Apple renames of one of its biggest brands in shock makeover – and I'm convinced the iPhone is next up for a new name
IS it time for the iPhone to get a new name? Absolutely – and it's looking likelier than ever.
Today, Apple decided to totally rebrand its operating systems. That's what your gadgets run on. We've got iOS for iPhone, iPadOS for iPad, macOS for Mac, and so on.
6
6
Their names had become a bit mad, honestly.
This year, we were expecting to see iOS 19, iPadOS 19, macOS 16, tvOS 19, watchOS 12, and visionOS 3. What a mess!
Thankfully Apple finally (and sensibly) said iBye to that nonsense, and replaced all of those numbers with the year.
So now we've got iOS 26, iPadOS 26, macOS 26, tvOS 26, watchOS 26, and visionOS 26 all due out later this year – and only likely to be replaced in September 2026. Then we'll get 27, presumably.
Now anyone can look at their iPhone and easily work out whether it's running the latest software.
And if you're buying a new model, it's fairly easy to check if it can get the latest download – or if it's going to be left abandoned without updates, features, and security fixes.
Yearly naming is just common sense.
You can see where I'm going with this. Apple, it's time to do the same for iPhone.
Later this year, Apple is widely expected to launch the iPhone 17. Please don't.
Call it the iPhone 26 instead and be done with it.
iPhone 16e review – I've secretly tested Apple's cheapest mobile and I love the new button but that's not the best bit
As a technology journalist, I'm regularly asked the same questions by people. 'What's the latest iPhone?', 'is that the latest iPhone?', 'what iPhone are we on now?', and 'is my iPhone the newest one?'.
I don't blame people for not keeping up. It's messy – but easily fixed.
It wouldn't be the first time Apple had skipped a number.
Long-time Apple watchers will not that there never was an iPhone 9.
6
6
We went straight from iPhone 8 to the (still curiously named) iPhone X, which stood for iPhone 10. This came out in 2017 in celebration of the 10-year iPhone anniversary.
But we needn't wait for 2027 for another iPhone rebrand. Let's just get on with it.
Apple is also clearly willing to experiment.
Remember the the iPhone 3GS? The iPhone XS? The iPhone 5C? Last year's iPhone 16e? They all had weird names, and Apple still flogged bucketloads of them.
Changing the name of the iPhone clearly isn't a mortal wound.
So let's ditch this whole bonkers naming system and just call it iPhone 26.
It'll get a few jokes on the first year, and then no one will think twice about it. It'll just work.
Samsung is already playing ball.
This year it released the Samsung Galaxy S25. The year before that? The Galaxy S24. And before that? The S23. Nice sensible names. Names you can take home to your parents.
Last year, Apple put out an iPhone 16 running iOS 18, that you could pair with an Apple Watch Series 10 and a pair of Apple AirPods 4. I spend all of my time thinking about tech, and even I struggle to keep up.
It makes sense for other products to not follow a yearly system.
The successor to the PlayStation 5 should not be called the PlayStation 2028.
That will only beg the question 'is there a PlayStation 2029?' the very next year. Parents would be driven to insanity.
But for annual (or near-annual) products – like the iPhone and software updates– it makes much more sense to just go with the year.
There's probably some marketing guru in Apple's Cupertino, California HQ worriedly predicting that releasing new iPhones with yearly names will make the old models sound even older – and put people off.
But that might also drive people to snap up the newer models too, so the grand Apple coffers won't go empty.
And it'll make it easier to buy older gadgets and refurbished devices, which is good for wallets and the planet.
It's time to get with the times. Literally.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
41 minutes ago
- Reuters
Space and defense tech firm Voyager raises $382.8 million in US IPO
June 10 (Reuters) - Voyager Technologies raised $382.8 million in its U.S. initial public offering, the space and defense tech company said on Tuesday, amid a global rush to amp up military spending. The company, which provides mission-critical space and defense technology solutions, along with some investors sold roughly 12.35 million shares at $31 per share, above its marketed range of $26 to $29. The offering is the latest in recent weeks as the U.S. IPO market regained its footing after being restricted by tariff-driven volatility. The Denver, Colorado–based company's IPO comes as President Donald Trump's administration looks to sharply increase spending on defense and space projects. Trump last month selected a design for his $175 billion Golden Dome project, a next-generation U.S. missile defense shield. The stock will trade on the New York Stock Exchange on Wednesday under the symbol "VOYG". Morgan Stanley and J.P. Morgan are the lead underwriters on the listing.
