or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › 'It's almost here:' Apple announces 'iPhone 5' event for Sept. 12
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'It's almost here:' Apple announces 'iPhone 5' event for Sept. 12 - Page 8

post #281 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art 
If your logic is that iPhone and iPhone 3G are the same generation, why is iPhone 4 called iPhone 4?

4 comes after 3. Around and around we go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art 
Iwhy would naming the 4th generation iPhone "iPhone 4" somehow prohibit Apple from calling the 5th generation iPhone, "iPhone 4S"? After all, they did this with their 3rd generation iPhone "iPhone 3GS".

It doesn't prohibit them from it but it's clear that they don't have to be linked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art 
This thread is a perfect summation as to why iPhone 5 is a bad name, and why "the new iPhone" is the smartest way to market it.

The only confusion that's caused is when people refuse to accept basic sequential numbering and try to justify non-sequential numbering. Most people readily accept that 5 comes after 4 regardless of whether or not the 5 relates to anything. The fact that Apple used that number in the ad as a teaser would suggest they feel the same way, even if the 5 means something different.

Just look around at the blogs. When someone uses the phrase iPhone 5, the entire audience doesn't take on a baffled expression wondering what they are talking about. All that happens is there's a lone commenter right at the top who jumps at the chance to point out this is the 6th iPhone and y'know what, nobody gives a shit just like when people point out the peanut isn't a nut.
post #282 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slang4Art View Post

I don't care about the other thread. I asked you a simple and direct question.

 

If your logic is that iPhone and iPhone 3G are the same generation, why is iPhone 4 called iPhone 4? Further, since you've obfuscated things a little more, why would naming the 4th generation iPhone "iPhone 4" somehow prohibit Apple from calling the 5th generation iPhone, "iPhone 4S"? After all, they did this with their 3rd generation iPhone "iPhone 3GS". If it worked in that instance, why not here?

 

If Apple named the fourth generation iPhone "iPhone 4" based on its A4 chip, calling it iPhone 5 halfway makes sense, though it is a bit sloppy since iPhone 4S has an Apple A5 as well.

 

This thread is a perfect summation as to why iPhone 5 is a bad name, and why "the new iPhone" is the smartest way to market it.

Except that, Come next year Apple will have to rename it, or add another "New" to the name ad infinitum.

post #283 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

4 comes after 3. Around and around we go.
It doesn't prohibit them from it but it's clear that they don't have to be linked.
The only confusion that's caused is when people refuse to accept basic sequential numbering and try to justify non-sequential numbering. Most people readily accept that 5 comes after 4 regardless of whether or not the 5 relates to anything. The fact that Apple used that number in the ad as a teaser would suggest they feel the same way, even if the 5 means something different.
Just look around at the blogs. When someone uses the phrase iPhone 5, the entire audience doesn't take on a baffled expression wondering what they are talking about. All that happens is there's a lone commenter right at the top who jumps at the chance to point out this is the 6th iPhone and y'know what, nobody gives a shit just like when people point out the peanut isn't a nut.

So 3G is the sequential value that comes after a null value? 4S is the sequential value that comes after 4? 5 is the sequential value that comes after 4S? How the hell does that any of that make sense to you?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #284 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

The only phone that actually matters in this industry. Can't wait. 

Oh, and not surprised that Tallest Ski doesn't have enough humility and respect to post an apology, after more than a year of mocking, belittling, denigrating, and insulting any poster who had the gall to suggest this might indeed be a possibility for the name of the next phone, while shitting up almost every single iPhone related thread with rambling rants about his justifications based on lists, charts, generations, not to mention being forced to see that damn sig for a year in every single one of his posts. Believe it or not, people here were intelligent enough to count, but you acted as if you had inifnitely more insight and wisdom into the matter (a trivial matter at that) than everyone else- treating anyone who dared disagree like a hopeless idiot. Well now, not shockingly, you've turned out to be spectacularly wrong, and after all the horse-shit posts you've made on the matter that could fill up the library of congress, your response to the first post calling you out with a single sentence is 'Frikkin lay off of it', without a hint of irony of what you subjected this forum to the past year or so, when everyone on this forum was literally begging you to 'lay off of it' and your infinite refusal to do so. Yet now you respond with faux-indignation to a post where someone is understandably wanting you to at least aknowledge your ridiculous, pointless behavior that did nothing but sidetrack hundreds of threads into irrelevant, pointless bickering.  How does your mind work, exactly? Do you not see the hyposricy and why people would be upset? I hope this teaches you a damn lesson, in that you can express an opinion ("I think iPhone 5 would not be the best naming option") in a much more rational way with some humility, instead of pretending you know exctly what Apple will or will not do and then chastise everyone on this board who might not exhibit the same level of single-minded stubbornness about the subject that you do. 

