But what you're saying has no baring on the reality of the consumer market. You've never once qualified your statement to ref to the architectural design of the SoC.
On top of that, those primary values do not have one to one relationships with the case designs. If it did then the iPhone 3G would be listed as 2,1 not 1,2.
The new MBAs that were updated are the next generation MBAs. This is how we know it's the new model. I can't imagine if someone asked you which MBA to buy you'd say it doesn't matter because they haven't had a new generation in x many years simply because thecase looks the same.
The term in technology was born out of the definition "all of the people born and living at about the same time." Do you not think of your daughter as a new generation over you when she has half your DNA and half your wife's DNA? Of course you do, and in that same vain the 2012 iPhone will be the 6th generation iPhone that Apple will have put out YoY since 2007 in a very public and well known event where have clearly made the generational demarcation point.
Really, you guys can just keep saying whatever you want to. But in the end it doesn't matter. Apple will call this whatever they want to, and that will make it correct
Really, you guys can just keep saying whatever you want to. But in the end it doesn't matter. Apple will call this whatever they want to, and that will make it correct
I've clearly stated from the beginning that the marketing name has no barring on the internal architectural generation or the YoY generational name. My stance has always been that Apple could call it iPhone 5 but calling the 6th iPhone running iOS 6 with a presumed Apple A6 chip is not likely to be called an iPhone 5. You can say that those three things make it perfectly logical to call it an iPhone 5 but it doesn't.
Comments
Really, you guys can just keep saying whatever you want to. But in the end it doesn't matter. Apple will call this whatever they want to, and that will make it correct
I've clearly stated from the beginning that the marketing name has no barring on the internal architectural generation or the YoY generational name. My stance has always been that Apple could call it iPhone 5 but calling the 6th iPhone running iOS 6 with a presumed Apple A6 chip is not likely to be called an iPhone 5. You can say that those three things make it perfectly logical to call it an iPhone 5 but it doesn't.