Apple Will Announce iOS 26 at WWDC, Not iOS 19 (9to5mac.com) 58
According to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman (paywalled), this year's iOS update won't be called iOS 19. "Instead, Apple is planning to call it 'iOS 26' as part of a new year-based naming strategy," reports 9to5Mac. The new naming scheme will apply to all of Apple's software platforms. From the report: Bloomberg explains that Apple is making this change to "bring consistency to its branding and move away from an approach that can be confusing to customers and developers." The branding alignment comes as Apple is also reportedly planning dramatic redesigns for all of its platforms. The goal seems to be to unify everything both in terms of naming and design.
Meh, I'll hold out for iOS Vista (Score:5, Funny)
n/t
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. We've been here before. It was stupid then and it's stupid now since it requires an artificial development schedule to declare a 2026 version and a 2027 version and so on of the operating system. I suppose though that we have gotten to the point where there's no longer much in the way of meaningful major changes between these OS versions, so they can just arbitrarily declare some build number to be 2026 or 2027 or whatever. There will still surely be a real build number with major and minor revisio
Re: (Score:2)
... it requires an artificial development schedule to declare a 2026 version and a 2027 version and so on...
Apple already releases operating system versions annually, so renumbering won't change anything. They haven't skipped a year for macOS (variously called Mac OS X or OS X) since 2010, and they've never skipped a year for iOS.
Re: (Score:2)
They should move to less-frequent releases that actually correspond to major structural and API changes, not petty feature additions. They could have a "real" version/build number internally, and use the year-based version for marketing purposes.
Re: Meh, I'll hold out for iOS Vista (Score:2)
Theyâ(TM)ve been releasing a new version of each OS every year for a while now. Do you think theyâ(TM)ll be incapable of continuing?
My guess is that this will allow them to unify the version numbers across all their OSes as well as making it easier to align product roadmaps with the calendar.
Re: (Score:2)
Theyâ(TM)ve been releasing a new version of each OS every year for a while now. Do you think theyâ(TM)ll be incapable of continuing?
No, I just don't think that their different operating system versions are true major revisions. They're just frozen sets of features without any actual major changes in the OS.
My guess is that this will allow them to unify the version numbers across all their OSes as well as making it easier to align product roadmaps with the calendar.
My guess is that their developers are sighing, shrugging their shoulders and saying "Well, if the market weasels want it, we'll do it. Doesn't really affect much in the long run.".
This won't make it easier to do anything. It won't make it harder either. It's mostly going to be marketing using the same reasoning that Microsoft used bac
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, iOS NT 4.0 will be the best one.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but iOS NT 3.5 will be the most secure.
Re: (Score:2)
When do they throw out the microkernel so that the graphics driver can run in ring 0?
Re: (Score:3)
n/t
I see what you did there..
Apple going back to the classics? (Score:2)
More version number confusion (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft Windows initially adopted a pretty sane version numbering scheme. Everything was fine up to Windows 3.11, then suddenly we were at Windows 95, followed by Windows 98, a bewildering Windows 98 SE (Second Edition), Windows Millennium Edition (designed to conflict with Windows 2000, its NT cousin?).
What a mess! What was so great about 1995?
But under the hood, the major version numbers were still ticking over. Windows 95/98/Me = Version 4, Windows XP = Version 5, Windows Vista = Version 6, and then back to numbers again with Windows 7, and the list is soon to supplemented by Windows 8. But wait! Under the covers Windows 7 is actually Windows version 6.1. That makes no sense. I mean it really doesnÃ(TM)t. Apparently the reason for this is to allow software that checks for compatibility to run correctly. Specifically, software written to run in Vista will run in Windows 7. This is stupid. Windows 8 is version 6.2! Windows 9 was skipped altogether because it would interfere with version checks that already looked for Windows 95 and Windows 98.
Windows 10 has the major version number "10". Back to sanity.
But wait! Windows 11 has the major version number "10", as well!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Microsoft tried this already and ended up going back to version numbers. Kind of reminds me of how Pepsi completely ignored the history of its competitor changing the formula of their signature product and facing significant backlash, went right ahead and changed the sweetener in Diet Pepsi. As anyone with half a brain could've predicted, people hated the new Diet Pepsi, and about a year later Pepsi rolled back the change.
