Apple Operating System Version Years

Everyone: "Windows _95_, Windows _98_ and Windows _2000_ were great releases!"

Also everyone: "If Apple calls their OSes by year names, that CEMENTS11!! and DOUBLES DOWN!111 the yearly dev cycle and means for sure everything will be terrible, since yearly names must mean yearly releases!!11!!"

At this point I'm not convinced that increasing the duration of their release cycle *would* improve Apple's software quality. I think the issues are now varied and deeper than that.

I have no strong feelings about changing the naming scheme. I wasn't particularly attached to the old scheme.

I hardly remember what version number or product name is current, any more. I kind of feel like switching to years makes it all even more meaningless. They should really consider going back to the 10.0-10.6 release cadence, make the releases feel special and notable again. Once every 18-ish months is more than enough.

Making the releases (hardware) special is why we (enthusiasts) still remember all sorts of characteristics about the PowerMac 6100, the Blue and White G3, the iMac G5, the Quad-G5... It's why WE have lore, and people buying Dell computer's don't and never will. It's why a YouTube channel like 65scribe can have such a loving fan base.

This is an awful decision. I'm powerless to change it, but it's not Apple-like.

(hardware and software)*

@ Léo Natan… uh, don’t include me and my quote in with the first “everyone” group’s statement. I don’t agree with it. At all.
Naming operating systems and software releases after the calendar year is moronic. Even more moronic is for Apple to be SOOO out of touch that they copy what the idiots at Microsoft -abandoned- 25 years ago (because they realized it was moronic) thinking they’re being edgy and new. I mean, ya can’t even make this stuff up.

I’m again reminded that Apple had the world at its feet with OS X… and squandered every advantage. Linux may not “rule the desktop”, but it’s pretty clear that the open source community is heads and shoulders beyond Apple technically. I mean, they figured out Long-Term Support releases over multi+year development cycles ages ago! Apple wants you to landfill 5 year old computers. Because you’re sad (per Phil the Schill). I guess Planet Earth and the environment just LOVE consuming Apple carbon! Yum!

And somehow this is going to make the OSes better? I don’t care what they call it so ling as they fix the damned bugs.

Makes sense to do this - too many variants and it gets even more confusing trying to combine with which A series chip is in what device running whatever OS.

I don't think they'll change the iPhone naming convention though as Apple make a lot of money offloading their previous year's phones to 3rd parties who sell them to people who probably don't realise it's not the latest one.

@Léo Natan to be clear, my comment was flippant and meant in jest. I think time-based OS releases make little sense aside from an easier way to market things in some contexts.

That said, if you are going to do sequential numbered operating system releases on an annual basis, not having the year align with the number is overly confusing. We’re used to it because it’s what we’re used to, but the misalignment is weird.

But also having said that, we all made fun of Samsung for this stuff so anyone praising the brilliance of the iPhone 26 running iOS 26 should probably do some introspection, especially if they attacked the Galaxy S25.

A year-based naming scheme doesn’t have to imply that there will be annual releases — and I do think Apple would do better to not have big annual releases but to do feature updates over the course of a few years for stability purposes (which yes, is what Windows has been doing for the last 10 years or so and I think to pretty good success, tho Windows 11 24H2 is an atrocious name), but I think we lost that battle well over a decade ago. The annual release cycle isn’t going to go away and if anything, we’ll just see more punting to features later in the year.

I dislike the sound of it (right now) but boy it’ll be easier for me when wondering if my iOS 18 device is compatible with my MacOS 13 Mac or my old WatchOS 8 Watch.

I don’t imagine iPhone 26, though?

But I could see iPhone (2026) (which is better than iPhone Gen 19 aka iPhone 18 (off by one because of the 4s!))

I wonder whether people are getting the wrong spin on this story; that it's not about software version numbers going away (though that's happening for nomenclature), but rather it's the elimination of version *names* as a part of branding. No more California place names for macOS, because America are the villains now as far as the rest of the world (especially the Anglosphere) is concerned.

Wide range of views, both in the post and in the comments.

Quick - and don't check anything like Settings or About - what's the macOS running on your laptop? Please, do it by some California name or maybe an animal species. How about what is was 2-3 versions ago? Now for fun, what's the version number? Does it relate to the hardware? (FYI, most Mac laptops - but not all Macs - do use the full year name (but maybe with a qualifier in front) in their name. More importantly, at least for me, there *isn't* a yearly release of new ones.

