Apple rumored to release iOS 26 at WWDC, instead of iOS 19

AppleInsider

Apple could make a big change to the way it numbers its operating systems, with a year-based system renaming iOS 19 as iOS 26, and macOS in the same way.

iOS 26 could be launched at WWDC instead of iOS 19iOS 26 could be launched at WWDC instead of iOS 19iOS 26 could be launched at WWDC instead of iOS 19

Apple's numbering system is fairly straightforward, with the version number going up each year like clockwork. However, that may not be the case this fall, as Apple allegedly plans to overhaul its naming system.

According to sources of Bloomberg on Wednesday, Apple will be switching to a year-based naming system for its operating systems. Instead of iOS 19, it will be iOS 26, referencing the approaching year of 2026 that will arrive months after the usual fall OS updates.

Subscribe to AppleInsider on YouTube

The name change will apparently apply to all of Apple's mainline operating systems, including iPadOS 26, macOS 26, watchOS 26, tvOS 26, and visionOS 26.

Apple is anticipated to announce the numbering update during the WWDC keynote on June 9.

Demystified versions

The change is said to be intended to bring consistency to the branding and numbering. The current version-based numbering system varies between platforms, simply because they were released at different times.

That has put us into a situation where the current main version numbers for Apple's operating systems are iOS 18, iPadOS 18, tvOS 18, watchOS 11, macOS 15, and visionOS 2.

By going for the year ahead, Apple's following the precedent of other companies by leaning on the year as the identifier. For example, Samsung's Galaxy S range or the FIFA soccer game franchise.

By using the year and the same number across all operating systems, Apple may simplify discussions about operating systems, without forcing users to remember which version was released in which year.

This is not the first time Apple has considered a simplification of version numbers. OS X went from version 10.0 Cheetah to macOS 10.15 Catalina between 2001 and 2019, before eventually reaching macOS 11 Big Sur in 2020 and switching to bigger annual jumps.

It remains unknown whether Apple will continue to use the extra name convention for macOS, or eliminate that and the obligatory WWDC running joke as part of the update.

While the sudden jump in number may seem unsettling at this time, it's still nowhere near as confusing as Microsoft's Windows naming strategy.

After versions 1, 2, and 3, Microsoft briefly jumped to a year-based system for 95, 98, 2000, and Me, before XP and Vista. After that came Windows 7 and 8, and then 9 was skipped in favor of Windows 10 and 11.



Read on AppleInsider

ofer

I like it! Totally makes sense in order to create consistency across the different product OS systems.

kbuffett

iPad nomenclature is a complete joke.

And this seems a non event really. Who really cares as most people just run the latest version.

brianus

Good. It has always annoyed me that macOS switched to 11.0 after 10.15.. not only did it seem totally random, it makes it hard to remember which number follows which (I had to look up what the last 10.x release was). If they had switched to 11.0 after 10.10 that would have made much more sense. 10.8 (8th revision of Mac OS X), 10.9 (9th), 10.10 (10th), 11.0 (11th), 12.0 (12th), etc.

Worse, doing it in 2020, when iOS was hitting version 14, made it seem like macOS was “younger” than iOS, and in any event it’s hard to recall which iOS goes with which macOS based on number alone. 

This is kinda like how they name cars. “The new 2026 Ford Ginecticazoink…”. Given all their OSes are on a yearly cycle and have been for like a decade or more, this makes a lot of sense.

skippingrock

Oh because it makes a difference how? 

Just because Microsoft did it, why does Apple?

this is just Windows 95 thinking. 

No value. 

netrox

Yes, all software companies should release software based on the year, month, and day, just like MacOS 26.1.4.

When the year 2100 arrives, it will be known as macOS 126.1.4.

This approach is highly consistent, semantic, and clear.

While programmers implement this internally, we must also demonstrate it externally to avoid confusion among consumers regarding the version of software being used.

godofbiscuitssf

I bet it’s iOS 27.   They’d have learned from car companies and every other yearly-release product company by now. 

godofbiscuitssf

skippingrock said:

Oh because it makes a difference how? 

Just because Microsoft did it, why does Apple?

this is just Windows 95 thinking. 

No value. 

There’s some value.  The longer the current naming scheme goes on, the closer the two numbers become, proportionally.  And when they’re in the same decade again, it’ll just feel like a 6 year old OS version name, regardless.  

xed

skippingrock said:

Oh because it makes a difference how? 

