Apple may return iOS to its original 'iPhone OS' name at WWDC

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in General Discussion
A prominent leaker claims Apple may revert to its original "iPhone OS" name for a forthcoming release of iOS, potentially to fit with iPadOS.

When Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone, he said it ran OS X. On release, though, that was renamed
When Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone, he said it ran OS X. On release, though, that was renamed "iPhone OS."


Prolific leaker Jon Prosser now claims that Apple is to launch some future version of iOS, possibly iOS 14, under the name "iPhone OS." This is the name that Apple used for the operating system on the original iPhone, and the change may be to align the branding with iPadOS.

iPhone OS.

-- Jon Prosser (@jon_prosser)


"[The] iPhone runs OS X," said Steve Jobs at its unveiling in 2007. However, by the time the iPhone shipped, it was officially described as using iPhone OS. The name was changed to iOS in 2010 when the iPad was launched.

This new tweet is one of Prosser's shortest leaks, with no details or comment beyond the words "iPhone OS." Given that WWDC 2020 begins on June 22, and Apple is due to announce the next version of iOS there, it's most likely that this is when such a change would be made, if at all.

Apple did unveil iPadOS at its WWDC 2019. That was simultaneously a new name and a new fork for the operating system that will see it develop separately from iOS.

If the shift is accurate, it isn't clear what will happen to the name of the operating system for iPod touch, or if it too will run iPhone OS.
razorpit
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 26
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Makes sense to bringing the naming into line, I suppose.
    razorpittmayjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 26
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    Surprised this didn't happen last year.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 26
    OutdoorAppDeveloperOutdoorAppDeveloper Posts: 1,293member
    Splitting your operating system into device specific versions is easy. Making one single operating system that works everywhere is hard. Microsoft has been trying (and failing) to do that for decades. Apple had a real chance with iOS. They could have had Apple OS that worked on iPhones, iPads, Macs, the Apple Watch and future devices like their AR glasses. Each device could have tailored the UI to its own needs. But that would have been hard. Instead now we have iPhone OS, iPad OS, Watch OS, Mac OS and soon Glass OS. Such a missed opportunity.
    lkrupp
  • Reply 4 of 26
    randominternetpersonrandominternetperson Posts: 3,089member
    OutdoorAppDeveloper said:
    Splitting your operating system into device specific versions is easy. Making one single operating system that works everywhere is hard. Microsoft has been trying (and failing) to do that for decades. Apple had a real chance with iOS. They could have had Apple OS that worked on iPhones, iPads, Macs, the Apple Watch and future devices like their AR glasses. Each device could have tailored the UI to its own needs. But that would have been hard. Instead now we have iPhone OS, iPad OS, Watch OS, Mac OS and soon Glass OS. Such a missed opportunity.
    Missed opportunity to be able to make an interesting, but ultimately irrelevant, claim.  Personally, I trust that Apple knows best which approach is easier/better to maintain.
    tmayronnrazorpitroundaboutnowfastasleepDogpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 26
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    OutdoorAppDeveloper said:
    Splitting your operating system into device specific versions is easy. Making one single operating system that works everywhere is hard. Microsoft has been trying (and failing) to do that for decades. Apple had a real chance with iOS. They could have had Apple OS that worked on iPhones, iPads, Macs, the Apple Watch and future devices like their AR glasses. Each device could have tailored the UI to its own needs. But that would have been hard. Instead now we have iPhone OS, iPad OS, Watch OS, Mac OS and soon Glass OS. Such a missed opportunity.

    You've got that backward.

    Making a single operating system that works everywhere is easy. 

    Deciding that doing so would compromise your customer experience so you're better off building three operating systems derived from the same base … that's hard.

    Windows Mobile failed because Microsoft believed that their customers wanted the Windows experience on a mobile device. They were wrong.


    chaickatmaypujones1dysamoriaronnGG1razorpitJWSCroundaboutnowjony0
  • Reply 6 of 26
    mike1mike1 Posts: 3,286member
    OutdoorAppDeveloper said:
    Splitting your operating system into device specific versions is easy. Making one single operating system that works everywhere is hard. Microsoft has been trying (and failing) to do that for decades. Apple had a real chance with iOS. They could have had Apple OS that worked on iPhones, iPads, Macs, the Apple Watch and future devices like their AR glasses. Each device could have tailored the UI to its own needs. But that would have been hard. Instead now we have iPhone OS, iPad OS, Watch OS, Mac OS and soon Glass OS. Such a missed opportunity.
    Sometimes it's good to miss an opportunity. All that would do is create software bloat. Why would they want to burden Watch OS with Glass OS code. That would also mean exponentially more testing on each and every device in order to release an enhancement or update.

    tmayronnrazorpitroundaboutnowfastasleepjdb8167watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 26
    neilmneilm Posts: 987member
    OutdoorAppDeveloper said:
    Splitting your operating system into device specific versions is easy. Making one single operating system that works everywhere is hard. Microsoft has been trying (and failing) to do that for decades. Apple had a real chance with iOS. They could have had Apple OS that worked on iPhones, iPads, Macs, the Apple Watch and future devices like their AR glasses. Each device could have tailored the UI to its own needs. But that would have been hard. Instead now we have iPhone OS, iPad OS, Watch OS, Mac OS and soon Glass OS. Such a missed opportunity.
    Yeah, and I could try to stuff my size 9 feet into my wife's size 6 shoes. Instead we each have what works best for ourselves. (Also saves me a good deal of public ridicule!)

