Considering the iPod Touch and Classic both received modest (some would say boring) updates in the form of capacity bumps and a faster processor for the Touch, it's surprising that in some ways, they're actually worse than their predecessors.
The iPod Classic may have seen a bump from 120GB to 160GB, but all those extra videos you can fit on the spare 40GB aren't going to look as good, since Apple downgraded the resolution of the Classic's screen. The last gen's 2.5-inch screen had a pretty decent 480x320 screen, but the new one is only 320x240, the same resolution as the old-ass iPod Video 30GB.
The Touch, on the other hand, got a faster processor (likely the same as the iPhone 3GS's) and a bump to 64GB of storage, Apple's highest flash capacity ever. Probably that new processor accounts for the change, but the Touch's battery life took a hit, down from 36/6 hours of audio/video to only 30/6 hours. No word yet on how that'll affect more processor-intensive activities like internet browsing, but battery life overall is likely to be shorter.
Neither of these setbacks is a huge deal, although I'm a little puzzled by the Classic's lesser screen. Regardless—is either of these spec decreases a dealbreaker for anybody? [DVICE]