4 ms·
I've been wondering about that myself. iPhone (1) -> 3G (2) -> 3GS (3) -> 4 (4) -> 4S (4) -> ??? (5) The 3G made sense as it isn't the third iPhone, it just m
by oxtopus 15y ago
I've been wondering about that myself.
iPhone (1) -> 3G (2) -> 3GS (3) -> 4 (4) -> 4S (4) -> ??? (5)
The 3G made sense as it isn't the third iPhone, it just marked the transition to 3G. 4 Made sense as it was actually the fourth. The 3GS and 4S were both regarded as minor upgrades, but otherwise aesthetically identical to the previous generation.
It actually wouldn't surprise me if the next version were "iPhone 4G", or something completely different altogether.
On that note, with Steve gone and running out of large cats, it's time for a new naming scheme for OS X as well.
- jaredsohn 15y ago> The 3GS and 4S were both regarded as minor upgrades, but otherwise aesthetically identical to the previous generation, and released in the fall (as opposed to summer). Not true. The 3GS came out on June 19, 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_3GS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_3GS). I'm pretty sure that the 4S is the first iPhone to not come out in the summer.
- oxtopus 15y agoAh, you're right! Comment updated.
- phil 15y agoWe won't see a new OS X naming scheme until there's a major, generational shift in what OS X is, for the same reason that the next phone, as you say, won't be called the iPhone 5. The names wouldn't quite make sense, and a simple and easy to understand lineup of products with simple and easy to understand names are fundamental to Apple's presentation. They won't screw that up.