Seems like it's just the corporate version of "those who fail to learn from hi
Re: More version number confusion (Score:2)
Pepsi sucks no matter what they sweeten it with.
Re: (Score:1)
Except Windows XP wasn't version 5 - it was version 5.1 (or if it was the x64 edition, it was version 5.2), while version 5.0 was Windows 2000. And 95/98/Me don't even belong in that list since they were "Win9x" (versions 4.0, 4.1, and 4.9), a separate product line which was completely abandoned when Windows XP came out - the real
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing version numbers with product names
Re: (Score:2)
But wait! Windows 11 has the major version number "10", as well!
There was a technical reason for that. Too many programmers are stupid. Too many programmers use
if (OSVERSIONINFOA.dwMajorVersion == 10) work;
else don't work;
As far as applications were concerned there weren't actually any significant changes to target in Windows 11. The underlying API remained the same so the path of least broken shit for the user is to continue reporting 10. That's the same for Windows 7. It had the same fundamental API and support as Windows Vista did, which is why it was reported at 6.1
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I prefer the major version number, minor version number, release/build pattern. That way you can know that a major release has some big changes. With years, it's just an excuse to trickle out updates on a yearly basis, with no guidelines about what will no longer work or be supported. Major version numbers give you that. Versions named after years has an awful history (looking at you, Microsoft). At least it's better than naming them after things (looking at you Apple).
The latest macOS is named "macOS Sequoia" but mostly of the time is listed as macOS 15 Sequoia with the most recent minor release 15.5 with the previous release as 15.4.1.
Re: (Score:2)
All of the Apple operating systems have a more granular build number that changes for alphas, betas, and release candidates too. Looked at my version details on my iPhone and it's iOS 18.5 (22F76). I'm sure iOS 26 will end up having a build number that starts with 23.
19? It goes to 26... (Score:2)
Well, it's 7 better, innit.
Apple got nothing.
iOS will have a problem in 100 years (Score:1)
Re: iOS will have a problem in 100 years (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a motorcycle shop in my town where the date on receipts is "1925". If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Re: iOS will have a problem in 100 years (Score:2)
I dunno, a 100-year error seems pretty broken to me.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no real downsides to saying the 2026 version is 26 and the 2126 version is 126. It's just [year - 2000]; you can even imagine this is release 026 rather than 26. Personally I'd worry more about what happens in the year 3000 when they have to release version 1000.
Moreover—these are just version numbers, imitative of dates, rather than actual date fields. It's not like someone is going to be charged for unpaid bills because their iOS version number was accidentally parsed as being in the past.
IOS 26 in 2025? (Score:4, Insightful)
Covid 19 avoidance (Score:2)
C:\ONGRTLNS.W95 (Score:2)
Congratulations, Windows^h^h^h^h^h^h^h iOS 2026.
Ah yes (Score:2, Troll)
Apple continues to get stupider by the day. Switch from one numbered naming scheme to a different numbered naming scheme that ultimately will use all the same numbers the original would have also used to the benefit of no one.
If a malware would come in and remotely corrupt every Apple device in existence, the world would be a better place.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't notice that Ubuntu and LibreOffice have already changed to year based releases?
MS Office 2019 is still available but the new version seems to be 2024. For that matter wasn't there a Windows 24H2?
Apple has so many gadgets running so many different version numbers I can see their point.
Re: (Score:1)
You didn't notice that Ubuntu and LibreOffice have already changed to year based releases?
Ubuntu and LibreOffice both suck independently already, so who cares?
MS Office 2019 is still available but the new version seems to be 2024.
Microsoft doesn't release a new version every year. Every year does not automatically mean that a major version change is necessary. Including the year in a minor portion of the version code, makes sense. Changing the major version to match the year for what ends up as a minor update is dumb as fuck.
For that matter wasn't there a Windows 24H2?
Yeah. And it's an update, not a new major version. Not technically, but essentially, reads as 'Windows 11.24H2' - Windows 11 with the update f
Condemned to repeat marketing mistakes of the past (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to really repeat marketing mistakes just wait for "The iOS" to come out. Followed by "iOS" (in 2029).
