Wow, didn't think my little list would cause such a debate!
I don't see how the concept can't be clear to anyone. A 5th generation piece of hardware exists already. Apple calls it the iPhone 4S. It also seems clear that they've decided to let a primary body design carry across 2 hardware generations, using the "S" to distinguish between them.
When a new phone is released in 2012 or 2013, it will be a 6th generation piece of hardware. There is nothing in its generation or its hardware/processor/cell tech that will indicate a "5". So why on earth would Apple name it as such?
Based on previous patterns, I would fully expect the next iPhone to have a significantly different exterior than the 4 and 4S. The one after that (7th gen hardware) will probably have an "S" on it's name.
I'm not claiming to know that Apple will definitately call it the "iPhone 6". The only thing I'm sure of is that it will definitely NOT be the "iPhone 5". Sure, it could possibly be the iPhone LTE, air, or whatever.
To claim that the iPhone 4 was a mere coincidence in the naming scheme is, to me, totally absurd.
I can't wait to revisit this thread once said phone is released to see what reaction/response melgross has.
The only people who care about the numbering system are the asbergerish internet groupies for Apple, or some of them.
Nobody else is counting. Everybody else on the planet expects the next phone to be a 5, as the present phone is 4.X model.
If they dont keep the numbering system - which they may not, it is all moot. But if they do keep the numbering system they will call the next phone the iPhone 5. Because to most people, people without the nebbishness of internet addicts, the next phone is a 5.
It's a marketing term. If there is an Model 3 Acme, followed by a Model 3S acme, the next big change is a Model 4 Acme. There are probably plenty of examples of this in product history.
Whats not happening in any of Apple's releases is a count. There was no 2. There was no 3. The 4 coincidentally was the 4th release, but it could have been the 3rd release if they had not bother with the 3GS or had used a new design for that release cycle. ( Remember the 2 is missing).
Conversely if Apple had released another 3G branded phone with the same design - a 3GS+ model, then the next phone with a change to the design would have been an iPhone 4.
*The 5 on the slide does the explosion effect; a 6 shows up in its place. Tim Cook's smiling from ear to ear*
iPhone 2G, 3G, 3GS, 4, 4S...
6 doesn't fit the pattern. When the numbers go too high, it starts to look bad. Like The Simpsons season 23. You just feel like they've had a long run and it's time to move on.
The good thing about numbering is you know what the latest model is. Most people wouldn't know if a Galaxy S is newer or older than a Nexus or an Evo but usually too many numbered sequels are bad as it looks like an iteration rather than something innovative.
They can't use the same number three times so it has to go 5, 5S, 6, 6S or some variation of that.
If they decide to move the phone components outside of the device and sell iPods, they can even rebrand the entire device. One day communication by data has to overtake calls as it's flat-fee worldwide and you don't need phone numbers. Just put the cell parts in a bumper/sled and let it die out gradually, sell the exact same models of iPod Touch everywhere in the world unlocked. Carriers can still offer you a contract but there are other options.
Whatever the next device is, there's no question it will be a hot item. People generally like new designs more than faster performance and it is the last device Steve Jobs worked on - I suspect some people mistakingly bought the iPhone 4S for this reason, not realising how product cycles work.
2) The pattern has been either to note the cellular generation or device generation, with an 'S' added when the performance increased while the casing remained mostly unaltered.
3) I don't think anyone is arguing that it will be iPhone 6, only that so much is either 3rd/4th generation (cellular) or 6th generation (device) and that "5" fits none of these previous naming conventions squarely placed on the generation.
Can you give me any explanation for why "iPhone 5" makes any sense using any criteria pertaining to ANY aspect of the device?
Playing devils advocate here: how about year number 5?
I know, 2007-2012 counts like 6, but if you count it as in 'summer 2007 the first iPhone that was released, so summer 2008 it existed 1 year' you'll get to year #5 for this years' iPhone. That is, if there's a new iPhone. We don't know, just like we don't know if there'll be an iOS6 this year, or an A6 processor for that matter.
But skip all that crap; I thing your (and Solipsisms') points are valid. Through this whole thread, and all previous ones on the numbering.
Can you give me any explanation for why "iPhone 5" makes any sense using any criteria pertaining to ANY aspect of the device?
And can you give me any explanation for why iPhone 6 does NOT make sense, given that it will be the 6th iPhone, run iOS 6 and have an A6 processor?
