Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Report: Apple to Skip 'iPhone 19' Name for 'iPhone 20'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I feel that Apple could change the iPhones numbers by years like iOS has been changed recently. It could make sense and clean that name mess.
Last edited:
I'm ready to get the Air 2 if they add an ultra wide camera, coming from owning all the Pro Max models that they released. It's just too heavy and I don't care about ProRaw and all these niche features.
Wouldn't it make sense to do the following instead?:
We know they're switching to biannual releases, according to leaks at least. This is fine with me, but the only thing that didn't sit right with me is that they're releasing the Pro model for a number and then the base model, whereas it would make more sense to, say, release the 18 and THEN the 18 Pro, which is the opposite of their plan seemingly. If they're not caring about that sort of thing anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to use the Spring Release in 2027 to use the 19 number and the Fall Release for 20?
We know they're switching to biannual releases, according to leaks at least. This is fine with me, but the only thing that didn't sit right with me is that they're releasing the Pro model for a number and then the base model, whereas it would make more sense to, say, release the 18 and THEN the 18 Pro, which is the opposite of their plan seemingly. If they're not caring about that sort of thing anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to use the Spring Release in 2027 to use the 19 number and the Fall Release for 20?
If Apple aligned iPhone 10/X with their 10th anniversary, how is it they have to REALIGN it again for the 20th, given that they’ve released an iPhone every single year?
Been wondering if they'll ever replace iPhone with Apple once the numbering gets ridiculously high. Switching the numbering to the calendar year could also work.
Part of the reason Microsoft skipped Windows 9 was actually quite technical; some older software used version checks that looked for a Windows version beginning with 9, so old software running on Windows 9 might think it's running on Windows 95 or 98 instead and create compatibility issues. The rest was marketing considerations given the backlash to Windows 8.
Office, other than 2002 being co-branded Office XP, has stuck with the year versions for perpetual license versions (2003, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2021, and currently 2024). Microsoft just doesn't advertise them as heavily post 2013 because they want you to subscribe to 365 instead.
Yes. They need to abandon all naming conventions except the year that the product is being released (or maybe one early like we see with ios right now).
This should be adopted as the standard for all product releases, imho.