with multiple colors, FM capability, and other largely superficial add-ons to their "Classic" line). But after reading some of the negative consumer reviews on Amazon (perhaps not the best idea) for the previous, 160 GB model, I decided to sacrifice the extra 40 gigs and place my bets on the current model. I'm not sure that I "gained" anything, especially since I have no use for Genius or cover flow (hence, better performance of that feature is irrelevant to me), and I don't watch movies on anything less than a 20" screen. But it's true that this model is slightly thinner than Apple's previous largest-capacity model, and it still performs like the winner it always has been.
It's unclear to me why users of a device like this require files much larger than MP3 or AAC compression. In previewing all of the possible formats in WireTap Studio, including WAV and AIFF, the differences in fidelity between the compressed and non-compressed files are barely discernible to the best ears--even more so when using the Classic with one of the popular iPod speaker systems. And although I don't expect the iPod to replace my CDs, tapes and LPs, I'm surprised at how close its compressed files come to the original. Primarily, I regard it as an invaluable index and library. Unlike the Touch or iPhone, it's user-friendly even to those of us who don't have the patience for "texting," multitasking, reading maps, viewing movies on what are miniature, pocket-sized computers. The Classic is a different animal--a record library that's practically the equivalent of a Walmart store filled with LPs.
If you still have any misgivings about price and value, consider that the storage capacity of a Macbook Air is 60 GB and 80 GB, and the cost 7 to 10 times that of an iPod Classic, which lacks only the keyboard and internet capability (on the other hand, a Mac Air won't fit in your pocket).