Just because Microsoft did it, why does Apple?

this is just Windows 95 thinking. 

No value. 

I see value. There are too many versions at this point that I am not always 100% certain I know which OS number is the latest. I'd like it to be the year it was released for all of their OSes so there's no guesswork involved at all.

edited May 28

kbuffett

I guess when iPhone 11,12,13,14,15 & 16 are practically the same, you’ve got to think of something h to take users interest.

i genuinely wouldn’t know or care what software version I am using on any device. With security vulnerabilities the way they are, it’s prudent to update as soon as possible

sitime

So it’s going to be “iOS 26” and not “iOS 25”? Going to make it less-confusing by naming it one calendar year ahead of the actual year (car model year style)? If so, that’s fine. I’ll adjust. But doing it this way is slightly more-confusing than it needs to be. Naming it based on the actual year would have been… but whatever. Just need to remember that the actual year of release is: OS Number - 1. 

misterkit

I get the consistency part but I really wish they weren't so locked into an every year new version mindset. It would be better to get things right before forcing out a new version.

xed

SiTime said:

So it’s going to be “iOS 26” and not “iOS 25”? Going to make it less-confusing by naming it one calendar year ahead of the actual year (car model year style)? If so, that’s fine. I’ll adjust. But doing it this way is slightly more-confusing than it needs to be. Naming it based on the actual year would have been… but whatever. Just need to remember that the actual year of release is: OS Number - 1. 

I hadn't picked up on that. Naming it iOS 26 in the year 2025 does seem like a misstep if Apple goes that route.

wesley_hilliard

Xed said:

SiTime said:

So it’s going to be “iOS 26” and not “iOS 25”? Going to make it less-confusing by naming it one calendar year ahead of the actual year (car model year style)? If so, that’s fine. I’ll adjust. But doing it this way is slightly more-confusing than it needs to be. Naming it based on the actual year would have been… but whatever. Just need to remember that the actual year of release is: OS Number - 1. 

I hadn't picked up on that. Naming it iOS 26 in the year 2025 does seem like a misstep if Apple goes that route.

The problem Apple faces, the same problem as car manufacturers, is that the name iOS 25 is great for three months, then suddenly it sounds old and outdated for nine months until iOS 26 arrives.

It is better to be ahead for a couple of months than behind for nine. Also, iOS 26 won't be out until about a week before October, which is the beginning of the FY26. It works.

marcotor949

netrox said:

This approach is highly consistent, semantic, and clear.

Not to people in the world who use Month, Date, Year. 

sitime

Wesley_Hilliard said:

Xed said:

SiTime said:

So it’s going to be “iOS 26” and not “iOS 25”? Going to make it less-confusing by naming it one calendar year ahead of the actual year (car model year style)? If so, that’s fine. I’ll adjust. But doing it this way is slightly more-confusing than it needs to be. Naming it based on the actual year would have been… but whatever. Just need to remember that the actual year of release is: OS Number - 1. 

I hadn't picked up on that. Naming it iOS 26 in the year 2025 does seem like a misstep if Apple goes that route.

The problem Apple faces, the same problem as car manufacturers, is that the name iOS 25 is great for three months, then suddenly it sounds old and outdated for nine months until iOS 26 arrives.

It is better to be ahead for a couple of months than behind for nine. Also, iOS 26 won't be out until about a week before October, which is the beginning of the FY26. It works.

I understand the reasoning. It’s just a little funny that Apple is supposedly doing this to make it less confusing, but at the same time want to add a layer of confusion for marketing reason.

cybertopian

Should have been version 2026, 26 wil create a century problem. Didn't they learn anything of the millennium bug?

edited May 28

timewarp

The new iOS, iPadOS, macOS, watchOS numbering scheme will align with Apple's fiscal year accounting, which also mirrors the US government's fiscal year. So 2026 for Apple accounting starts on 1 October 2025 and ends on 30 September 2026. 

xed

cybertopian said:

Should have been version 2026, 26 wil create a century problem. Didn't they learn anything of the millennium bug?

They can always go with hexadecimal for up 256 years without issue. E.g.: iOS 0x1A

afarstar

They might as well change iPhone and iPad numbering too. They missed iPhone 9 out altogether so iPhone 26 would make sense. 

macgui

I like it. I don't often need to know what OS was released when but this makes it easy. What Apple does in 2100 won't concern me in the slightest. If anyone is old enough to remember The Grass Roots...