Apple announces iOS 26 with Liquid Glass redesign
Technology
83
Beiträge
52
Kommentatoren
950
Aufrufe
-
It’s not a matter of biggest number, it’s a matter of consistency.
They have five operating systems, macOS, iOS, iPadOS, watchOS, visionOS.
So currently we have macOS 15, iOS 18, iPadOS 18, watchOS 11 & visionOS 2. That’s absolute confusion. Do I have the latest version? Dropping support for an older version, how many years ago was that?
I don't disagree with you on principle, but I still think the implementation is fucking bonkers.
A version number should convey useful information, and the year it was released is useful information. Especially when major updates come every year.
Major updates should come when they're needed, not on a set schedule. CVEs don't wait. Yes, I know patches and security updates are a thing. I still think it's ridiculous. And I absolutely blame Apple for setting the "new thing every year" trend in motion.
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 21:06 zuletzt editiert vonHow would you prefer they handle it?
Just to look at macOS version history,
The first public release was "Mac OS X 10.0", this continued until "Mac OS X 10.7 Lion". The "big cat" became part of the marketing name because the OS & version were a mouthful and throwing numbers around wasn't helpful.
We drop the "Mac" next year, then switch to mountains, but it's not long before we reach, "OS X 10.10" aka "OS ten ten ten".
Well it wasn't long before we simplified further and just said "macOS", but then took a while before we dropped the "10". Now we just get "macOS 15 Sequoia".
For nearly 18 years the Mac operating system had an unnecessary "10" that conveyed zero information.
-
it's not that unusual, lots of software is named by the date. i think it makes a lot of sense especailly for apple, now they don't have a different release number for all their different platforms.
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 21:13 zuletzt editiert vonThough naming it by the following year instead of the release year is clearly a marketing move.
-
How would you prefer they handle it?
Just to look at macOS version history,
The first public release was "Mac OS X 10.0", this continued until "Mac OS X 10.7 Lion". The "big cat" became part of the marketing name because the OS & version were a mouthful and throwing numbers around wasn't helpful.
We drop the "Mac" next year, then switch to mountains, but it's not long before we reach, "OS X 10.10" aka "OS ten ten ten".
Well it wasn't long before we simplified further and just said "macOS", but then took a while before we dropped the "10". Now we just get "macOS 15 Sequoia".
For nearly 18 years the Mac operating system had an unnecessary "10" that conveyed zero information.
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 21:25 zuletzt editiert von lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6. Sept. 2025, 23:26Just to look at macOS version history,
Yeah, I remember when Mac OS X came out. It was a pretty significant improvement from Mac OS 9 (I grew up on System 7/Mac OS 8, dicked around a bit with 9). Unfortunately, they beat that horse until it lost all meaning, and then dragged the corpse until there was nothing left. It was ridiculous 10 years in (looking at you, Microsoft), and was borderline meme status when they finally dropped the OSX branding altogether.
How would you prefer they handle it?
They were doing fine once they dropped "10". Major version updates have a major version number. It was fixed. Done. Why fix what isn't broken? Just because the version numbers of your various operating systems don't match, doesn't mean it's "broken". They're different operating systems. Versioning has lost all meaning at this point. Shit, even Windows 11 still uses NT kernel 10. And before NT Kernel 10? It was 6.3.
What the fuck even is proper versioning anymore.
I'm just ranting into the void now.
-
jfc relax. it's a number.
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 21:29 zuletzt editiert von lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6. Sept. 2025, 23:31I stand by what I said. Versioning exists for a reason. This shit is what happens when marketing and sales retards are given complete and total authority over people doing real work.
-
Yes, but Samsung went from S10 to S20 -> 21 -> 22, etc. That move made sense. And even skipping the Note 6 for the (ill-fated) Note 7 made sense as that was just a single number skipped.
iOS 18 -> iOS 26 makes absolutely no sense. Maybe wait until iOS 20, then release iOS 30? IDK, but this is Apple we're talking about. Sense was never in the cards.
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 21:41 zuletzt editiert voniOS 18 > 26 doesn't make sense, but from 26 onwards it's not a problem.
-
iOS 18 > 26 doesn't make sense, but from 26 onwards it's not a problem.
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 21:47 zuletzt editiert vonCan't wait for the release of CUPS 26...
-
Though naming it by the following year instead of the release year is clearly a marketing move.
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 21:52 zuletzt editiert vonokay ¯_(ツ)_/¯
-
I stand by what I said. Versioning exists for a reason. This shit is what happens when marketing and sales retards are given complete and total authority over people doing real work.
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 21:52 zuletzt editiert vondude seriously you need to chill.
-
Can't wait for the release of CUPS 26...
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 21:55 zuletzt editiert vonCUPS doesn't have a yearly release schedule. iOS does.
-
Just to look at macOS version history,
Yeah, I remember when Mac OS X came out. It was a pretty significant improvement from Mac OS 9 (I grew up on System 7/Mac OS 8, dicked around a bit with 9). Unfortunately, they beat that horse until it lost all meaning, and then dragged the corpse until there was nothing left. It was ridiculous 10 years in (looking at you, Microsoft), and was borderline meme status when they finally dropped the OSX branding altogether.
How would you prefer they handle it?