    One size does not fit all.
    ronnGG1fastasleepDogpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 26
    XedXed Posts: 2,569member
    OutdoorAppDeveloper said:
    Splitting your operating system into device specific versions is easy. Making one single operating system that works everywhere is hard. Microsoft has been trying (and failing) to do that for decades. Apple had a real chance with iOS. They could have had Apple OS that worked on iPhones, iPads, Macs, the Apple Watch and future devices like their AR glasses. Each device could have tailored the UI to its own needs. But that would have been hard. Instead now we have iPhone OS, iPad OS, Watch OS, Mac OS and soon Glass OS. Such a missed opportunity.
    How is making watchOS the same exact OS that runs macOS a missed opportunity?
    ronnJWSCjony0Rayz2016fastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 26
    chaickachaicka Posts: 257member
    I sure do not want a bloated OS to run across every single device in the ecosystem. And also, having a single OS to run across multiple type of devices is very difficult to have optimisations and granular fine tunings (e.g. logic or behaviour of WiFi on Apple Watch will be different from iPhone or iPad, due to antennas and other factors).
    ronnrazorpitwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 26
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,373member
    Splitting your operating system into device specific versions is easy. Making one single operating system that works everywhere is hard. Microsoft has been trying (and failing) to do that for decades. Apple had a real chance with iOS. They could have had Apple OS that worked on iPhones, iPads, Macs, the Apple Watch and future devices like their AR glasses. Each device could have tailored the UI to its own needs. But that would have been hard. Instead now we have iPhone OS, iPad OS, Watch OS, Mac OS and soon Glass OS. Such a missed opportunity.
    There is no such thing as one size fits all for operating systems that run on top of disparate hardware, unless you conveniently choose to overlook caveats, disclaimers, and multiple abstraction layers. Microsoft showed us that reality ultimately trumps name games and emperor clothing. In other words, you can BS some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not BS all of the people all of the time.
    ronnrazorpitfastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 26
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    Mac OS aside, are they really differentiating the code base among each device, or do they just output an OS optimized at compile time for specific devices? If the former, then different names may be meaningful. If the latter, I’m not so sure it matters.
  • Reply 12 of 26
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    They could stop paying the licensing fee for the iOS name.
    jony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 26
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,699member
    dewme said:
    Splitting your operating system into device specific versions is easy. Making one single operating system that works everywhere is hard. Microsoft has been trying (and failing) to do that for decades. Apple had a real chance with iOS. They could have had Apple OS that worked on iPhones, iPads, Macs, the Apple Watch and future devices like their AR glasses. Each device could have tailored the UI to its own needs. But that would have been hard. Instead now we have iPhone OS, iPad OS, Watch OS, Mac OS and soon Glass OS. Such a missed opportunity.
    There is no such thing as one size fits all for operating systems that run on top of disparate hardware, unless you conveniently choose to overlook caveats, disclaimers, and multiple abstraction layers. Microsoft showed us that reality ultimately trumps name games and emperor clothing. In other words, you can BS some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not BS all of the people all of the time.
    It's an interesting concept nevertheless and is being built now. The idea is that the system uses a distributed architecture and virtual bus, to pool different hardware resources and offer the user the best possible options to enhance the experience. 
  • Reply 14 of 26
    ne1ne1 Posts: 69member
    Everyone will still call it iOS anyway. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 26
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    ne1 said:
    Everyone will still call it iOS anyway. 
    I think it would be so they could roll out Glasses OS, Transport OS, etc.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 26
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,360member
    ne1 said:
    Everyone will still call it iOS anyway. 
    Maybe. If actually keeping with current convention, it won't be iPhone OS but - iphoneOS or phoneOS, the latter rolling of the tongue more easily than iOS. Yeah, if this happens I'll be calling int phoneOS.
    jony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 26
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,450member
    Wow Apple keeps on innovating!
    williamlondon
  • Reply 18 of 26
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    By intelligently designing the OS abstraction layers, Apple can use a library of lower level common code components on all devices, while tailoring the higher functionality on each unique device.  It’s the best of both worlds.  And it’s all UNIX under the hood anyway.
    edited June 2020 LoneStar88designrwatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 26
    roundaboutnowroundaboutnow Posts: 735member
    So now we have:

    • macOS
    • tvOS
    • watchOS
    • iPadOS

    ...it makes sense for phones to be iPhoneOS, but now what about the iPod?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 26
    mangakattenmangakatten Posts: 99member
    Maybe this has something to do with the ARM Mac? PhoneOS, PadOS, WatchOS, TVOS will be iOS family devices and intel MacOS and ARM MacOS will be some other family?
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.