Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iPhone' started by klamse25, Mar 31, 2010.
I'm curious to see your thoughts and opinions.
I don't see why it would. Although the iPad and iPhone are running the same basic OS, they have vastly different features compared with the iPod touch/iPhone. So I don't think the iPad and iPhone/iPod updates will release alongside eachother.
you mean os 4.0? i think you're getting version numbers confused with android.
I meant 3.2
Haha yeah I was just reading how the Droid has the new option so I guess that was on my mind. But I meant 3.2.
Nope, will not see anything until June/July now.
No. I think 3.2 was only made to get the iPad from its launch this week until June when it will get 4.0 along with the iPhone.
I mean, MAYBE we'll get 3.2 on the iPhone just to add the book store to iPhones, but I strongly suspect they'll want a few months of making sure the book store works on iPads before they add it to iPhones.
My guess is that iPhone 4.0, iPad 4.0, and iPhone book store will all come in June and you'll see no further iPhone updates between now and then.
I don't understand why people still think there will be a 3.2 for the iphone.
I'm confused. Is the initial build on the iPad 3.x? or is it 1.0?
It ships with OS 3.2
new OS name?
not to get off topic, but do you guys think it'll keep the name as "iPhone OS"? considering its now being used for the iPod and iPad as well as the iPhone, the naming is kind of weird.
This is what is so confusing. If the iPad is using an operating system that is fundamentally different from the iPhone, then why follow the iPhone OS's labeling system?
If there won't be a 3.2 for iphone, why not just call it iPad OS 1.0?
I was thinking the same thing. But what else could they name it?
Take your pick:
A) No, they won't keep it. It makes no sense. They'll have to change it to 'Mobile OS' soon.
B) Yes, they'll just leave it as 'iPhone OS.' They kept the name 'iTunes' even though it does movies, apps, TV shows, ringtones, podcasts, photo-syncing, and books. Clearly these name doesn't matter to Apple that much.
It's not different. It's the same OS. It just comes with different apps. iPhone Mail and iPad Mail are different, for example. But the OS is the same. That's like saying Mac OS X on a 13" laptop is different than Mac OS X on a 24" iMac. Well, they're on differnt screens, but they're the same OS.
And sure, the iPad OS doesn't have the phone-call parts in it, but just taking stuff out doesn't make it a different OS. The Macbook OS has trackpad software in it and the Mac Pro OS doesn't. But they're still both Snow Leopard, right?
I see the logic in this, and that's why I made this thread.
I think at one point they need to make it more generic. OSX Mobile? iOS? OSX Touch? maybe something with the word touch, since its an OS focused on touch.
Interesting point about iTunes name!
At first, I agree with this. I think 'Mobile OS X' or 'Touch OS X' are the two most likely names.
Then, I think some more and start to change my mind and disagree. (Seriously. I just literally changed my mind.) A Macbook is already 'mobile' and what happens when regular Macs start gaining more multi-touch ability? A "multitouch mobile Macbook" and it doesn't run mobile OS or touch OS?
Hmmm...that starts to get confusing. So there goes that plan.
So now I'm back to thinking they'll just leave it as 'iPhone OS.' I mean, it's not really wrong, exactly. It's like:
Q: What OS does the iPad use?
A: Oh, it uses the OS from the iPhone...you know, iPhone OS.
I mean, that's kind of ok, I guess? The iPad runs the iPhone OS. Nothing incorect about that, really. So I suppose they could just leave it like that! It's a little odd but certainly less confusing than naming it after features that regular Macs are likely to gain eventually.
I suppose I should clarify my point.
Apple has two options here. The first is to release 3.2 to both iPhones/iTouches alongside the iPad this Saturday. This communicates to consumers that the OSes are essentially the same, and will continue to be updated simultaneously.
The second is not to release 3.2 to iPhones/iTouches on Saturday. This communicates that the OSes are fundamentally different, to the point where they will be receiving separate updates. If this is the case, why is the iPad OS labelled based on past iPhone OS versions? Why wouldn't it start at 1.0?
I guess I consider "fundamentally different" to mean more than just "being 0.1 numbers off."
I would call Windows and Mac OS X fundamentally different.
But I wouldn't consider Quicktime 7.6.3 to be fundamentally different from Quicktime 7.6.1.
My point is, I think you're overthinking it. I don't think that having the iPhone on 3.1 and the iPad on 3.2 will "communicate" anything, really. It's not a secret messge, it's just a fact of life that not evetything gets updated at the same time.
Because that WOULD make people think they are very different when they're actually not all that different at all. It seems like a huge overreaction. It would make people think they can't run iPhone apps on the iPad, for starters. That's certainly not a 'plus' for the marketing department.
there is no ipsw on apples servers. so no.