It's almost exactly like Apple, actually, with their M1 and M2 chips available in different sizes, launching at different times in different products.
It's really not that confusing. There are different sizes and different generations, coming out at different times. This pattern is practically as old as computing itself.
I can't even imagine what alternative naming scheme would be an improvement.
Don't go thinking I'm an Apple 'fanboy', I don't have any Apple devices at the moment, but I really can't imagine them launching a next gen product that isn't better than the best of the last gen.
I doubt they launched M2 MBAs while the MBP was running M1, for example. Or more directly, a low-mid spec M3 MBP while the top-spec M2 MBP (I assume that would out-benchmark it?) still for sale and no comparable M3 chip yet.
It's not having the matrix of size/power & generation that's confusing, it's the 'next generation' one initially launched not being the best. I think that's mainly it for me anyway.
> but I really can't imagine them launching a next gen product that isn't better than the best of the last gen.
But they have. The baseline M2 is significantly less powerful than the M1 Max.
What Google's doing is basically exactly like that. It happens all the time that the mid tier of the next generation isn't as good as the top tier of the previous generation. It might even be the norm.
I don't understand what that has to do with anything.
There isn't a set order to things. Sometimes companies release a higher powered version first and then the budget version later, sometimes an entry-level version first and a pro version after. Sometimes both simultaneously. All of these are normal, and can even follow different orders generation to generation.
It's really not that confusing. There are different sizes and different generations, coming out at different times. This pattern is practically as old as computing itself.
I can't even imagine what alternative naming scheme would be an improvement.