It will confuse people as it leaves a number gap between the 4S and 6. People will wonder where the iPhone 5 went - it's not such a huge problem with the first one as it really didn't have an official number - Apple calls it iPhone (Original) and people have assigned it the name 2G due to it lacking 3G and only having EDGE. The A6 doesn't matter for naming because the 4S has an A5 chip in it and is the 5th phone.
One thing I do find curious is the lack of an update for the iPod Touch:
If they decide to merge the iPhone and iPod lines in some way, it will be a 5th gen iPod. There's perhaps not an elegant enough solution to do this but I really dislike standard cell networks.
SMS/MMS is old hat in a world of email and Twitter.
Calling by number is like visiting web pages by IP address - yes that's what address books are for but it shouldn't be the user's job to maintain this. When you go into a shop or service and they ask for a contact number and email address, it's far easier to give them your email address than your number because a number is not something that we immediately identify with as they have no inherent association.
As it turned out, Apple originally wanted to run their own network separate from carriers using wifi. With iMessage, FaceTime, Twitter integration and other services like Google Voice, BBM and Skype (bought by Microsoft), it's clear we are heading for a data-pipe communication network. The carriers will resist it but they will have no choice but to play along.
By externalising the cell parts of the iPhone, it means people can buy a call-capable device without a contract anywhere in the world, fully unlocked. Just plug in a sled from a carrier to get calling ability or LTE. It encourages use of data-only services, which benefits iPad users. It makes it easy to sell/upgrade your device without dealing with the carrier.
It will confuse people as it leaves a number gap between the 4S and 6.
People weren't confused by the gap between the iPhone and the iPhone 3G. I already went over that. People assumed iPhone 2, they were completely wrong, and so they transitioned smoothly into iPhone 3G.
Quote:
The A6 doesn't matter for naming because the 4S has an A5 chip in it and is the 5th phone.
Just like the A4 didn't matter for naming because 4 had an A4 chip and was the 4th phone running iOS 4.
People weren't confused by the gap between the iPhone and the iPhone 3G. I already went over that. People assumed iPhone 2, they were completely wrong, and so they transitioned smoothly into iPhone 3G.
Just like the A4 didn't matter for naming because 4 had an A4 chip and was the 4th phone running iOS 4.
3G is meaningless to consumers. They see 3, they think third. That's THEIR argument, so don't try to refute it unless you plan to admit that iPhone 5 is completely nonsensical.
I'll ask YOU now: Can you give me ONE reason "iPhone 5" makes any sense using any logical criteria? Can you give me ONE reason "iPhone 6" does NOT make sense using any logical criteria.
Remember, the next iPhone won't be the 5th iPhone, won't have 5G telephony, won't have an A5 chip and won't run iOS 5.
But it will be the 6th iPhone, have an A6 chip, and run iOS 6.
Comments
You can't tell me the 4S is in any way more physically appealing than the 4 because of those minute changes.
It is to people with OCD (the antenna bands are symmetrical now)!
I don't see how the concept can't be clear to anyone. A 5th generation piece of hardware exists already. Apple calls it the iPhone 4S. It also seems clear that they've decided to let a primary body design carry across 2 hardware generations, using the "S" to distinguish between them.
When a new phone is released in 2012 or 2013, it will be a 6th generation piece of hardware. There is nothing in its generation or its hardware/processor/cell tech that will indicate a "5". So why on earth would Apple name it as such?
Based on previous patterns, I would fully expect the next iPhone to have a significantly different exterior than the 4 and 4S. The one after that (7th gen hardware) will probably have an "S" on it's name.
I'm not claiming to know that Apple will definitately call it the "iPhone 6". The only thing I'm sure of is that it will definitely NOT be the "iPhone 5". Sure, it could possibly be the iPhone LTE, air, or whatever.
To claim that the iPhone 4 was a mere coincidence in the naming scheme is, to me, totally absurd.
I can't wait to revisit this thread once said phone is released to see what reaction/response melgross has.
Nobody else is counting. Everybody else on the planet expects the next phone to be a 5, as the present phone is 4.X model.
If they dont keep the numbering system - which they may not, it is all moot. But if they do keep the numbering system they will call the next phone the iPhone 5. Because to most people, people without the nebbishness of internet addicts, the next phone is a 5.