Quick - nd again, don't check Settings - what iPhone do you have? What iOS is it running? Great note from Craig Hockenberry that us coders will need to check versions, but maybe not? Most checks (but not all) look at baseline OS, not current. And if you are looking for current (as in beta function) that will always be a current maintenance thing.

Quick - this is for you Windows coders - 95, 98, ME, 7, 8, 9, 10.... sorry, I forgot about Microsoft a few years ago... but focus on 95 & 98. Disaster? That's a valid argument. But where was Windows 96 or 97? It's not an annual cycle. (But I suspect that to continue for a while with Apple mostly due to WWDC being yearly.)

Finally, quick - and please do not look - what is the current version of Xcode? Does it match *any* OS Apple has out? I do expect in 2 weeks that Xcode 17 beta 1 will be released. And Yes, I had to check because I didn't want to look stupid. And no, at the risk of still looking stupid I do not think any current Apple OS is at version 16 like Xcode.)

I’ve got bad news. I think Holly owned Apple subsidiary. Claris has been testing this out for the last couple years with their FileMaker product. The marketing name is the full four digit year. Meanwhile, the internal version number is something else. It’s a pain in the neck.

Wow! So many comments based on a rumor initiated by "Saint" Gurman and then "corroborated" by someone at AppleInsider who saw the number 26 buried inside Apple's code.

It doesn't pass the "smell test" to me and I guess we'll know for sure on June 9th.

PS: Boy, do I hate the couple of weeks before major Apple events like WWDC!

"since yearly names must mean yearly releases"

I would say that, yes, it does mean that for Apple, for most of its products, because the product will look outdated to customers if it runs an OS with an older year name. So, they'll have to release something at least once a year, late in the year, using the following year's number.

But personally, I'm going to go against the common sentiment. I like this change. I have no idea how old OS X Monterey or Mojave or Malibu or Mendocino are, or in what order they came out. Using years and aligning the numbers across devices makes things clearer.

Versioning by year is stupid if the year is +1 the actual year of release. Call them macOS 25, iOS 25, etc., if they release this year.

Versioning by date (not only year) is very reasonable. It makes it clear to an end-user how old their existing install is (or how new a release is compared to existing hardware).

Arbitrary numbers (e.g. macOS 15, 14, 13, etc.) say nothing about requirements or release date.

Code names are stupid and only for secrecy.

Semantic versioning is nerd stuff and should never be used. Quite a few companies increase requirements in point updates, but bumping the major version makes end-users think it's a paid update and then they hold off on updating.

Versioning by date (or at least year + month + release number) makes it easier to move away from a yearly cycle. macOS 26.06 (2026 June release), macOS 26.09 (2026 September release), etc.

I genuinely never connected Samsung model names with the calendar year.

This sounds to me like one of those baits Apple issues to uncover internal leaks.

While I -generally- agree with @Hammer about using dates in versioning information—"Versioning by date (not only year) is very reasonable. It makes it clear to an end-user how old their existing install is (or how new a release is compared to existing hardware)."—I believe also that it is wholly unnecessary and even introduces an amount of anxiety that is counterproductive. Sure, uninformed new iPhone users don't want "old" stuff in there shiny new device, but as somebody who supports those users, I appreciate 'rock solid'. And Apple hasn't proven to me that they're capable of that, especially 'year-over-year'. In fact, the contrary. But when I user sees their say new is running 2024-something, it causes concern. (Maybe.) "Is it out of date??"
The other shortcoming of using dates is another thing that Apple has failed at: it pushes 'innovations' on artificial schedules… just because the calendar rolled over, not because of actual innovation. "Innovations" that ain't! Whereas incremental major and minor version numbers are far more 'indirect', mere pointers to significant changes in architecture. (Or are SUPPOSED to be. That was the original intention.) You'd figure software people would appreciate indirection IRL. Not sure what's in the water at Apple Park, but it seems to be killing brain cells. (Maybe they built it on a superfund site.)

I'm a big fan of this idea. The current versioning system differing between platforms is a mess. And who can remember the place names? There are too many of them. All I really care about is "roughly how old is this version" so this fits the bill admirably.