You have to admit they were vastly different products, both in appearance and functionality. A random person could understand quite easily their differences wit

You have to admit they were vastly different products, both in appearance and functionality. A random person could understand quite easily their differences without going deep in technical details: the classic was bulky, with lots of storage and the original interface; the touch had a touch screen, the nano was small and compact, while the shuffle had no display and no way to select music. What really characterizes the two different iPad lines? Numbers and technical features. The Pros support USB-C, have different pens which do the same thing as the old ones, but are not compatible, plus a slew of other features that a total noob won't and does not want to understand. I don't see how this is not bad; it's arguable that Apple wouldn't have done this a decade ago, and that it's getting closer to the disastrous naming schemes used by companies such as Dell (and in some ways Apple itself in the nineties).