4 ms·
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 num
by 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 agoIt 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 ago1. 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