^^^ yes, but the real question is how long the battery lasts after 500 charges. i bet it doesn't last half as long as it did originally.

[Edited on September 5, 2007 at 11:14 PM. Reason : ^ WTF?! if it doesn't lat 400 cycles then it is perhaps the shittiest battery on the market]

9/5/2007 11:14:07 PM

jesus, the 400-cycles number has been so misconstrued to what it actually means.
Apple said that after 400 complete recharge cycles, the battery may lose up to 25% of its charge. It won't be dead, and it will continue to work beyond that.
And if that number is correct, I think that's more than you can expect - after nearly 1.5 years of daily use, if the battery can still hold 75% of its original capacity that's pretty damned good

9/5/2007 11:32:44 PM

^ i'm glad you posted that at the top of a page

the ipod battery outrage has been completely overblown from the beginning. my 4g ipod is over 2 years old and i still get very good charge on it. much better than every cell phone i've had can do after 2 years of everyday use, which HAS to be plugged in daily

9/6/2007 12:02:37 AM

yep, i can barely leave the house without the charger for my 1 year old cell phone, but I can easily go on a weekend trip with my 2 year old Nano with no worries about charging.

9/6/2007 12:08:25 AM

My 3G ipod which is almost 5 years old still gets about 4 hours out of the battery with continuous play.

9/6/2007 1:29:06 AM

Apple explains it:

http://www.apple.com/batteries/

9/6/2007 9:37:05 AM

Quote :

"jesus, the 400-cycles number has been so misconstrued to what it actually means. Apple said that after 400 complete recharge cycles, the battery may lose up to 25% of its charge. It won't be dead, and it will continue to work beyond that. And if that number is correct, I think that's more than you can expect - after nearly 1.5 years of daily use, if the battery can still hold 75% of its original capacity that's pretty damned good"

• 400 charges is 1.1 years of daily use. (I assume most people charge daily -- at least I would.)
• incomplete cycles wear the battery faster than complete cycles
• storing a charge while the device is in use further degrades battery capacity

9/6/2007 12:59:19 PM

The Apple store out at Southpoint has the new nanos, shuffles, and classics for anyone interested. I picked up a black nano one tonight.

9/6/2007 8:47:10 PM

^you fanboy

9/6/2007 8:54:29 PM

^^the nano fatty?

[Edited on September 6, 2007 at 8:58 PM. Reason : /]

9/6/2007 8:58:20 PM

^^wahhhhh!

stop trolling me!


WAAAAhhhh!



^Yup. It's so much tinier in person than the pictures lead you to believe. it's pretty incredible actually.

9/6/2007 8:58:58 PM

9/6/2007 8:59:34 PM

Quote :

"400 charges is 1.1 years of daily use. (I assume most people charge daily -- at least I would.)"

Dude, you still don't seem to get it. Are you saying you would fully drain the battery every single day? How the hell you gonna do that?

That's

400 COMPLETE CHARGE CYCLES

not

400 charges.

Let's do lunch, k? some calculations, assuming a battery life of 15 hours on average:

2.5 hours daily use: last 6 days, i.e., one FULL charge every 6 days ---> 2,400 days battery "life" = 6.6 years.

5 hours daily use: last 3 days, i.e., one FULL charge every 3 days ---> 1,200 days battery "life" = 3.3 years.

7.5 hours daily use: last 2 days, i.e., one FULL charge every 2 days ---> 800 days battery "life" = 2.2 years.

10 hours daily use: last 1.5 days, i.e., one FULL charge every 1.5 days ---> 600 days battery "life" = 1.6 years.



That seems pretty reasonable to me. NOTE:

1) Even after the 400 cycles, a properly maintained battery should hold 80% of the charge. Jesus, that's like new, basically. So you should double or triple the numbers above to get the time period after which battery life will reduce to 50% or under.

2) I assumed only 15 hours battery life. Some of the newer iPods have between 20 and 40 hours.

9/6/2007 10:21:46 PM

Quote :

"assuming a battery life of 15 hours on average"

ipod classic boasts 30hours and ipod touch 22 hours

[Edited on September 6, 2007 at 10:27 PM. Reason : .]

9/6/2007 10:26:20 PM

i just like to stir the boat...

apple is the new big dog in town and i always pull for the underdog.

9/6/2007 10:26:39 PM

^^

I assumed only 15 hours battery life. Some of the newer iPods have between 20 and 40 hours.

And the iPod classic 80 GB is 30 hrs, and 160 GB is 40 hrs

9/6/2007 10:29:23 PM

and you graciously overlooked points 2 and 3 in my above post. apple does not acknowledge it on their site, but 5 four-hour plays and charges do far more wear on the battery than a single 20-hour play then charge.

in fact, 2 or 3 four-hour partial cycles will cause about as much wear as a single 20-hour cycle. Furthermore, if you maintain the battery at less than full capacity when you charge it (i.e. you play it down to 60% charge and recharge it to 80% because that charges faster than 80->100%) you will lose that even faster. I'm saying the web page linked contains inaccurate/incomplete information.

9/6/2007 11:16:50 PM

for everyone complaining (or wondering) about the price vs storage of iPods, I put together this graph based on the launch price of all the iPods in the Wiki article.

