Concurring to the briefing at a conference in Seoul, Omnia's chief analyst Hoe Moo‑yeol claimed that Apple will skip the “iPhone 19” name and move specifically to “iPhone 20” as portion of stamping the 20th commemoration of the iPhone’s dispatch in 2007.
Macromer's
+1
Specifically:
The to begin with half of 2027 may see an “iPhone 18e” and “iPhone 20”.
Macromer's
+1
The moment half of 2027 might bring “iPhone 20 Air”, “iPhone 20 Pro”, “iPhone 20 Professional Max”, and a folded-model “iPhone Crease 2”.
MacDailyNews
+1
The thought being that bouncing to “20” adjusts with a major turning point (20 a long time) whereas reviving the numbering framework.
The Apple Post
Of course — as with numerous pre-release gossipy tidbits — this is unsubstantiated and theoretical.
AppleInsider
Why would Apple do this?
Several conceivable inspirations stand out:
Milestone branding
Skipping to “20” permits Apple to tie the gadget to the 20th commemoration of the iPhone (2007 → 2027), making it feel like a celebratory “big leap” show or maybe than “just one more number”. The company did something comparable in 2017 when it skipped “iPhone 9” and went to “iPhone X” (Roman numeral for 10).
Macromer's
+1
Numerical fatigue
As the numbers climb (iPhone 15, 16, 17…), the incremental overhaul thought gets to be more theoretical to shoppers. At a few point “iPhone 53” begins sounding odd or aimless. As pointed out in the 9to5Mac piece:
“iPhone names are fair beginning to feel progressively senseless as the numbers get greater. … Will we conclusion up with an iPhone 53? An iPhone 104?”
9to5Mac
Dropping or adjusting the numbering seem refresh the perception.
Release cadence & item complexity
The talk too proposes Apple may alter how it discharges iPhones: conceivably two waves per year (spring + drop) instep of one.
AppleInsider
+1
With more models (Discuss, Professional, Crease, etc.), the numbering alone may not cleanly communicate the item contrasts or era anymore.
Marketing and customer psychology
A jump from 18 → 20 sounds more “big jump” than 18 → 19. If Apple needs to flag a noteworthy update, major include update, or a move in procedure, changing the numbering might offer assistance outline the message.
But why the numbers in the to begin with place?
The ordinary successive numbering has a few benefits:
Clarity of era: For buyers, “iPhone 17” clearly comes after “iPhone 16”. It’s a straightforward, caught on ladder.
Upgrade informing: The higher the number, the more current the demonstrate — fundamental and effective.
Legacy and desire: Apple has utilized successive numbering for numerous a long time; it makes continuity.
So the address gets to be: if this numbering framework still works, why complicate things?
Downsides of numbering — why it might make sense to drop it
Here are reasons to address whether successive numbering still serves Apple (or shoppers) well:
Diminished meaning: Incremental show changes (e.g., from 16 → 17) regularly feel negligible to numerous clients, so the number distinction carries less weight.
Confusing variations: With numerous demonstrate levels (Master, Professional Max, Discuss, Overlap), including numbers can confound or maybe than clarify (“iPhone 17 Master Max” vs “iPhone 17” vs “iPhone 17 Air”).
Release timing shifts: If Apple begins discharging in numerous waves or changes cadence, numbering tied entirely to era may not adjust with buyer discernment of “new”.
Brand weakness: Buyers some of the time float absent from show numbers; think how a few car producers utilize names like “Series X” or “Model Y” instep of “Car50”.
Global showcase recognitions: Diverse markets might see numbers in an unexpected way (e.g., affiliations with unfortunate numbers, dialect issues), so a less number-dependent title might make sense.
As 9to5Mac wrote:
“A way better approach … is to drop the number inside and out … Have the current show be fair the iPhone (iPhone, iPhone Discuss, iPhone Professional, iPhone Master Max) and the past demonstrate be the iPhone (year).”
9to5Mac
What may Apple do instead?
If Apple moves absent from successive numbers, a few naming procedures seem emerge:
Year-based naming: Comparable to how a few car brands do it — e.g., “iPhone 2027”, “iPhone 2028”. This gives a transient cue.
Model family + level naming: “iPhone”, “iPhone Pro”, “iPhone Ultra”, “iPhone Fold” without a number. Era is suggested by specs or year.
Edition names: Uncommon names for major overhauls or commemorations — e.g., “iPhone Anniversary”, “iPhone Edge”, “iPhone Neo”.
Hybrid approach: The base show drops the number, whereas Pro/Max adaptations hold a few era sign (“iPhone Master 2028” etc).
Skip number basically once: As the talk proposes, keep numbers but skip “19” to “20” and at that point move to another conspire after that.
Potential suggestions for customers and Apple
For consumers:
Clarity vs perplexity: A title alter may either disentangle choices (in case well done) or befuddle them (on the off chance that naming gets to be less transparent).
Upgrade choices: If number isn’t the fundamental differentiator, things like “is my current phone ‘new enough’?” gotten to be less straightforward.
Resale and acknowledgment: Numbering makes a difference distinguish models effortlessly in second-hand markets or discourses. Dropping numbers might complicate that.
For Apple:
Brand revive opportunity: Changing naming gives Apple a chance to flag a major move — from equipment overhauls, plan, highlights, to discharge cadence.
Marketing challenge: Apple has to teach the showcase on the modern naming so it doesn’t harmed recognition.
Product organizing: With more demonstrate variations, unmistakable naming makes a difference Apple fragment the advertise more clearly — a naming reset seem bolster that.
Model lifecycle administration: As the iPhone develops (numerous markets are soaked), making “generation” feel more important gets to be harder — a huge naming alter might help.
What are the risks?
Consumer backfire: A few clients appreciate the clear movement (iPhone 15 → 16 → 17). A alter might feel gimmicky or confusing.
Competitive informing: Rivals may utilize the perplexity to highlight their claim clearer naming.
Internal complexity: Apple’s retail, supply chain, promoting all depend on clear demonstrate names — changing that has operational cost.
Failing to capitalize: If Apple changes the number but doesn’t convey a really huge jump in item or involvement, the move seem feel hollow.
My take
I accept the talk of skipping to “iPhone 20” might be less almost the number itself and more approximately flagging a greater move: in plan, discharge cadence, demonstrate differences. Whether or not Apple forever drops successive numbers, the truth that it’s indeed considering breaking the design clues that the ancient naming demonstrate may be coming to its down to earth limits.
From a customer viewpoint, the number things less than what the item is. The “17 Pro” vs “16 Pro” move things if you see important overhauls. If Apple doesn’t separate sufficient, at that point naming gets to be fluff.
So yes — it may be time for Apple to reconsider the number framework. But anything step they take needs to come with clear communication and a important reason for it. Something else, the alter will fair include confusion.
Poll
What do you think? Ought to Apple drop consecutive numbers (like “iPhone 18, 19, 20…”), or adhere with them?
Yes — Drop the numbers, the framework has served its time.
Perhaps — Keep numbers presently, but advance the naming later.
No — Adhere with consecutive numbers, they bring clarity.
Not beyond any doubt — I don’t feel emphatically either way, require more data.
0 Comments