4 ms·
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
by 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 agoWe'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 agoWe 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.