The Fiducial Mark

Now that 2010 has arrived, press releases and announcements for new “2010″ and “10″ version numbers are appearing with increasing frequency.

Why the change?  Why didn’t we see “2007″ version numbers a few years ago?  While there are a lot of 2010 versions coming out, an excellent post on “The Amazing World of Version Numbers” suggests the trend started way back in 1966 with Fortran 66 (although there are even earlier suggestions in the comments).  However, it didn’t register as a common naming practice until the release of Windows 95.

There are many methodologies for software version numbers.  Most of them operate under the premise that a big jump indicates a major release (e.g. moving from 8.0 to 9.0) while a minor increment indicates a minor release or perhaps even a maintenance release (e.g. 9.0 to 9.1).

The connotations surrounding “2010″ are plentiful: a new year, a new decade, and hopefully a new start after the biggest economic crisis of our time.  It’s an attractive reason to switch from an ordered number system to a date-based system.  It also represents a shift from engineering-based ordering to a marketing-based system.  While a 2010 label may give a product a fresh look, vendors switching to a date-based method should ensure the release matches expectations in terms of value for customers.  A minor update with little value repackaged as a “2010 Edition” has the potential to impact brand credibility.  On the flip-side, a new release packed full of valuable capabilities can warrant such a change and deliver some extra oomph during a new release launch.  Like many product management decisions, software version methodologies deserve careful consideration when planning a release.

Image Credit: Marcin Wichary