Unbelievable. 

U mad, bro?

(Mid-2012) 15.4" MacBook Pro w/ IPS Retina Display | Quad Core i7-3720QM 2.6GHz / 3.6GHz Max. Turbo | 16GB DDR3-1600MHz RAM | 256GB Samsung 830 SSD-based NAND Flash ETA 9/5

Reply

(Mid-2012) 15.4" MacBook Pro w/ IPS Retina Display | Quad Core i7-3720QM 2.6GHz / 3.6GHz Max. Turbo | 16GB DDR3-1600MHz RAM | 256GB Samsung 830 SSD-based NAND Flash ETA 9/5

Reply
post #285 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX 
So 3G is the sequential value that comes after a null value? 4S is the sequential value that comes after 4? 5 is the sequential value that comes after 4S? How the hell does that any of that make sense to you?

It's the same deal as:

Playstation
Playstation 2
Playstation 2 slim
Playstation 3
Playstation 3 slim

You will notice the sequence quite clearly. Guess what the next one will be called (hint: not Playstation 6, despite being the 6th Playstation). The first Playstation wasn't numbered because they didn't know at that point what was coming next.

The iPhone 3G could have been called iPhone 2 and the sequence could have progressed from there but obviously they wanted to highlight 3G networking.

All the stars aligned (disclaimer: I'm not suggesting it was a complete coincidence) for the 4th one as it was the 4th phone, had an A4 chip, ran iOS 4 and followed a device with the number 3 in it. However, none of the device's attributes were requirements for the name. I won't be able to convince you of this just now but even if it had been the 5th iPhone running A5 and iOS 5, it would have been called the iPhone 4 if it followed the 3GS because 3GS -> 5 is not sequential. Althought the teaser corroborates this, the main evidence of this will be if they call it the iPhone 5 so we'll have to wait and see.

I see from the comments section on the following site, someone is eager to find this out ; )

http://bit.ly/OrDuco

I find it unfortunate that even if it turns out to be "The new iPhone", you guys are still going to believe iPhone 5 wasn't an option but I accept that people have differing opinions over what they believe to be obvious.
post #286 of 298
Well, while I have no vested interest in what it will be called, I'd like to caution all of those who are bit too excited to rub it in TS's face with the whole number "5" naming

It hasn't been named just yet and there's a very good chance it still could be called the new iPhone

Could you imagine after 9 pages of posts on this subject and in the end it's still called the new iPhone?

Man, that would be entertaining for me, but that "humble pie" will be finished baking and will be slang around here So much I don't think I'll be able To hold down my Cheerios come next Wednesday morning.

All I am saying is that at this point, nobody knows just yet what it's going to be called for sure.

And if your wondering why it has 5 in the shadow, here's a re-post of a possible explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephanJobs View Post

Honestly I said it before but I think they know the general public will regard it as iPhone 5 but I feel they will still lable it the new iPhone. . .
How?
I expect Something like this in the keynote.
2012 marks the 5th year since the introduction of the first iPhone. A phone that changed the way we look at smart phones. Its hard to belive that it has already been 5 years since we changed the industry with this revolutionary device, so today is very special to all of us here at apple. Today we are announcing our next generation iPhone. So, what are we going to call it?
*Cue 'iPhone5' title graphics with a big question mark behind it*
No, we are calling it the new iPhone."

Something like this seems right to me.
And of course they'd talk about the next 5 years ahead of them and how they hope to revolutionize as much.

Just a thought guys.
Edited by StephanJobs - 9/7/12 at 9:16am
post #287 of 298
Jesus Christ, who gives a **** about the model designator?!! it's not like we can guess the correct one with any certainty anyway, so it's just a bunch of bullshit semantics.
post #288 of 298
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
It's the same deal as:
Playstation
Playstation 2
Playstation 2 slim
Playstation 3
Playstation 3 slim
You will notice the sequence quite clearly. Guess what the next one will be called (hint: not Playstation 6, despite being the 6th Playstation). 

 

… Except it isn't. It's the 4th one. The slim lines are not new generations. If you want to call the PS2slim a new model, then the iPhone 4S had exactly the same hardware in it that the iPhone 4 did. See the problem with that?

