They might as well change iPhone and iPad numbering too. They missed iPhone 9 out altogether so iPhone 26 would make sense.
The rumor I read yesterday says exactly that. iPad 26, MacBook Pro 26, iPhone 26.
So the current products would be: MacBook Air M4 13=> MacBook Air 25 13 AirPods Max => AirPods Max 20 HomePod => HomePod 17bis iPad Pro 24, iPad Air 25, iPad 25.... 3 different processors. 25 is less than 24 but better than 25.
Perhaps for iPhone but the current naming is mostly OK.
That's not how it would go and I offer that thought directly from what Apple is doing now. Go to Apple's website > Mac tab. See any model numbers? Now scroll down to Macbook Air (as just one example) and open the product page. Does Apple call it a Macbook Air M4? Nope. It's just Macbook Air, same as it has ever been, with the M4 chip listed in the product description along with other specs. Now go to the iPad tab, where you'll also see just model names and click on iPad Pro to open the product page. Does Apple call it the iPad Pro M4? Nope. Just iPad Pro with the M4 chip listed in the product description. This kind of simple clarity in product naming isn't hard or confusing to consumers--Apple has been doing it for decades with most of its main products but, for reasons unknown, believes that iPhones and a few other products need numbers in addition to model names.
They might as well change iPhone and iPad numbering too. They missed iPhone 9 out altogether so iPhone 26 would make sense.
The rumor I read yesterday says exactly that. iPad 26, MacBook Pro 26, iPhone 26.
So the current products would be: MacBook Air M4 13=> MacBook Air 25 13 AirPods Max => AirPods Max 20 HomePod => HomePod 17bis iPad Pro 24, iPad Air 25, iPad 25.... 3 different processors. 25 is less than 24 but better than 25.
Perhaps for iPhone but the current naming is mostly OK.
That's not how it would go and I offer that thought directly from what Apple is doing now. Go to Apple's website > Mac tab. See any model numbers? Now scroll down to Macbook Air (as just one example) and open the product page. Does Apple call it a Macbook Air M4? Nope. It's just Macbook Air, same as it has ever been, with the M4 chip listed in the product description along with other specs. Now go to the iPad tab, where you'll also see just model names and click on iPad Pro to open the product page. Does Apple call it the iPad Pro M4? Nope. Just iPad Pro with the M4 chip listed in the product description. This kind of simple clarity in product naming isn't hard or confusing to consumers--Apple has been doing it for decades with most of its main products but, for reasons unknown, believes that iPhones and a few other products need numbers in addition to model names.
Right.
Macs have been referred to by year for many years now (e.g., MacBook Air (11 inch, mid 2012)). But Macs (and most of those other things) aren't thought of as recurring purchases (for most people) while iPhones are. That's why the version number is so much more important for iPhones. Someone might say "Get the new iPhone 16" and "Get the new MacBook Air." But now, if this rumor is true, they will say "Get the new iPhone 26" instead. Big deal.
Using the upcoming calendar year following the dev. Conf. Makes a lot of sense of sense to me. What happens if for some reason reasons following reveal at conf. They were choosing to delay in September. This gives Apple a deserved cushion in their shipping schedule. Bringing each platform into a unified scheme makes sense. Especially as they are potentially adding another platform. Home soon. Having home os1 sitting beside iOS 19 Mac OS 16 Vision os3 and for best compatibility mix the following makes little sense. Bring it on!
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.
Looks more like a way to root out leakers inside Apple, IMO.
it totally fails the smell test to me!
Let's not rush to conspiracy theories, especially when this has a solid basis in Logic (and history by others doing the same thing).
As if Apple has never tried to root out leakers before. And logic does not necessarily equate to truth. Plus, let me remind you it's a rumor until the time Apple announces the next OS versions on June 9th. I sincerely wish people would stop treating rumors as facts and start exercising some critical thinking. I don't mean to say I'm right, but rather wanted to voice my skepticism, that's all.
Looks more like a way to root out leakers inside Apple, IMO.
it totally fails the smell test to me!
Let's not rush to conspiracy theories, especially when this has a solid basis in Logic (and history by others doing the same thing).
As if Apple has never tried to root out leakers before. And logic does not necessarily equate to truth. Plus, let me remind you it's a rumor until the time Apple announces the next OS versions on June 9th. I sincerely wish people would stop treating rumors as facts and start exercising some critical thinking. I don't mean to say I'm right, but rather wanted to voice my skepticism, that's all.
Oh good god, up is down with your thinking. You jump to a conclusion that contradicts logic, and then you claim it's others who aren't using critical thinking. Your skepticism is the problem here.
Looks more like a way to root out leakers inside Apple, IMO.
it totally fails the smell test to me!
Let's not rush to conspiracy theories, especially when this has a solid basis in Logic (and history by others doing the same thing).
As if Apple has never tried to root out leakers before. And logic does not necessarily equate to truth. Plus, let me remind you it's a rumor until the time Apple announces the next OS versions on June 9th. I sincerely wish people would stop treating rumors as facts and start exercising some critical thinking. I don't mean to say I'm right, but rather wanted to voice my skepticism, that's all.
It's a rumor and labeled as such. No one is treating it as undeniable fact. Sources are telling us there's evidence of the 26 version numbering, so it's definitely possible that this is what Apple is planning. Critical thinking has nothing to do with this. There's nothing about this naming that suggests it's some kind of ploy to find leakers. There are better ways to do that.
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.
Well except all the developers information for os26 will be released at WWDC25 which has used the year branding basically since Apple started doing an event. There is all sorts of merch and marketing and various OS flavours will all be available for developers that day. All the materials and videos as features are released
imagine 5 years in to the new scheme and the documentation says first version 26
if they want neatness then 25 at wwdc 25 would make more sense
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.
The way this works for cars (although, there may have lately been some few exceptions) is that the model year is determined by the first January in which the car is sold. This makes perfect sense for any "versioning" system that is based on annual releases.
It also makes a lot of sense for Apple's OSs to align their version numbers. There is a lot of functionality that depends on various Apple devices being on the same release level, and year based versioning makes it simple to know whether that is the case or not.
Comments
Macs have been referred to by year for many years now (e.g., MacBook Air (11 inch, mid 2012)). But Macs (and most of those other things) aren't thought of as recurring purchases (for most people) while iPhones are. That's why the version number is so much more important for iPhones. Someone might say "Get the new iPhone 16" and "Get the new MacBook Air." But now, if this rumor is true, they will say "Get the new iPhone 26" instead. Big deal.
it totally fails the smell test to me!
BTW, welcome to the forum.
imagine 5 years in to the new scheme and the documentation says first version 26
if they want neatness then 25 at wwdc 25 would make more sense
It also makes a lot of sense for Apple's OSs to align their version numbers. There is a lot of functionality that depends on various Apple devices being on the same release level, and year based versioning makes it simple to know whether that is the case or not.