Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

dad29236

macrumors newbie
Jul 10, 2014
9
0
i think that there are a goal by skip number 2 in the order , Still a secret , maybe apple tell us one day :)
 

JayLenochiniMac

macrumors G5
Nov 7, 2007
12,819
2,389
New Sanfrakota
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

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.
 

bri1212

macrumors 6502
Feb 1, 2008
274
5
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.

I can't think of anything more stupid then worrying about what a company names there product. When Apple called their tablet the Ipad, I didn't care. I did not even think twice, about the comedians jokes, or the names. Because I wanted the product.
It is the same with the phone, If they called it "dog feces". I would not care at all, if the product works as I need it.
If you are worrying about the labels on the box, and not the working of the product, then in my opinion your worrying about the wrong thing.
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,594
1,249
New Jersey, United States
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...
 

cambookpro

macrumors 604
Feb 3, 2010
7,189
3,321
United Kingdom
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 was simply stating the reason it was called the iPhone 3G - I didn't mean to imply that had to be it's name.
 

Kaylor

Contributor
Oct 18, 2011
305
694
Long Island, NY/Houston, TX
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 don't think Apple was thinking about a numbering/naming scheme just yet when they named the iPhone 3G. None of their iPod lines carried numbers at the time, and they still don't.
 

JayLenochiniMac

macrumors G5
Nov 7, 2007
12,819
2,389
New Sanfrakota
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...

Could have gone either way but the iPhone 3G added just three new features (3G connectivity, A-GPS and a new plastic case). It was their first attempt at mass marketing the iPhone along with the subsidy and by adopting the plastic case, it felt plasticky and a downgrade from the much better constructed original iPhone. In light of that, the 3G connectivity was really the primary driving factor in marketing the iPhone 3G.
 

Alphabetize

macrumors 6502
Oct 6, 2013
452
48
iPhone 3G/3Gs is the iPhone 3 series
iPhone 4/4s is the iPhone 4 series
iPhone 5/5c/5s is the iPhone 5 series
iPhone 6/6? is the iPhone 6 series

The numbering system that Apple uses does not mean that iPhone X is the Xth phone released.

Especially so for the 3rd gen. They just called it "the new iPad (with retina display)".

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.
 

cynics

macrumors G4
Jan 8, 2012
11,959
2,154
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.
 

rui no onna

Contributor
Oct 25, 2013
14,418
12,427
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.
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.

iPad
iPad 2
The new iPad (with Retina Display)
iPad with Retina Display
iPad Air

iPad mini
iPad mini with Retina Display
 

Bobby Corwen

macrumors 68030
Jul 16, 2010
2,723
474
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.
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,594
1,249
New Jersey, United States
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.

It was a ridiculous mistake. EDGE was slow even in 2007.
 

kaylerrific

macrumors regular
Dec 26, 2012
116
4
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.

Where's the PIZAZZ in that? :p I think the numbering has to go at some point or it'll get really unwieldy in a few years. iPhone 12 just doesn't seem to roll off the tongue!
 

goobot

macrumors 603
Jun 26, 2009
6,487
4,376
long island NY
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.

You're remembering it wrong, the 4 never got HSPA+, the 4S did.
 

iZac

macrumors 68030
Apr 28, 2003
2,597
2,783
UK
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.
 

Kaylor

Contributor
Oct 18, 2011
305
694
Long Island, NY/Houston, TX
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.

They could've handled it like they handle their iPod lines by just sticking (_th Generation) after the name. And I agree, the naming of the iPads has been very awkward, although most people I know had casually named them 1-4 until the iPad Air came along even though those weren't their official names from Apple.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.