Hacker News Reader

Comment by swiftcoder | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, but traditionally Apple doesn't pull that weird naming shit. Although I guess the mobile naming scheme has been headed there for a while.

View on HN

All the people under you not understanding that you meant AMD repackaging 2-4 year old CPU cores as """new""" by giving them a current series name and bolting some extra features on.

The second iPhone was the 3g the third was the 3gs.

The second one was the first iPhone with 3G networking (which had broadly been considered a required feature for smartphones when the original iPhone was introduced without it.)

I won't try to defend the 3Gs ;)

At least the N, Ns naming scheme referred to straight-forward (albeit minor) upgrades, and were released a year apart...

Not to mention X and Xs.

And the fact that they skipped 9 and will likely skip iPhone 19 as well

Microsoft skipped Window 9 too.

Samsung skipped an entire range of numbers from Galaxy S 11 to 19.

Looks like tech companies don't like 9...

Supposedly Microsoft skipped 9 because of a lot of hardcoded checks for windows 95 and 98 that checked the first digit

And the iPhone XR! All part of the twelfth-gen models. Of course the subsequent thirteenth-gen models were just called "iPhone 11" in a return to sanity.

I still don't remember what X vs XR vs XS meant. Of course I can look it up, but that's not the point.

they used to have 1 iphone, now there are 6 models with around 21 exterior versions total

And you think 1 is better.

I think it's simpler

Not better - but Apple in early days was easy: Choose Air if you don't nedd much. Choose MacBook if you need a little but more and choose Pro if you need max power. That's one of the reasons why I bought an Apple years ago.

Compare that with the regilar lineup of other manufacturers: Cryptic model names which are uncomparable and models that are so similar that they could be equivalent.

So, no, 1 is not better but I don't care (as customer) about variety.

Well that was sort of the case. You had different years of each model to consider as well, which isn’t all that different from the M/Max/Pro thing we’re discussing here. They didn’t refresh all products the same year.

> And you think 1 is better.

I think the Apple experience was better when they focused on delivering a single SKU of each product line, yes. Less decisions as to what to buy, greater focus on making that one SKU stand out.

Are you kidding? When have they not? Apple II, II+, IIc, IIc Plus, IIe (also //e), IIe enhanced, IIGS. All sold concurrently.

They’ve always been this way.

Most of those models were not sold concurrently. The Apple II, II+, and IIe each replaced the previous model; the same was true of the IIc and IIc Plus. "//e" was an alternate textual rendering of IIe, not a separate model.

The most Apple II models that were sold concurrently were the IIe Platinum, IIc Plus, and IIgs. (And this was around 1990, at which point there were far more models of Macintosh computers on the market.)

//e was a separate model from the ][+

64kb RAM + 80col card vs 48kb/40col

The 2 and 2+ were concurrent.

The 2e, 2e enhanced, 2c, 2c+ and 2gs were concurrent.

I didn’t bother with Mac because I got tired of writing all the things.

Bad example, but very true with the Mac under sculley. When Jobs came back that was one of the things he greatly simplified

Tell me you're not old enough to remember the Performa and Centris lines without telling me you're not old enough to remember the Performa and Centris lines.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com