Wait wait wait.. wait... (Score:2)
Wait wait wait.. wait..
Lemme get this straight -- Microsoft abandons year-based verison numbers like 2 decades ago, and then Apple starts calling things Pro and Max.
10 years later Dell starts doing the same with their hardware. Pro this and Pro Max that.
And now *Apple* is going to the long-defunct year version number?
We're definitely in 2025 B or something. I think the timeline diverged in 2008. Someone got the time car in 2008, went to some other year, and made it so 2025 would be .. this.
Nothing makes
Re: (Score:3)
Wait wait wait.. wait..
Lemme get this straight -- Microsoft abandons year-based verison numbers like 2 decades ago...
Did they though? Now excuse me, I need to install SQL 2022 on my WIndows 2025 Server then update my Exchange 2019 server with the latest CU.
Sent from my Windows 11 24H2 PC
Re: (Score:2)
They've been moving to a model where the number in the product name reflects when you pay for it, thus Microsoft 365, which you pay for every day.
Oh Great (Score:2)
Just when we finally got rid of the plethora of idiotic "also known as Twitter" tags (like we really needed to be reminded... sheesh),
now we're going to get drowned in "iOS26 (also known as iOS19)" tags.
Arrrrrrgh.
Century Edition (Score:3)
Will the release in 2100 be called iOS 100 or iOS Zero?
Re: (Score:2)
We already had Y2K. Seems dumb to create any so called standard limited to a 100 year lifespan.
Re: (Score:1)
If iOS 0 for 2100, I wouldn't want to deal with bugs in the upgrader code :-)
Re: (Score:2)
This. You know a lot of tech from the 60s and 70s is still chugging along (I know a guy who makes more than I ever will because he know his way around VAX)
We already had Y2K. Seems dumb to create any so called standard limited to a 100 year lifespan.
He's just creating work for his great-grand children and those lucrative Y2.1K contracts.
A Y2.1K error is someone else's problem. (Score:2)
Will the release in 2100 be called iOS 100 or iOS Zero?
A Y2.1K error is some other management team's problem. We can put off dealing with this for at least 70 years. :-)
And the machines will cost 26% more (Score:2)
25% for Trumps tariffs + 1% for extra profit
Sigh (Score:2)
Here we go again.
When they realise that they can't sell anything with an iOS that isn't dated "this year", they'll revert back to some other weird naming scheme like "Millenium" (then realise it has the same problem, "XP" (and produce half a dozen spinoffs with different monikers), "Vista" (then realise that name is tainted forever), then go back to some numerical sequence starting at a random number ("10").
Unavoidable: numbers will match in 2180 anyway (Score:2)
From iOS 1 to 18 there have been 1.045 releases per year
Simple linear equation (2025 + x = 2018 + x * 1.045): they will meet in 2180! We could just wait ;-)
Total major releases: 18 (iOS 1.0 through iOS 18.0) Time span: From June 29, 2007 (iOS 1.0) to September 16, 2024 (iOS 18.0) Duration: 17.22 years Rate: 18 releases ÷ 17.22 years = 1.045 releases per year
Shouldn't Use Year Version Numbers (Score:2)
If companies use year numbers for versions, you end up in a situation like mine where you are upgrading to *cough* SQL Server 2022 and it's already 2025, which I find personally embarrassing explaining to users :-)
(Work for a large financial institution that takes a while to certify "new" versions for production use)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference here being that something like 95% of active iOS devices are running either iOS 17 or 18. The vast majority of their customers are staying within a version of current, not waiting years to upgrade.
And when they do update, there's no way (that I know) to upgrade to an old version of iOS - you'll always be upgrading to a version number corresponding to this year or next.
This is Apple following Samsung (Score:2)
I am surprised that no one else has mentioned that Samsung had done this years ago. Samsung went from the Galaxy S10 to the S20(which came out in 2020, the S10 came out in 2019). This was entirely about marketing in the competition between Samsung and Apple, but it worked. So, S25 is the phone that launched this year, the S26 will come out next year.
In the year 2099... (Score:2)
iOS goes back to basics with version 1.
Or will Apple jump to version 2101?
Poor Microsoft (Score:1)