Apple Will Announce iOS 26 at WWDC, Not iOS 19 (9to5mac.com)
- Reference: 0177836971
- News link: https://apple.slashdot.org/story/25/05/28/1953246/apple-will-announce-ios-26-at-wwdc-not-ios-19
- Source link: https://9to5mac.com/2025/05/28/ios-26-coming-next-month/
> Bloomberg explains that Apple is making this change to "bring consistency to its branding and move away from an approach that can be confusing to customers and developers." The branding alignment comes as Apple is also reportedly planning dramatic redesigns for all of its platforms. The goal seems to be to unify everything both in terms of naming and design.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-28/apple-to-rebrand-device-operating-systems-ios-26-macos-26-watchos-26?srnd=undefined
[2] https://9to5mac.com/2025/05/28/ios-26-coming-next-month/
Apple going back to the classics? (Score:2)
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
More version number confusion (Score:3)
Personally, I prefer the major version number, minor version number, release/build pattern. That way you can know that a major release has some big changes. With years, it's just an excuse to trickle out updates on a yearly basis, with no guidelines about what will no longer work or be supported. Major version numbers give you that. Versions named after years has an awful history (looking at you, Microsoft). At least it's better than naming them after things (looking at you Apple).
Microsoft Windows initially adopted a pretty sane version numbering scheme. Everything was fine up to Windows 3.11, then suddenly we were at Windows 95, followed by Windows 98, a bewildering Windows 98 SE (Second Edition), Windows Millennium Edition (designed to conflict with Windows 2000, its NT cousin?).
What a mess! What was so great about 1995?
But under the hood, the major version numbers were still ticking over. Windows 95/98/Me = Version 4, Windows XP = Version 5, Windows Vista = Version 6, and then back to numbers again with Windows 7, and the list is soon to supplemented by Windows 8. But wait! Under the covers Windows 7 is actually Windows version 6.1. That makes no sense. I mean it really doesnÃ(TM)t. Apparently the reason for this is to allow software that checks for compatibility to run correctly. Specifically, software written to run in Vista will run in Windows 7. This is stupid. Windows 8 is version 6.2! Windows 9 was skipped altogether because it would interfere with version checks that already looked for Windows 95 and Windows 98.
Windows 10 has the major version number "10". Back to sanity.
But wait! Windows 11 has the major version number "10", as well!
Re: (Score:2)
I wish Linux had done that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Microsoft tried this already and ended up going back to version numbers. Kind of reminds me of how Pepsi completely ignored the history of its competitor changing the formula of their signature product and facing significant backlash, went right ahead and changed the sweetener in Diet Pepsi. As anyone with half a brain could've predicted, people hated the new Diet Pepsi, and about a year later Pepsi rolled back the change.
Seems like it's just the corporate version of "those who fail to learn from hi
19? It goes to 26... (Score:2)
Is it any better ?
Well, it's 7 better, innit.
Apple got nothing.
iOS will have a problem in 100 years (Score:1)
Welcome back 2000 effect. Never mind, it won’t last that much
Re: iOS will have a problem in 100 years (Score:2)
Most of the engineers who implemented two-digit years in dates did not expected their programs to last until 2000.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a motorcycle shop in my town where the date on receipts is "1925". If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
IOS 26 in 2025? (Score:2)
Isn't it more confusing if you call 26 the version lunched in 2025? What happens if they use the same scheme for numbering iPhone and Mac models? Soon enough we'll have the same versioning scheme as car models, with something like a 26/25 Mac.
Allow side loading with no / limited notarization (Score:2)
Allow side loading with no / limited notarization needed?
Covid 19 avoidance (Score:2)
I wonder if the change now is driven by a desire to avoid using a number associated with Covid 19?
C:\ONGRTLNS.W95 (Score:2)
Congratulations, Windows^h^h^h^h^h^h^h iOS 2026.
Ah yes (Score:2)
Apple continues to get stupider by the day. Switch from one numbered naming scheme to a different numbered naming scheme that ultimately will use all the same numbers the original would have also used to the benefit of no one.
If a malware would come in and remotely corrupt every Apple device in existence, the world would be a better place.
Condemned to repeat marketing mistakes of the past (Score:2)
I'm old enough to remember that Adobe Illustrator 88 was seeming pretty stale in 1990.
Meh, I'll hold out for iOS Vista (Score:2)
n/t
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. We've been here before. It was stupid then and it's stupid now since it requires an artificial development schedule to declare a 2026 version and a 2027 version and so on of the operating system. I suppose though that we have gotten to the point where there's no longer much in the way of meaningful major changes between these OS versions, so they can just arbitrarily declare some build number to be 2026 or 2027 or whatever. There will still surely be a real build number with major and minor revisio
Re: (Score:2)
> ... it requires an artificial development schedule to declare a 2026 version and a 2027 version and so on...
Apple already releases operating system versions annually, so renumbering won't change anything. They haven't skipped a year for macOS (variously called Mac OS X or OS X) since 2010, and they've never skipped a year for iOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, iOS NT 4.0 will be the best one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but iOS NT 3.5 will be the most secure.