Sky News
3 hours ago
- Sky News
Trump's 'anti-migrant rhetoric' gives the UK's tech industry a competitive edge, say experts
President Trump's "anti-migrant rhetoric" may be helping the UK's tech industry, according to tech executives. "If the US continues its foreign policy, anti-migrant rhetoric, it's going to put founders off and operators off," said Husayn Kassai, a founder of the UK's AI Hub and the chief executive of Quench AI. "Already you have some students that were considering moving to the US [now] considering the UK, and you have tech founders and operators, which are just as important, again increasingly considering the UK relative to the US," he said to Sky News during London Tech Week. His comments come amid a US political landscape in which immigrant communities across America have been surprised at the speed and ferocity with which new policies, including crackdowns and deportations, have been enacted in Mr Trump's first 100 days in office. In the last few days, some in California - the home of tech hotspot the San Francisco Bay area - have been taking direct action in protest at the Trump administration's actions. After selling his previous company Onfido for a record amount last year, Mr Kassai decided to found his new start-up in the UK because of its talent pool. 1:29 "In the US, there's talk of there being more talent, more AI talent in particular. That's changing because of some of the US politics. "[Also,] in places like San Francisco, there may be more AI talent but it's not accessible to early-stage startups," he added, saying that's because huge companies like Meta and Google are able to offer such high salaries. Talent is often the deciding factor in where companies move their operations, according to one expert whose job it is to persuade them to come to the UK. Laura Citron, chief executive of London and Partners, said she often talks to international founders thinking about where to expand globally. "Making sure that businesses feel [...] it will be easy for them to bring international talent into the market, that will always be the most important factor." "Particularly at the moment, with what's happening geopolitically, that fundamental strength of London in openness and being inclusive and welcoming has suddenly really shot up in people's importance," she said. The UK is the third-largest AI market in the world, according to the government, only beaten by the US and China. Yesterday, Jensen Huang, chief executive of NVIDIA predicted that within ten years, "every industry in the UK will be a tech industry". 0:36 The government seems to be banking on that, with investments being announced like yesterday's unveiling of a £187m AI training plan for school students and schemes to encourage infrastructure like data centres to be built around the UK. In January, the government claimed that, if AI is "fully embraced", it could bring £47bn to the economy every year. But although President Trump's changes to US immigration policy may push more tech workers to the UK, the US still has its draw - and cash. "When we've been looking to raise [funding], some people that I've spoken to said: 'You should go to America because they would be talking in millions'," said Jemma Bowles, founder of endometriosis support app Endi. She is currently staying in the UK because her knowledge of the NHS makes it more practical but "I'm not saying no to it," she said. "We'll just see what happens." This week alone, US companies have taken over two UK tech businesses, and Mr Kassai doesn't seem surprised. "Shareholders, investors, board members are going to find the highest bidder and the US tends to pay more," he said. "There's four times as much capital invested into startup companies than there is in the whole of Europe, so naturally when it comes through a sale, the US is often able to pay a higher price." However, he doesn't think that will be the case forever. "The US is going to lose its edge. Historically, it's had four times as much financial capital to invest in startups than Europe, but AI has meant that you don't need as much money to build big companies, and as a result, the US loses its advantage."
