As the title says. Currently got a 6GB iPod Mini (three and a half years old) so seriously looking to upgrade soon. The refurb is from the Apple Store online so takes away risk of dodgy dealers.

From 6Gb to 160GB?. yep that's some upgrade. Apple's refurbs come with their 1 year warranty so you're OK there. £175 is also the price for a new £120GB classic (or £162 on Amazon) but the refurb does sound like a good deal if you're not bothered about it not being brand new.

If you're currently using a 6gb mini then I'd seriously consider whether you need 160gb. Are you going to be away from your machine for long enough to need to take 160gb of music or video?

I'd look at upgrading features rather than storage. For example you could get an 8gb iPod touch with all it's extra goodies (Internet, apps etc) for less than £175. I reckon that'd suit you much more.

If you're set on a 'classic' then £175 for a second hand one seems less attractive as for the price would you really need the extra 40gb over the brand new 120gb model?

MrKev - the 6GB was fine at first but I've got a lot of stuff not on there that I want on there - lots of music, some podcasts and an audiobook or two, not to mention films and TV programmes.

I simply haven't been able to afford to upgrade before now - three years as an undergrad does that to you! - but I'm working now so can afford to and want to take full advantage of the iPod's capabilities!

I think regular syncing is a far better idea than a player with massive storage. For instance you're not going to need 20 audiobooks, 40000 songs and 50 movies between visits to your computer. You're going to want a few albums, maybe a couple of films, some podcasts and perhaps some audiobooks.

What you're supposed to do with any iPod is store your media on your computer then add stuff to your iPod when you need it. The goal isn't to keep everything you have on your iPod.

Like I say, the classic really isn't much of an upgrade in terms of functionality from your current iPod. It's just more storage. I'd really urge you to take a very good look at the iPod touch. It's extra features are a far greater advantage than being able to carry around huge amounts of music you'll never listen to.

Internet browsing, applications, games, email, a speaker, BBC iplayer, YouTube...

Second vote for iTouch

14.6GB storage if you buy a 16GB one - i can't complain.

I have about 1000 songs on it, 3 movies, TV shows, 4 music videos, photos and loads of Apps. Still got 4GB free

You can get a new 16GB on eBay for about £190 if you look. They are well worth it - they also weigh hardly anything!

I'd go for an iTouch too

If that was the case they wouldnt make 160gb in the first place.

They make the classic 100gb+ to give it some perceived value, that's all. It's hard disk based meaning storage is cheap so why not? It gives people a reason to buy one over the rest of the range and differentiates it from other models.

[quote=MrKev;30227830]
What you're supposed to do with any iPod is store your media on your computer then add stuff to your iPod when you need it. The goal isn't to keep everything you have on your iPod.
/QUOTE]

The Swedes have a saying "Taste is like the bum; divided".

I personally can't see the point of an mp3 player that can't hold all my music. I don't want to have to decide what music I might want to listen to before I go out. I want it all available, wherever I go and for however long I'm out/away.

Why do people keep calling the ipod Touch an "itouch"???

different uses.
small flash players good for some things..
like workouts or where its going to be bashed around.
harddrive player just doesn't handle that kind of treatment
even with silicon skin lol
but harddrive player has total jukebox for most people with bigger music collections this is a big plus.
so really for now its still the best thing to own one of each if possible.
someday we'll have 160gb flash player..

Depends what you need it for really doesn't it..

Although I may agree that an iPod Touch has better features, I'd hate not having every single mp3 I own on there.

I'm happy with my 80GB Classic. Happy in the knowledge I have about 50GB free at the moment to fill up and fill up

I want to be caught somewhere and have the option to play ANYTHING I want..

'Cos we can, pedant :P

Defo NOT worth it! I got a 160GB iPod Classic @ M&S with free M&S docking station (worth ~ £60) for £170 around 22nd Dec.

I didn't even know the 160GB model was out and the rep quoted the exact same price for both 120 & 160GB model .. odd huh!

And hence, with a device this size, people can store their whole music collections on it. so your statement that ipods arent meant to be used that way is wrong.

