It could have been worse, like that year they basically named the iPad 3 “the new iPad.” At least this solution gives them over 70 years of version numbers without running into a naming collision. 
There may be some kind of drawback I am missing, but I think this approach is logical. Actually, I used to be more in tune to what the latest OS version is for the different platforms, but I don’t seem to remember or pay attention to the version numbers anymore.
This quote from the article resonates with me:
Right now, the version numbers are all over the place; the current naming schemes include things like iOS 18, watchOS 12, and visionOS 2.
Hopefully they ditch the California location names too.
I always hated the use of generations for devices like the iPad 5th generation. Doesn’t tell you anything about when it was released. I also have trouble remembering the order of MacOS releases.
Noooo!
Not until we get Snelling. Or if they just stop caring we can get Salton Sea.
There’s so much more for them to choose from!
Maybe. Maybe not.
Only Apple knows what will (not) happen.
Sorry. As soon as the rumor is confirmed I plan to start referring to macOS 15 as macOS 25 
Like wine vintages, only numbered for the calendar year in which the 12 month period ends rather than begins, like fiscal years? Sure, makes perfect sense. If Apple wants to keep the California naming convention going, each macOS update could be named for a Napa or Sonoma varietal.
Whatever. It’s fine.
I actually don’t have a problem with this. It gives at least some clue of the level of development/product maturity of each OS.
Nothing wrong with naming based on release year either, of course. To each their own. I just don’t see what’s “all over the place” about a company having software with version numbers that don’t march in lock step.
There are some features that are eco-system wide such as Sidecar where having synchronized version numbers for the OS would simplify figuring out which devices have the necessary minimum platform/version to work together.
One day I will have an IPad 26 with M25 chip running iPadOS 27 compatible with Pencil 24 that I can use to airdrop to my Mac 28 running MacOS 29 using M30 chip. It makes perfect sense. But I may still be wondering if I need to buy iPhone 32 because iOS 33 may make Siri smarter on 10th anniversary of Apple’s promise to do so.
But why not use the year it was released rather than the year it was released +1?
Because the OS might then feel outdated for most of its lifespan (if Apple keeps releasing them in September/October), with a number lower than the current year.
Bicycle manufacturers do the same.
There are features that are ecosystem wide, but it’s also not uncommon for various devices in the ecosystem to not have the hardware to support the feature until a later device generation
So even if version 25 of all of the operating systems supports something, your entry-level iPad running version 25 might not because Apple cheaped out on the chip that enables the feature.
And it’s not even necessarily just dependent on the main chip. Sometimes it depends on additional things, like a U1 chip, that is not in all models.
If Apple’s goal is to clarify their product marketing so that you can just look at a single number and determine what is going on across the entire line, they have much farther to go than just renaming operating systems.
Yes, it helps, but not a complete solution.
I still rely on 3rd party websites that have good summaries of features/hardware/os matrix explanations, but would be nice if Apple could continue to make it much easier.
Good point! And if they release an OS for a new hardware platform in the futrue, it will start from an unusually high number. Like, if they had this naming scheme when VisionOS was released, it would have been VisionOS 24.