iPhone VI is coming out this fall! No, it doesn't bug me.
So Apple is switching to Roman numerals while the Super Bowl is moving away from them.
How less could you care?
Kelsey Grammer is going to Tweet about this soon.
iPhone VI is coming out this fall! No, it doesn't bug me.
How less could you care?
So Apple is switching to Roman numerals while the Super Bowl is moving away from them.
Kelsey Grammer is going to Tweet about this soon.
Idioms, by definition, don't need to make sense.
Also...
Which is correct: I could care less or I couldn't care less?
The expression I could not care less originally meant 'it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all'. It was originally a British saying and came to the US in the 1950s. It is senseless to transform it into the now-common I could care less. If you could care less, that means you care at least a little. The original is quite sarcastic and the other form is clearly nonsense. The inverted form I could care less was coined in the US and is found only here, recorded in print by 1966. The question is, something caused the negative to vanish even while the original form of the expression was still very much in vogue and available for comparison - so what was it? There are other American English expressions that have a similar sarcastic inversion of an apparent sense, such as Tell me about it!, which usually means 'Don't tell me about it, because I know all about it already'. The Yiddish I should be so lucky!, in which the real sense is often 'I have no hope of being so lucky', has a similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning as does I could care less.
Source
I'm not saying the 4S, 5S, 6S etc are bad, since they basically are the same phone but upgraded, but
iPhone (1)
iPhone 3g/3gs
iPhone 4/4s
iPhone 5/5s
iPhone 6/6s
They completely skipped 2! The order is forever weird.
It was 3G due to 3G connectivity added
As much of a waste as this thread may be, I disagree with this. They didn't have to name the iPhone 3G that just because it had a new 3G connection. By this same logic, they should have named the iPhone 5 the "iPhone LTE"...
They could have just named it the iPhone 2 and started the "S" line after that. Since 1S would have been weird...
As much of a waste as this thread may be, I disagree with this. They didn't have to name the iPhone 3G that just because it had a new 3G connection. By this same logic, they should have named the iPhone 5 the "iPhone LTE"...
They could have just named it the iPhone 2 and started the "S" line after that. Since 1S would have been weird...
As much of a waste as this thread may be, I disagree with this. They didn't have to name the iPhone 3G that just because it had a new 3G connection. By this same logic, they should have named the iPhone 5 the "iPhone LTE"...
They could have just named it the iPhone 2 and started the "S" line after that. Since 1S would have been weird...
Especially so for the 3rd gen. They just called it "the new iPad (with retina display)".
Good info. The original does make sense whereas "I could care less" is nonsensical. Another good example is the original "You can't eat your cake and have it too" vs. the nonsensical but more common "You can't have your cake and eat it too." It's better to use the version that does make sense.
Lol I'm now following this thread because your guys discussion is more interesting then the topic.
My gripe with iPad naming is Apple hasn't stuck to a consistent system/convention. It would have actually been easier if they had gone the same route as iPod touch and referred to it be by release date/generation.I actually liked that naming convention, removing the number altogether. I feel like most people say "the new iPad/iPhone/whathaveyou" when they're released anyway.
Find a life. Really. This place gets pretty ridiculous.
There are more comments here about people who don't care than anything else. We get it, you don't care/it doesn't bug you.
As much of a waste as this thread may be, I disagree with this. They didn't have to name the iPhone 3G that just because it had a new 3G connection. By this same logic, they should have named the iPhone 5 the "iPhone LTE"...
They could have just named it the iPhone 2 and started the "S" line after that. Since 1S would have been weird...
I guess you guys forgot that when the original iPhone first came out it was very controversial and people didn't know how to take it and the premier criticism was that it was on EDGE and many phones were already on 3G at the time so every cell phone shop in America was touting lack of 3G as a reason the iPhone was a "gimmick" or it sucked.
The 3G was a huge flag being waved saying "its ok we fixed that now!" come to us!
It was a super important thing at the time if you guys remember.
My gripe with iPad naming is Apple hasn't stuck to a consistent system/convention. It would have actually been easier if they had gone the same route as iPod touch and referred to it be by release date/generation.
It didn't help that at&t collaborated with Apple to have iOS 5.1 magically add 4G in the signal indicator when it was still HSPA+.
I remember that. Also, just recently I read an article about the term "4G". The definition seemed to have changed over the years. There didn't seem to be a clear definition of what 4G is. Some consider HSPA+ to be 4G. Now, I don't really hear the term used at all. Now, it's LTE that has the fast data speeds.
He was running a Blackberry Storm back then so he didn't have any knowledge of that, but that's such a tease.
It was a ridiculous mistake. EDGE was slow even in 2007.
Apple has never really been concerned with giving specific version names to their hardware until the iPhone. Mostly people identify Macs informally by their major design / material approach (Aluminium, Titanium, Polycarbonate, Unibody etc) and then its time and year of introduction.
I guess Apples marketing department agreed that consumers need to know that the version of phone their buying is a digit better than the previous version since numerical naming is so prevalent in the phone industry.
Otherwise it could have easily have been the '07 iPhone - '13 iPhone. But introducing it at the end of the year, no consumer wants to buy a "2013" phone in July 2014.
The iPad seems to fall uncomfortably in the middle with Apple officially mostly refusing to give a numerical approach to iPad naming and now throwing in the 'air' moniker.