4 ms·

Okay, am I the only one who didn’t know that (apparently) the next iOS version is going to be 26, not 19? I assume, they’ll start following a year of release b

by wltr 1y ago

Okay, am I the only one who didn’t know that (apparently) the next iOS version is going to be 26, not 19? I assume, they’ll start following a year of release both for macOS and iOS, so it would be easier to know for non-techies. But my first reaction was ‘em, 8 years into the future? Looks weird, isn’t it? Maybe that’s some kind of a joke.’

zimpenfish 1y ago
> Okay, am I the only one who didn’t know that (apparently) the next iOS version is going to be 26, not 19? I only found out yesterday if that helps. Makes some kind of sense now they're on a regular yearly update cycle.
- piperswe 1y ago
  Haven't they been on a yearly update cycle since the start?
  - zimpenfish 1y ago
    According to [0], "pretty much", yeah. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history
  - AdamN 1y ago
    It will continue to be yearly but now all the OS numbers will be the same (the most important part) and require little inside knowledge to know if it's new or old (only a geek would know that iOS 15 was released in 2024 for instance, the new method will be more like car model years).
wodenokoto 1y ago
I also thought the article would be a joke about an obvious feature never arriving.
tonyedgecombe 1y ago
>Okay, am I the only one who didn’t know that (apparently) the next iOS version is going to be 26, not 19? It's speculation at the moment (macrumors.com), it hasn't been officially announced yet.
rTX5CMRXIfFG 1y ago
Is critical thinking really so dead that people take rumors to be the truth?
Argonaut998 1y ago
I’m pretty sure Samsung did the same with their S series phones a few years back. Nobody seemed to mind.
WA 1y ago
I looked for April 1st as a date. Next thought: the "news" is about an LLM writing these articles and messed something up. But thanks for clarifying!
apples_oranges 1y ago
19 + 7 = 26, lucky number 7!
- wltr 1y ago
  Haha, nice finding!
basisword 1y ago
Nobody knows yet, it's just a rumour. But year-based versioning makes sense as these products continue to develop and the version numbers get higher. Even as an iOS developer, I've lost track of the phone versions at this point. Year-based versioning would be so much easier. Saying that I hope it's "iOS '26" and not "iOS 26".
- SSLy 1y ago
  > Saying that I hope it's "iOS '26" and not "iOS 26". that's not going to happen
- Terretta 1y ago
  We'd made this change before, then dropped it when we hit the "year zero" problem. We were doing years without abbreviation before the numbers went from 80s and 90s to 00s. Everyone knew what "Product 95" was, or "Product 97". But then "Product 0" or "Product 2" didn't work, so vendors switched to major versions instead of years. A quarter century later, we're reviving the year as version thing.
  - basisword 1y ago
    We had Windows 2000 :) I look forward to Window 95 (v2) in 70 years. Number versioning is fine until you are releasing a new OS every year. Same with the phones. It's just too hard to keep track of at a certain point for consumers. yyyy.mm.dd style versioning is much better when you're releasing at the rate companies do these days imo.
Terretta 1y ago
To be fair, the news didn't get a ton of interest here last week: Apple is reportedly going to rename all of its operating systems (theverge.com) 13 points by thesuperbigfrog 7 days ago | 7 comments > Instead of just notching up the version number, Apple will instead mark them by year. However, the numbers will apparently align with the year after the one the update is actually released in, similar to cars. That means that the next big iOS update will be iOS 26 instead of iOS 19. -- via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44120560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44120560

by wltr 1y ago

zimpenfish 1y ago

> Okay, am I the only one who didn’t know that (apparently) the next iOS version is going to be 26, not 19? I only found out yesterday if that helps. Makes some kind of sense now they're on a regular yearly update cycle.

piperswe 1y ago
Haven't they been on a yearly update cycle since the start?
- zimpenfish 1y ago
  According to [0], "pretty much", yeah. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history
- AdamN 1y ago
  It will continue to be yearly but now all the OS numbers will be the same (the most important part) and require little inside knowledge to know if it's new or old (only a geek would know that iOS 15 was released in 2024 for instance, the new method will be more like car model years).

wodenokoto 1y ago

I also thought the article would be a joke about an obvious feature never arriving.

tonyedgecombe 1y ago

>Okay, am I the only one who didn’t know that (apparently) the next iOS version is going to be 26, not 19? It's speculation at the moment (macrumors.com), it hasn't been officially announced yet.

rTX5CMRXIfFG 1y ago

Is critical thinking really so dead that people take rumors to be the truth?

Argonaut998 1y ago

I’m pretty sure Samsung did the same with their S series phones a few years back. Nobody seemed to mind.

WA 1y ago

I looked for April 1st as a date. Next thought: the "news" is about an LLM writing these articles and messed something up. But thanks for clarifying!

apples_oranges 1y ago

19 + 7 = 26, lucky number 7!

wltr 1y ago
Haha, nice finding!

basisword 1y ago

Nobody knows yet, it's just a rumour. But year-based versioning makes sense as these products continue to develop and the version numbers get higher. Even as an iOS developer, I've lost track of the phone versions at this point. Year-based versioning would be so much easier. Saying that I hope it's "iOS '26" and not "iOS 26".

SSLy 1y ago
> Saying that I hope it's "iOS '26" and not "iOS 26". that's not going to happen
Terretta 1y ago
We'd made this change before, then dropped it when we hit the "year zero" problem. We were doing years without abbreviation before the numbers went from 80s and 90s to 00s. Everyone knew what "Product 95" was, or "Product 97". But then "Product 0" or "Product 2" didn't work, so vendors switched to major versions instead of years. A quarter century later, we're reviving the year as version thing.
- basisword 1y ago
  We had Windows 2000 :) I look forward to Window 95 (v2) in 70 years. Number versioning is fine until you are releasing a new OS every year. Same with the phones. It's just too hard to keep track of at a certain point for consumers. yyyy.mm.dd style versioning is much better when you're releasing at the rate companies do these days imo.

Terretta 1y ago

To be fair, the news didn't get a ton of interest here last week: Apple is reportedly going to rename all of its operating systems (theverge.com) 13 points by thesuperbigfrog 7 days ago | 7 comments > Instead of just notching up the version number, Apple will instead mark them by year. However, the numbers will apparently align with the year after the one the update is actually released in, similar to cars. That means that the next big iOS update will be iOS 26 instead of iOS 19. -- via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44120560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44120560