It's a marketing term. If there is an Model 3 Acme, followed by a Model 3S acme, the next big change is a Model 4 Acme. There are probably plenty of examples of this in product history.
Whats not happening in any of Apple's releases is a count. There was no 2. There was no 3. The 4 coincidentally was the 4th release, but it could have been the 3rd release if they had not bother with the 3GS or had used a new design for that release cycle. ( Remember the 2 is missing).
Conversely if Apple had released another 3G branded phone with the same design - a 3GS+ model, then the next phone with a change to the design would have been an iPhone 4.
I can't wait to revisit this thread once said phone is released to see what reaction?
At this point, do you know what I want Apple to do?
*Tim Cook's on stage*
"So that's our new iPhone. And we're calling it?"
*moves to next slide, containing only?*
"iPhone 5."
*Huge murmur from everyone in the audience. Either laughing, protesting, or just in shock*
"Heh, no. iPhone 6."
*The 5 on the slide does the explosion effect; a 6 shows up in its place. Tim Cook's smiling from ear to ear*
*The 5 on the slide does the explosion effect; a 6 shows up in its place. Tim Cook's smiling from ear to ear*
iPhone 2G, 3G, 3GS, 4, 4S...
6 doesn't fit the pattern. When the numbers go too high, it starts to look bad. Like The Simpsons season 23. You just feel like they've had a long run and it's time to move on.
The good thing about numbering is you know what the latest model is. Most people wouldn't know if a Galaxy S is newer or older than a Nexus or an Evo but usually too many numbered sequels are bad as it looks like an iteration rather than something innovative.
They can't use the same number three times so it has to go 5, 5S, 6, 6S or some variation of that.
If they decide to move the phone components outside of the device and sell iPods, they can even rebrand the entire device. One day communication by data has to overtake calls as it's flat-fee worldwide and you don't need phone numbers. Just put the cell parts in a bumper/sled and let it die out gradually, sell the exact same models of iPod Touch everywhere in the world unlocked. Carriers can still offer you a contract but there are other options.
Whatever the next device is, there's no question it will be a hot item. People generally like new designs more than faster performance and it is the last device Steve Jobs worked on - I suspect some people mistakingly bought the iPhone 4S for this reason, not realising how product cycles work.
6 doesn't fit the pattern.
At least it makes sense. Unlike 5.
They can't use the same number three times so it has to go 5, 5S, 6, 6S or some variation of that.
Okay, I'll ask you since we're cycling through all the mods that start with 'M', apparently:
Can you give me any explanation for why "iPhone 5" makes any sense using any criteria pertaining to ANY aspect of the device?
And can you give me any explanation for why iPhone 6 does NOT make sense, given that it will be the 6th iPhone, run iOS 6 and have an A6 processor?
iPhone 2G, 3G, 3GS, 4, 4S...
6 doesn't fit the pattern.
1) There was no device called the iPhone 2G.
2) The pattern has been either to note the cellular generation or device generation, with an 'S' added when the performance increased while the casing remained mostly unaltered.
3) I don't think anyone is arguing that it will be iPhone 6, only that so much is either 3rd/4th generation (cellular) or 6th generation (device) and that "5" fits none of these previous naming conventions squarely placed on the generation.
3) I don't think anyone is arguing that it will be iPhone 6
I'm gunning for it, but that's just personal preference.
Who knows; they could just milk the number 4 again and call it the iPhone 4G.
I'm gunning for it, but that's just personal preference.
Who knows; they could just milk the number 4 again and call it the iPhone 4G.
So there is at least one. I'd think 4G or LTE is better for marketing.
So there is at least one. I'd think 4G or LTE is better for marketing.
Except in every other country, though.
Except in every other country, though.
There are plenty that are without LTE, aren't there?
There are plenty that are without LTE, aren't there?
And many in the EU. I think it would actually be impossible to sell an "iPhone LTE" in those countries due to the false advertising laws?
There are plenty that are without LTE, aren't there?
At least 5. Oops, that number can't be right.
Can you give me any explanation for why "iPhone 5" makes any sense using any criteria pertaining to ANY aspect of the device?
Playing devils advocate here: how about year number 5?