 

If you want a real analogy of what the slim PlayStation models are, they're the 8GB iPhone 4S that is rumored to be coming out to hit the $99 mark. SAME HARDWARE as the original iPhone 4S. SAME CAPABILITIES as the original iPhone 4S. New sales demographic.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #289 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It's the same deal as:
Playstation
Playstation 2
Playstation 2 slim
Playstation 3
Playstation 3 slim
You will notice the sequence quite clearly. Guess what the next one will be called (hint: not Playstation 6, despite being the 6th Playstation). The first Playstation wasn't numbered because they didn't know at that point what was coming next.
The iPhone 3G could have been called iPhone 2 and the sequence could have progressed from there but obviously they wanted to highlight 3G networking.
All the stars aligned (disclaimer: I'm not suggesting it was a complete coincidence) for the 4th one as it was the 4th phone, had an A4 chip, ran iOS 4 and followed a device with the number 3 in it. However, none of the device's attributes were requirements for the name. I won't be able to convince you of this just now but even if it had been the 5th iPhone running A5 and iOS 5, it would have been called the iPhone 4 if it followed the 3GS because 3GS -> 5 is not sequential. Althought the teaser corroborates this, the main evidence of this will be if they call it the iPhone 5 so we'll have to wait and see.
I see from the comments section on the following site, someone is eager to find this out ; )
http://bit.ly/OrDuco
I find it unfortunate that even if it turns out to be "The new iPhone", you guys are still going to believe iPhone 5 wasn't an option but I accept that people have differing opinions over what they believe to be obvious.

That's absolutely backwards. The slims were a slimmer case but with the same performance. Each YoY revision of the iPhone was a complete overhaul of multiple components.Not changing the casing doesn't mean that it's the same device.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #290 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 
The slim lines are not new generations. If you want to call the PS2slim a new model, then the iPhone 4S had exactly the same hardware in it that the iPhone 4 did. See the problem with that?

The problem I see, besides that this issue has about 14 more pages of forum space than it deserves, is that if the naming convention is tied to the 'generation' number then it shouldn't have been called the 4S. So the simple conclusion is that how many phones preceeded it has no bearing on what it's called.

Say that they had a number of revisions of the iPhone 4 design and had 4, 4S, 4GS, 4GSW, 4GSWL you think the one following those would be iPhone 9? If (hopefully) not then the same applies in this scenario.

What if they called it iPhone 5G, 5S or 5W and just skipped 5, would you say that's acceptable? Surely that's no different from iPhone -> iPhone 3G.

I highly doubt that Apple has even thought this much about it tbh.

I think it makes sense to call it the iPhone 5 at this point because while they could go with "The new iPhone", they might not have settled on the design. I think they've largely settled on the iPad design. I'd say 5 then 5S and if this design works, they can drop the numbering. Once they go unibody metal, there's not many places they can go anyway.
post #291 of 298
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
…if the naming convention is tied to the 'generation' number then it shouldn't have been called the 4S. So the simple conclusion is that how many phones preceeded it has no bearing on what it's called.

 

Right. And wrong. It does. Rather, has had. But has not always had. 

 

Number Device Name Name Origin
1 iPhone generation
2 iPhone 3G telephony
3 iPhone 3GS speed
4 iPhone 4 generation
5 iPhone 4S speed
6 iPhone ___ ???


Going by the existing models, we have three things from which to choose in terms of naming conventions. But while those things are what define the name, we also have to look at what defines getting a new name in the first place. History shows that only generation and telephony naming have changed the number in the marketed name and also that speed is always a 'second model'. Additionally, we can say that a change to the case will bring about a change to the number. 


Say that they had a number of revisions of the iPhone 4 design and had 4, 4S, 4GS, 4GSW, 4GSWL you think the one following those would be iPhone 9?
 

I have difficulty just assuming that each of those names has purpose, despite knowing that you want that to be irrelevant to the point you're making. As before, each model receives its name based on an aspect thereof. There is nothing "5" about the 6th iPhone.


What if they called it iPhone 5G, 5S or 5W and just skipped 5, would you say that's acceptable? Surely that's no different from iPhone -> iPhone 3G.

 

5G would be acceptable if that was the type of telephony in it (it does not) or if they could give a reasonable explanation for what the G stood for, as they've stated "S" stands for speed, in the past. 5S wouldn't make much sense at all, as "Speed" models have never been released without a predecessor holding the other part of the name. W, again, would have to be explained as "S" for speed was. 


I highly doubt that Apple has even thought this much about it tbh.

 

Then, and I hate to even invoke this, they're outright shaming the memory of and teachings that Steve gave them. Apple, the company where people have arguments over the color and opacity of a single pixel, Apple, where engineers have been known to pull 90+ hour weeks in the '80s, '90s, and '00s to make the best frigging products in the industry, and specifically Steve, when presented with iMac in the face of his MacMan and Macintosh in the face of his Bicycle, argued for weeks over the right name for the product that would be the first step in making the company what it is today, didn't obsess over the perfect name for their devices? 

