3 ms·

I'm shocked that no one else (Gruber included) has picked up on the internal logic that the next iphone should be 6 not 5. (1) iPhone (2) iPhone 3G (3) iPhon

by Steko 15y ago

I'm shocked that no one else (Gruber included) has picked up on the internal logic that the next iphone should be 6 not 5. (1) iPhone (2) iPhone 3G (3) iPhone 3GS (4) iPhone 4 (5) iPhone 4S (6) iPhone 6 It's gonna be 6.

arn 15y ago
I don't see how that's proof. If you throw out the original iPhone since it had no number designation, then there are two models that follow the generation number and two that don't. It seems obvious to me the next one will be the iPhone 5 (if not another iPhone 4 variant). What generation model it actually is means nothing. If anything the number is a form factor designation.
- tesseract 15y ago
  It seemed to me at the time that the 3GS was called the 3GS because "3G" wasn't actually a version number, and going from "iPhone 3G" to "iPhone 3" would just confuse people.
- Steko 15y ago
  "If anything the number is a form factor designation." False, 3G and 3GS had the same form factor. When Steve introduced the iPhone 4 he used reasoning similar to mine above - the "4" was the 4th iPhone (literally). The next iPhone will be (literally) the 6th and calling it the "5" would not follow this logic.
  - arn 15y ago
    1. It's not false. 3G and 3GS having the same form factor proves/shows it. 2. Can you cite where Jobs said it was a generation number? I don't believe that to be true.
    - Steko 15y ago
      (1) You and grandparent are correct the only incongruence between factor and number are between the original and the 3g. (2) iphone 4 keynote, right at the 30 min mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1edQuxclUs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1edQuxclUs
ugh 15y ago
That’s logical if you insist on looking at it that way but it would be utterly stupid to actually do. It would confuse people. I don’t know what the next iPhone will be called but I’m willing to bet that it won’t be “iPhone 6”.
- kylec 15y ago
  Personally, I don't care what the next iPhone is called, so long as it's not called "iPhone 5", because that would be a lie.
  - ugh 15y ago
    Let me break it down further: There was the original iPhone sans number. Then there was the second iPhone described by the standards it supported (“3G”) and a faster version of said iPhone with an added “S”. Imagine an alternate timeline where there were two iPhones before the “3G” arrived. There would have been the following iPhones: - iPhone - iPhone 2 - iPhone 3G - iPhone 3GS Apple would have been justified in calling the next iPhone either iPhone 4 (if you consider the “3GS” not a distinct version but a minor release) or iPhone 5 (because it would have been the fifth distinct model of iPhone they would have been selling). Apple didn’t have that same choice. They couldn’t consider the iPhone 3GS a minor release because then they would have to call the next one iPhone 3. That would obviously have confused customers. You can’t follow the iPhone 3GS with the iPhone 3. They had to call it iPhone 4. That’s the whole reason why the “3GS” is – following Apple’s numbering scheme – not considered a minor version. If they want to continue this pattern of not confusing their customers they have to call the next iPhone (if the want to stick to numbers) iPhone 5. The iPhone 4S is then just a minor version, not terribly distinct from the iPhone 4. It’s the iPhone 4.1. I think this makes perfect sense and is the only solution that doesn’t confuse customers – which should be the greatest goal of any naming scheme.
    - Steko 15y ago
      "That’s the whole reason why the “3GS” is – following Apple’s numbering scheme – not considered a minor version." That's backwards. The 3GS is not a minor version because it's not a minor version, period. The number of changes were as substantial as previously. The numbering conundrum starts with the 3GS not the 4. They couldn't call it the 3 because it followed the 3G. They couldn't call it the 4 and it certainly couldn't be called the 4G. When they got to the 4, "4" was both convenient (it was the 4th phone and followed a phone with a 3 in the name) and a bit sneaky (a not small number of people bought it under the impression that it was a 4G phone as well). The next phone could logically be called a lot of things: It could be called simply "iPhone LTE" or even "iPhone 4G". Or it could be called the "iPhone 6" (the 6th phone running iOS 6 with an A6 processor, number of the beast lol). It could also conceivably called the 5 (because hey they're still using "4" this year and "5" comes after "4"). Or they could abandon numbers and tech labels completely and call it the iPhone Classic (assuming they open the gates and come out with multiple new phones) or the iPhone Jagwire or whatever.
ceejayoz 15y ago
Why would they pick a version number that makes them look like they don't know what number comes after 4?