So because one model could feasibly carry your whole music collection, that means all iPods are meant to carry everything you own?

I have 50gb of music so if iPods are meant to carry everything I own I'll need to get a classic. No, I use an 8gb iPhone and use the syncing features of iTunes and the iPod.

I'm not saying you CAN'T carry everything you own should you so wish, I'm saying the implementation of good and quick syncing in iTunes and on the iPod means that's how Apple see the majority of people using it.

It lets people with large music collections consider several different models (which really was the whole point in my post initially - to say that even if the OP has a large music collection they need not buy a player that will fit everything they own). The range is designed around syncing regularly, the classic having a huge capacity is largely incidental.

It's £219 at M&S now, so definitely worth it.

And to those who keep trying to push Touch models onto people - it's simply arrogant to tell people what they need when they may have different requirements to yours. I have a vast catalogue of LPs that I've ripped over the past five years that I need easy portable access to. Therefore the bigger capacity the better - anything else (fancy interface etc) is frippery.)

I'd go for the Archos if they were on sale with major retailers in the UK.

Personally I'd get a new 120GB if you don't care about the extra 40GB, due to it being much thinner and £162 on amazon.

How is it arrogant to show a reasonable alternative?

Certainly I've been trying to make a case for regular syncing over huge capacity. Like I've said 2-3 times, even with a large music collection you don't need a large capacity player in 99% of cases. No regular user is going to need a selection of 30,000+ songs to choose from between visits to their central music collection on their PC.

If you feel like you do need that then fine, but you can't call me arrogant for suggesting something the OP might not have thought about.

If you need a lot of storage, the I60Gb is pretty much the only option for an mp3 player. Archos has bigger devices, but they are much bigger and have far lower battery life.

It's not. However it is arrogant to tell people that you know what is best for them and to make categorical statements of fact, about something that is, in reality, opinion. ("You're not supposed to use a media player like this" and so on.)

i.e. -


As I said, these are categorical statements of fact, not opinions. Nowhere have you said "you might find it better", or "this might be preferable if you want to do so and so".


That's not what you said at all. If you had qualified your statements in the way you are now trying to do, then I wouldn't have called you arrogant.


That depends on their particular circumstances - for example how often they want, or are able to visit their PC.

It's not a question of "need" anyway. If you want to talk about "need", no-one "needs" a fancy touchscreen to listen to their music on the move, or any of the itouch's other extra features. Many people want these things (I don't) and more power to their elbow I say; but that doesn't make the Touch "better".


But you didn't "suggest" - you told. And that kind of didacticism strikes me as rather arrogant I'm afraid.

I think you're right - although it's the price of the Archos players that puts me off rather than the other things. They seem to have a number of advantages over i-pods in other ways, which outweigh things like size and battery life for me.

However a refurbished 160 GB ipod at £170-odd, as opposed to a similar capacity Archos at more than £240 is a no-brainer for someone in my circumstances (oh, to be a rich man!). I've therefore reluctantly been forced to subject myself to apple and the dreaded itunes. (Is there any 3rd-party way of avoiding this by the way?)

I didn't directly engage the OP you'll notice. I did not say 'you should buy a touch' then go on to say why I was right and there was no other option.

'You're' was used to illustrate what in my opinion most users would need not just that particular user. I must have missed the memo where every opinion had to start with 'In my opinion...'. I quite wrongly thought that some statements were very obviously opinion and not fact.

Clearly you don't agree and you're more interested in pulling my posts apart, so well done on that.

It seemed very much as though you were replying to points made by the OP and a subsequent poster.


Again, it certainly didn't seem like that. It looked to me for all the world as though you were claiming to know what was good for the posters who clearly stated they wanted an ipod classic. That is what the thread is about after all - not about the merits of a Classic and its alternatives.


They were more opinionATED from my reading of them. In any case, you certainly seemed to have missed the title of the thread, which was asking about the value of a particular Classic deal and not whether or not it was a no-brainer to buy a Touch instead of an ipod (not withstanding the higher price of the former).