 

If they're not obsessing now, it's because they're doing Steve a discredit. Nothing more.

 

… 

 

In my opinion, all this convoluted nonsense SHOULD be moot through Apple calling it "iPhone", marketing it as "iPhone", saying nothing but "iPhone", and making support documents titled "iPhone (6th generation)". Why anyone thinks that iPhone 5 is more valid than "iPhone 6" is no longer of interest to me nor should be to anyone, but why people still fight for "iPhone 5" when "iPhone" ends the argument permanently is beyond me. 

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #292 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Wednesday is the new Tuesday.

Called "The new Tuesday"?

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #293 of 298
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post
Called "The new Tuesday"?

 

Internally Tuesday2,1 and in support documents as Tuesday (2012).

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #294 of 298

I see we are still speculating what the next model number will be.

 

Let's see...

 

iPhone1,1

iPhone1,2

iPhone2,1

iPhone3,1

iPhone3,3

iPhone4,1

 

But this is nowhere near as confusing as this:

I started out with the MA501, then I upgraded to a MB048. Next I bought the MB717, followed by MC319 and then finally I ordered the MD257

 

Notice how the models are MA, MB, MB, MC, MD? What do you think the next letter in this set will be?

Perhaps ME? I don't know but if it is, 'E' is the fifth letter of the alphabet.

 

Perhaps they should just name the next phone the iPhone 5 just to make things easier to remember.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #295 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 
If they're not obsessing now, it's because they're doing Steve a discredit.

Obsession should ultimately be productive.

I think using the year would be quite good as it works across all the products - iPhone (2012), iMac (2012) and you immediately know how old a used/refurb model is. The only downside is you don't know what makes it better than the last one but it means you don't end up wondering what to call The new iPad (as in the 2012 one) when The new iPad comes out in 2013.

The iPod line seems to get away with it ok but consumers still call them iPod Touch 2G/3G/4G. There's always going to be distinguishing labels given no matter what they do. As long as people know what they are talking about in stores and online, that's all that matters.
post #296 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I think using the year would be quite good as it works across all the products - iPhone (2012), iMac (2012) and you immediately know how old a used/refurb model is. The only downside is you don't know what makes it better than the last one but it means you don't end up wondering what to call The new iPad (as in the 2012 one) when The new iPad comes out in 2013.

The iPod line seems to get away with it ok but consumers still call them iPod Touch 2G/3G/4G. There's always going to be distinguishing labels given no matter what they do. As long as people know what they are talking about in stores and online, that's all that matters.

Apple is still manufacturing and selling the iPhone 3GS (2009) but they are made in 2012. I think the current numbering system is better than the year designation for iPhone. The early/mid/late (year) designation for a MBP is ok because when the new ones came out they discontinued the older model. The iPhone is different in that regard.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #297 of 298
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
As long as people know what they are talking about in stores and online, that's all that matters.

 

Stet, and "iPhone", plain and simple, accomplishes that.

 

Scenario: day after iPhone launch day, 2013. Guy comes into an Apple Store. Doesn't follow tech, doesn't know diddly.

 

"Hey, I'd like the new iPhone (meaning the one about to come out for us)."
"Sorry, sir, we're sold out of this week's stock."
"Aww, so that guy *points* got the last one, huh?"
"Oh! That's not the new iPhone. We just had a new model come out. That's out of stock, but you can sure have one of these, if you like. It's cheaper now, too." 

"Oh, you keep the old model around when you make a new one? What's the new one called?"
"iPhone, sir. Same as the others. The rest is just marketing."


Originally Posted by mstone View Post
Apple is still manufacturing and selling the iPhone 3GS (2009) but they are made in 2012.

 

So? Unless the hardware changes (it doesn't), it's still the iPhone (2009). If the hardware changes without a name change, it can easily be appended in the records. So assuming no number, it would now be iPad (2011, 32nm). Worked for the "iMac G5 (iSight)".

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #298 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone 
Apple is still manufacturing and selling the iPhone 3GS (2009) but they are made in 2012.

That's true, so it wouldn't be much help in letting you know how old an individual phone was but I think it still works for identifying the model/features.

If they do the same thing as the iPad, the only way people will be able to distinguish them eventually is by when they launched.

While I do think the current convention is working ok, I think if you have too many versions, it starts to look bad, especially in double digits. iPhone 7S doesn't have a good ring to it so I'd like to see them drop the numbering after 6 at the very latest.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › 'It's almost here:' Apple announces 'iPhone 5' event for Sept. 12