Keep in mind that the Shuffle, Nano and Touch are flash based, and Mini and Classic are HDD. But the key points, I think, are that the Touch is priced identical for $/GB as the last 2 generations of the Nano. Also, the current Touch is very close to the $/GB of the 2nd gen iPod Classic, which came out in July 02.
The trends are clear here, and it is obvious that the cost of Flash is the limiting factor in not having more storage on the Touch or iPhone. But i think given the history, it will be a safe bet to see the 2nd gen Touch at 16 & 32GB at the same price, or maybe $50 cheaper.




[Edited on September 7, 2007 at 1:44 AM. Reason : updated graph]

9/7/2007 1:35:19 AM

nice work.

again, i wish the ipod had an expansion slot.

9/7/2007 1:56:54 AM

^why? what is a 1gb or 2gb card going to do for you vs a 160gb (classic) or 16gb(touch) storage capacity cant?

[Edited on September 7, 2007 at 2:51 AM. Reason : .]

9/7/2007 2:51:11 AM

Well, using the newest expansion slot (microSDHC), you can effectively double the available storage ... well, as soon as the cards are available ... or once the prices drop.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/27/sandisk-intros-6-8gb-microsdhc-cards-4gb-m2-card/

Also, SanDisk says the microSDHC format can go up to 32gb, so that more than doubles the iPod Touch ... of course, when it's available.

[Edited on September 7, 2007 at 4:05 AM. Reason : .]

9/7/2007 4:01:38 AM

and when its available the ipod will have more storage then that.

9/7/2007 9:27:05 AM

of course apple's not going to add flash slots - why on earth would they give up another $400 sale? people have proven they're willing to buy more of the same with bigger storage

9/7/2007 10:36:34 AM

i didn't say they would, i said i wish they would.

one reason i love my sansa e260

^^they have 8gb available now for microSDHC, and they DO already have 32gb SDHC cards out now

http://www.techshout.com/hardware/2007/24/toshiba-32gb-16gb-sdhc-and-8gb-microsdhc-cards-announced/

[Edited on September 7, 2007 at 11:34 AM. Reason : .]

9/7/2007 11:30:00 AM

Just picked up a nano. This thing is so tiny. For those of you with RAZRs, it's almost exactly the same thickness and width as the top part of the flip phone, and about 1/2 inch shorter!

9/7/2007 3:21:06 PM

*pulls out RAZR*

dang that's tiny!

9/7/2007 3:22:16 PM

9/7/2007 3:54:26 PM

I think I prefer the look of the old nanos, video capability notwithstanding.

Still pretty neat stuff though.

9/7/2007 4:00:19 PM

If you want videos on the older nanos you could always get a 1st Gen and put linux on it.

9/8/2007 8:08:26 PM

the new black nano looks sharp

the other colors, not so much

9/8/2007 8:21:25 PM

Quote :

"I think I prefer the look of the old nanos, video capability notwithstanding. Still pretty neat stuff though."

^agreed. The new red is too pink. The old red was almost exactly ncsu red.

9/9/2007 1:33:04 AM

so at the :23 mark the nano is upside down. anybody else think that is stupid?

anybody got or played with a nano yet? the interface seems to lag big time when i tried one. what's up with that

9/16/2007 8:43:25 PM

Quote :

"anybody else think that is stupid?"

.... what, are you a commercial critic?

9/16/2007 9:28:19 PM

apparently

9/16/2007 9:30:57 PM

that girl is really bad at dancing

9/17/2007 12:20:21 AM

http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/09/17/10-1-firmware-update-to-new-ipods-improves-ui-speed

Quote :

"But Cupertino isn't blind, and has released a 1.0.1 firmware update to the iPods, which is available through iTunes. The description merely says "bug fixes," but we have received many reports that it improves vastly UI responsiveness."

9/17/2007 10:11:50 AM

I submitted a bug report to Apple about some coverflow inconsistencies I found on the new nanos (turns out it's on all the ipods) when using compilations. The bug I reported wasn't fixed in the 1.01 update.

9/17/2007 10:20:57 AM

Not worth creating a new thread but:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/goldbox/

Current deal is Shure E2c ear buds for 39.99. Definitely best ear buds for iPod or any other mp3 player at that price point at least.

9/17/2007 11:13:27 AM

so i only saw one rumor of this but i don't see why it wouldn't be possible

will the new ipod touch be able to stream internet radio over wifi, either through the itunes store or through safari?

[Edited on September 17, 2007 at 1:11 PM. Reason : rww]

9/17/2007 1:11:22 PM

Not sure about support for internet radio natively, but I know they've advertised the ability to watch youtube videos on it through safari.

9/17/2007 1:13:00 PM

^^I'm not a fan of the e2c's. They've got almost no bass response. Too bad I didn't read the reviews before buying them for $100. Though if all you want are some $40 sound-isolating earbuds, go for 'em.

9/17/2007 5:50:47 PM

^ The bass response CAN vary greatly person to person, since it uses your ear-canal to produce the bass. The tightness of the fit and the shape of your ear can change it a lot. For me the base is really pretty good.

9/17/2007 6:55:45 PM