I know, 2007-2012 counts like 6, but if you count it as in 'summer 2007 the first iPhone that was released, so summer 2008 it existed 1 year' you'll get to year #5 for this years' iPhone. That is, if there's a new iPhone. We don't know, just like we don't know if there'll be an iOS6 this year, or an A6 processor for that matter.
But skip all that crap; I thing your (and Solipsisms') points are valid. Through this whole thread, and all previous ones on the numbering.
And many in the EU. I think it would actually be impossible to sell an "iPhone LTE" in those countries due to the false advertising laws?
According to wikipedia (I know, but easier & better than googling something):
Countries with commercial LTE service (as of January 2012):
Armenia
Austria
Australia
Bahrain
Belarus
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Hong Kong
Hungary
Japan
Korea, South
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Philippines
Norway
Poland
Puerto Rico
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Spain
Sweden
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
United States
Uzbekistan
Can you give me any explanation for why "iPhone 5" makes any sense using any criteria pertaining to ANY aspect of the device?
And can you give me any explanation for why iPhone 6 does NOT make sense, given that it will be the 6th iPhone, run iOS 6 and have an A6 processor?
It will confuse people as it leaves a number gap between the 4S and 6. People will wonder where the iPhone 5 went - it's not such a huge problem with the first one as it really didn't have an official number - Apple calls it iPhone (Original) and people have assigned it the name 2G due to it lacking 3G and only having EDGE. The A6 doesn't matter for naming because the 4S has an A5 chip in it and is the 5th phone.
One thing I do find curious is the lack of an update for the iPod Touch:
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/20/...hanges-if-any/
If they decide to merge the iPhone and iPod lines in some way, it will be a 5th gen iPod. There's perhaps not an elegant enough solution to do this but I really dislike standard cell networks.
SMS/MMS is old hat in a world of email and Twitter.
Calling by number is like visiting web pages by IP address - yes that's what address books are for but it shouldn't be the user's job to maintain this. When you go into a shop or service and they ask for a contact number and email address, it's far easier to give them your email address than your number because a number is not something that we immediately identify with as they have no inherent association.
As it turned out, Apple originally wanted to run their own network separate from carriers using wifi. With iMessage, FaceTime, Twitter integration and other services like Google Voice, BBM and Skype (bought by Microsoft), it's clear we are heading for a data-pipe communication network. The carriers will resist it but they will have no choice but to play along.
By externalising the cell parts of the iPhone, it means people can buy a call-capable device without a contract anywhere in the world, fully unlocked. Just plug in a sled from a carrier to get calling ability or LTE. It encourages use of data-only services, which benefits iPad users. It makes it easy to sell/upgrade your device without dealing with the carrier.
It will confuse people as it leaves a number gap between the 4S and 6.
People weren't confused by the gap between the iPhone and the iPhone 3G. I already went over that. People assumed iPhone 2, they were completely wrong, and so they transitioned smoothly into iPhone 3G.
The A6 doesn't matter for naming because the 4S has an A5 chip in it and is the 5th phone.
Just like the A4 didn't matter for naming because 4 had an A4 chip and was the 4th phone running iOS 4.
People weren't confused by the gap between the iPhone and the iPhone 3G. I already went over that. People assumed iPhone 2, they were completely wrong, and so they transitioned smoothly into iPhone 3G.
Just like the A4 didn't matter for naming because 4 had an A4 chip and was the 4th phone running iOS 4.
The 3G is not a number. 6 is. Give it up.
The 3G is not a number. 6 is. Give it up.
No. I'd rather be the last sane man in the room.
3G is meaningless to consumers. They see 3, they think third. That's THEIR argument, so don't try to refute it unless you plan to admit that iPhone 5 is completely nonsensical.
I'll ask YOU now: Can you give me ONE reason "iPhone 5" makes any sense using any logical criteria? Can you give me ONE reason "iPhone 6" does NOT make sense using any logical criteria.
Remember, the next iPhone won't be the 5th iPhone, won't have 5G telephony, won't have an A5 chip and won't run iOS 5.
But it will be the 6th iPhone, have an A6 chip, and run iOS 6.
There was no iPhone 2G.
There was no iPhone 2S.
There was no iPhone 3.
Apparently Apple will skip a number when the generation of the device or a component don't make sense for a consecutive increase.
The 3G is not a number. 6 is. Give it up.
What? Sounds like you are implying that the iPhone nomenclature can't have a letter after it or that there was no 3G iPhone. Either way both exist.