Originally Posted by Marvin
…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.
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.