undefined

points

[-]

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.

by jorvi10 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.

by noosphr12 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

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

by sib11 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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 ;)

by Cyph0n10 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Not to mention X and Xs.

by tedd4u4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.

by gleenn10 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

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

by kijin8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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...

by tiagod5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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

by usern2026072012 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

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

by y1n012 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

And you think 1 is better.

by chrisandchris10 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.

by usern2026072011 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I think it's simpler

by hoistbypetard11 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

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.

by y1n012 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

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.

by duskwuff12 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.)

by y1n010 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.

by efitz11 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

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

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