by Steko 15y ago

arn 15y ago

I don't see how that's proof. If you throw out the original iPhone since it had no number designation, then there are two models that follow the generation number and two that don't. It seems obvious to me the next one will be the iPhone 5 (if not another iPhone 4 variant). What generation model it actually is means nothing. If anything the number is a form factor designation.

tesseract 15y ago
It seemed to me at the time that the 3GS was called the 3GS because "3G" wasn't actually a version number, and going from "iPhone 3G" to "iPhone 3" would just confuse people.
Steko 15y ago
"If anything the number is a form factor designation." False, 3G and 3GS had the same form factor. When Steve introduced the iPhone 4 he used reasoning similar to mine above - the "4" was the 4th iPhone (literally). The next iPhone will be (literally) the 6th and calling it the "5" would not follow this logic.
- arn 15y ago
  1. It's not false. 3G and 3GS having the same form factor proves/shows it. 2. Can you cite where Jobs said it was a generation number? I don't believe that to be true.
  - Steko 15y ago
    (1) You and grandparent are correct the only incongruence between factor and number are between the original and the 3g. (2) iphone 4 keynote, right at the 30 min mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1edQuxclUs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1edQuxclUs

ugh 15y ago

That’s logical if you insist on looking at it that way but it would be utterly stupid to actually do. It would confuse people. I don’t know what the next iPhone will be called but I’m willing to bet that it won’t be “iPhone 6”.

kylec 15y ago
Personally, I don't care what the next iPhone is called, so long as it's not called "iPhone 5", because that would be a lie.
- ugh 15y ago
  Let me break it down further: There was the original iPhone sans number. Then there was the second iPhone described by the standards it supported (“3G”) and a faster version of said iPhone with an added “S”. Imagine an alternate timeline where there were two iPhones before the “3G” arrived. There would have been the following iPhones: - iPhone - iPhone 2 - iPhone 3G - iPhone 3GS Apple would have been justified in calling the next iPhone either iPhone 4 (if you consider the “3GS” not a distinct version but a minor release) or iPhone 5 (because it would have been the fifth distinct model of iPhone they would have been selling). Apple didn’t have that same choice. They couldn’t consider the iPhone 3GS a minor release because then they would have to call the next one iPhone 3. That would obviously have confused customers. You can’t follow the iPhone 3GS with the iPhone 3. They had to call it iPhone 4. That’s the whole reason why the “3GS” is – following Apple’s numbering scheme – not considered a minor version. If they want to continue this pattern of not confusing their customers they have to call the next iPhone (if the want to stick to numbers) iPhone 5. The iPhone 4S is then just a minor version, not terribly distinct from the iPhone 4. It’s the iPhone 4.1. I think this makes perfect sense and is the only solution that doesn’t confuse customers – which should be the greatest goal of any naming scheme.
  - Steko 15y ago
    "That’s the whole reason why the “3GS” is – following Apple’s numbering scheme – not considered a minor version." That's backwards. The 3GS is not a minor version because it's not a minor version, period. The number of changes were as substantial as previously. The numbering conundrum starts with the 3GS not the 4. They couldn't call it the 3 because it followed the 3G. They couldn't call it the 4 and it certainly couldn't be called the 4G. When they got to the 4, "4" was both convenient (it was the 4th phone and followed a phone with a 3 in the name) and a bit sneaky (a not small number of people bought it under the impression that it was a 4G phone as well). The next phone could logically be called a lot of things: It could be called simply "iPhone LTE" or even "iPhone 4G". Or it could be called the "iPhone 6" (the 6th phone running iOS 6 with an A6 processor, number of the beast lol). It could also conceivably called the 5 (because hey they're still using "4" this year and "5" comes after "4"). Or they could abandon numbers and tech labels completely and call it the iPhone Classic (assuming they open the gates and come out with multiple new phones) or the iPhone Jagwire or whatever.

ceejayoz 15y ago

Why would they pick a version number that makes them look like they don't know what number comes after 4?