Some posting here seem to take it as an insult that the IIgs might not be in the spirit of the Apple II line. They are insulted that it not be considered an Apple II.
I would argue that it is not an insult but a compliment.
The Apple II+, IIe, and even the IIc had a simplicity to them. On paper, they were not much different than the competition at the time, which costs hundreds less:
Indeed the Atari line had the same CPU, The Commodore 64 had a similar CPU. These machines sold for $200 at the time. And they had better sound and graphics to boot.
C'mon guys, The graphics and sound on the Apple II line was primitive, even with double Hi-Res. It was an 8 bit system. One of the most popular add-on cards turned it into an 8 bit Z80 CPM machine.
But the IIgs technology was on another level! It probably has more in common with a Tandy 1000 than an Apple IIe. Surely, it trounced the IBM PC Jr. and gave the ST and Amiga a good run for the money.
Calling it the IIgs hindered the idea that this was a machine worthy of upgrading to. The name and the backward compatibilty prevented this. The general public was confused, software companies rested on
their laurels, and the machine did not flourish to the best of its ability.
If only Apple had called this wonderful machine the Apple IV...