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
It's time to address preservation of generative AI prompts and outputs
June 10, 2025 - Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools, which create text and media based upon the data they were trained on, raise legal concerns like data privacy, data security, and privilege considerations. In discovery, GAI prompts and outputs may be considered unique information that must be preserved for litigation. Organizations must consider how to preserve this information and whether and how to incorporate changes to their standard ESI agreement. It is also imperative for organizations to have information governance policies and trainings in place to account for the use of GAI tools across their business. This includes determining if the GAI-generated prompts and outputs are considered "records" and, if so, updating records retention policies and schedules accordingly. It is essential to have knowledgeable counsel who specialize in the discovery and governance of GAI information to ensure prompts and outputs are retained if/as needed. Each GAI tool operates uniquely based on its configuration, as well as its data storage setup. Legal professionals must understand both the types of data being created and the locations where the data is stored for each tool. These are rapidly evolving products that may differ greatly from one to the next, and it is incumbent on practitioners to ascertain the form and function of a given tool, including where it stores its prompts and outputs. For example, an application that creates a bullet-point summary of a meeting typically begins by creating a transcript of that meeting, which it then analyzes to produce a summary. Will these documents be stored in the meeting organizer's online file storage, integrated into a corporate network, or distributed across the participants' storage? How long will these records be retained? The answers will depend on both technical configurations and the organization's applicable retention policies. While GAI tools have been rapidly proliferating over the past couple of years, courts and litigants are just starting to address their use and output. In the 2024 case Tremblay v. OpenAI in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a group of authors sued OpenAI for copyright infringement, alleging that it trained ChatGPT using their copyrighted books. OpenAI sought discovery of the plaintiffs' ChatGPT account information and the prompts used in pre-suit testing, including negative outputs that did not reproduce or summarize the plaintiffs' work. The magistrate judge granted the request, finding that although the account settings and negative test results are fact work product, the plaintiffs waived this by including a substantial set of those facts in their complaint and exhibits. In ruling on the plaintiffs' motion for relief challenging that order, the district judge found that the magistrate had misapplied the law, as the prompts were queries created by counsel and reflected their mental impressions and strategies for interrogating ChatGPT. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for relief, denying the defendant's request to compel the production of negative tests and documentation of the testing process, but ordered the plaintiffs to produce the prompts and accounting settings used to generate the examples used in their complaint. The parties' ability to effectively advocate their positions in this dispute rested on their having employed a methodical and reproducible workflow, and in turn on having ensured the preservation of the data necessary to do so. As with any matter where these issues are implicated, accounting for these facts ahead of time through the skilled counsel of experts in preservation and information governance is the best practice. Documents and data created with GAI tools may be relevant to anticipated or ongoing disputes if they pertain to claims and defenses and are proportional to the needs of the case. Legal and information governance professionals must be prepared for this possibility if their clients use these tools. Here are some suggested best practices. Legal and information governance professionals should be considered essential stakeholders to consult when an organization decides to deploy GAI tools. If legal is notified only after a tool has been adopted — or worse, has been in use for some time — there may be hurdles to ensure that relevant data is preserved, or in advising on critical considerations such as protecting attorney client privilege and confidentiality while using the tool. Information governance professionals will also provide valuable best practices for retention and data disposition with the use of the tools. Legal and information governance stakeholders should also be involved in the selection, testing, and deployment of GAI tools to understand where each tool creates and stores the potentially relevant documents and data. An organization cannot preserve relevant data without understanding where the data is stored and how to preserve and retrieve it for discovery purposes. A thorough investigation of storage locations and an understanding of what is created are essential. In the context of GAI, this is even more crucial as the rapid evolution of these products merits closer attention and analysis than is required with more established tools. Document retention policies may need to be updated to ensure that GAI-generated documents and data are retained for the appropriate duration based on business need and applicable law. Similarly, legal hold policies and notices must address the new data types created by AI tools to ensure employees understand the need for preservation. These policies are only effective when compliance is acknowledged and monitored, so processes should be established to ensure proper data retention. Like any tool, the results and reliability of GAI tools depend heavily upon how they are used. A robust GAI training program that emphasizes not only the features but also the risks presented by the tool should be a perquisite to access by users. Since AI tools can hallucinate and generate documents and data that may not reflect reality or employee inputs, there is a risk of inadvertently creating discoverable data that is inaccurate. Such data is not only useless for business purposes but also presents a serious risk in litigation if a party relies on the hallucinated facts. For this reason, any AI-generated output must be reviewed and verified before preservation — bullet points, summaries, transcripts, arguments and other GAI outputs must be carefully reviewed and confirmed. Training should be refreshed as new tools become available and use carefully monitored to ensure appropriate use and mitigate the risk that problematic artifacts are created. As with any emerging technology, it is essential that the risks and obligations that may attach be assessed in parallel to the benefits of its use. From the broad integration of GAI into a corporate environment by information governance professionals to the careful tweaking of an ESI protocol by outside counsel, the introduction of GAI into corporate environments and legal practice is an essential challenge that requires a thoughtful and comprehensive approach. Generative AI tools hold transformative potential, but they must be carefully evaluated, tested, configured, and used with attention to the creation of potentially relevant documents and data that must be preserved. Tara Lawler is a regular contributing columnist on e-discovery for Reuters Legal News and Westlaw Today.