They were doing fine once they dropped "10". Major version updates have a major version number. It was fixed. Done. Why fix what isn't broken? Just because the version numbers of your various operating systems don't match, doesn't mean it's "broken". They're different operating systems. Versioning has lost all meaning at this point. Shit, even Windows 11 still uses NT kernel 10. And before NT Kernel 10? It was 6.3.
What the fuck even is proper versioning anymore.
I'm just ranting into the void now.
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 22:01 zuletzt editiert vonSee but I would argue that five different version numbers across five different operating systems is broken. (Ok two of them do match up.)
Specifically the watchOS version is the important one that stands out. watchOS version 1 works with which version of macOS? Which version of iOS or iPadOS?
Also when it comes time to end support for devices, how do you keep track? If Apple provides 5 years of updates, do you know if your phone is still supported?
If my phone is running iOS 14, is that supported? Is that new? Is that old?
The key thing to keep in mind is that the entirety of this ecosystem is based on yearly releases.
Just for "fun" let's look at Windows. The current version is 11. It was released in 2021. So I guess as long as I have Windows 11, I am up to date. But... That's not true. Windows 11 does have a version number that's not directly end user facing. That version is 24H2.
Now the "24" is the year, that's useful. Now what's stupid is the "H2". Because sitting here in June 2025 I would expect "25H1" to be released anytime now. But Microsoft only used the H1 once, about five years ago. Now "Window 11 version 24H2" is better SEO vs "Window 11 version 24", so maybe that's why they kept it.
-
This is such a step back to 2005 and those glassy Winamp skins. It looks absolutely terrible. I wonder how Apple users put up with that
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 22:14 zuletzt editiert von accideath@feddit.org 6. Okt. 2025, 00:20I beg to differ. It’s not a „putting up with“. I don’t hate modern flat designs but if I was putting up with anything it’s that.
Loved the translucent look back then, still love it now. Am very looking forward to the design update. Especially since the new design is not just some standard windows aero like transparency but actually has glass like refractions.
I’m very glad we’re getting something with a little more depth again, without going full 180 to the clutter of peak skeumorphic iOS <7.
I’m a little bit concerned about readability of text on the translucent backgrounds but on the other hand, it feels unlikely that Apple didn’t think of that…
Edit: typo
-
This post did not contain any content.schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 22:24 zuletzt editiert von
kinda looks like those backgrounds Microsoft uses on their mobile apps pictures on the App Store and Google Play
-
This post did not contain any content.schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 23:09 zuletzt editiert von
I thought I was going crazy as my phone stopped updating after iOS 18. Then I learned that they are changing the version # to match the years.
-
This post did not contain any content.schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 23:28 zuletzt editiert von
This makes me want to get rid of my iPhone even more
-
CUPS doesn't have a yearly release schedule. iOS does.
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 23:49 zuletzt editiert vonI'm aware. Just making a tongue-in-cheek jab.
-
I only "follow" because whatever Apple does gets broadcast by every media outlet in existence. Also Google started blindly following Apple design since they killed my beloved blob emojis.
schrieb am 10. Juni 2025, 00:29 zuletzt editiert vonDid they? MD2 and MD3 look very different from Apple's design languages
-
I was just discussing this with a friend, I have no clue these days what iOS or macOS version is the latest. I guess this does help but it feels like a Windows 8 to 10 jump in steroids
schrieb am 10. Juni 2025, 01:08 zuletzt editiert von johnedwa@sopuli.xyz 6. Okt. 2025, 03:12That jump at least had a reason, as a bunch of older software checked if they were running on windows 95 or 98 by checking for "windows 9".
And what it actually feels like is the jump from windows 3.1 to 95. Because it's literally the same one.Win 10 and 11 do also use something like this, though it's more hidden as it's the update numbers - they were yearmonth (1507, 1709) and are now yearhalfofyear - 20H1, 21H2.
-
How would you prefer they handle it?
Just to look at macOS version history,
The first public release was "Mac OS X 10.0", this continued until "Mac OS X 10.7 Lion". The "big cat" became part of the marketing name because the OS & version were a mouthful and throwing numbers around wasn't helpful.
We drop the "Mac" next year, then switch to mountains, but it's not long before we reach, "OS X 10.10" aka "OS ten ten ten".
Well it wasn't long before we simplified further and just said "macOS", but then took a while before we dropped the "10". Now we just get "macOS 15 Sequoia".
For nearly 18 years the Mac operating system had an unnecessary "10" that conveyed zero information.
schrieb am 10. Juni 2025, 01:15 zuletzt editiert vonMajor version numbers are used when stuff changes, and especially when shit breaks. Can the latest OS X 10 run the same software and on the same hardware as the first OS X 10? If not, increase the major number.
-
This post did not contain any content.schrieb am 10. Juni 2025, 01:16 zuletzt editiert von
What the hell are they thinking
-
This post did not contain any content.schrieb am 10. Juni 2025, 01:19 zuletzt editiert von
Guess this means Apple has run out of ideas on how to make iPhone better.
What can we do to distract attention away from the fact that we don't have any decent new features?
- "Rename the business unit so we can print new letterheads and business cards?" Our customer don't work here, sir. "Dammit!"
- "Release a new color that nobody wants? How about a light blue that is so close to the regular silver no one can tell?" We did that last year, sir. "Dammit!"
- "Oh, I know: Repeat the year 2000 mistake by naming our OS versions after the current year using only 2 digits. That will never bite us in the ass in the future." Brilliant, sir.
