[HN Gopher] Apple's Liquid Glass is prep work for AR interfaces,...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple's Liquid Glass is prep work for AR interfaces, not just a
design refresh
Author : lightningcable
Score : 125 points
Date : 2025-06-13 19:44 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (omc345.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (omc345.substack.com)
| evantravers wrote:
| I 100% agree that this is the strategy that they are taking...
| but I wonder if the hardware will catch up fast enough to make
| the bet pay off.
| apples_oranges wrote:
| What would they lose if not?
| deadbabe wrote:
| The interface will look old and dated by the time it rolls
| out on the new hardware.
| out-of-ideas wrote:
| but isnt the point of liquid ass[1] supposed to be a
| universal design across all platforms[2]? that just means
| it should hopefully be easier to update as time changes
|
| 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44243404
|
| 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44226612
|
| edit: forever formatting
| swyx wrote:
| well then do it when it's ready, not before??
|
| idk what it is but when a new paradigm comes whether it is AI or
| AR the bigtech companies always want to ram it down everybody's
| throats rather than gentle opt-in. its not like they lack
| enthusiasts who WILL opt in to offer feedback.
|
| you have billions of users, including many normies who just want
| to get shit done and dont even know that you have keynotes or
| shareholders to impress and dont care about the translucency of
| your "glass" when they're trying to call 911[0]
|
| [0]: see talk
| (https://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2016/01/25/designing-for-...)
| and tldr (https://hookedoncode.com/2015/02/designing-for-crisis-
| by-eri...)
| cybrox wrote:
| Changing the UI beforehand is their approach at a gentle
| introduction. It's just not voluntary.
| ben_w wrote:
| I'm old enough to remember when the iPhone OS was the gentle
| introduction to iPad OS -- all the rumour sites' mock-ups of
| the then-upcoming mystery Apple Tablet showed MacOS.
|
| In retrospect, watchOS 1.0 was the gentle introduction to
| what became SwiftUI. At the time, I was a bit frustrated that
| I couldn't specify widget position and size like I was used
| to.
|
| Honestly I still am frustrated by that. We already had
| variable size windows back in the days of Win3.11 and System
| 7 -- we've just made it far more complicated to do the same
| things, and even several years into SwiftUI it feels like
| we've got more bugs with SwiftUI based apps than we ever had
| with UIKit, and I'm not sure if that's the layout stuff or
| the reactive stuff or both.
| dinobones wrote:
| Also, do it for the target device not all of them. Liquid glass
| makes little sense on a tiny iPhone that a lot of people read
| outside in sunlight.
| mumbisChungo wrote:
| >idk what it is
|
| the blog post explains this
|
| in short, it's simply a continuation of the practices that
| resulted in apple's dominance in the first place
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| > well then do it when it's ready, not before??
|
| This will let them build up an ecosystem of apps ready at
| launch and it means you are already training users. This are
| all laying the foundation of a successful future launch.
| Larrikin wrote:
| The liquid glass seems like a way for smaller apps to
| differentiate themselves visually as flat design was a way to
| drastically reduce the amount of UI design time needed.
|
| It also seems like a way to try and go directly against things
| like React Native and Kotlin Multiplatform. The recently
| announced Swift Java interoperability directly really makes it
| seem like they think KMP is some kind of threat.
| klabb3 wrote:
| > It also seems like a way to try and go directly against
| things like React Native and Kotlin Multiplatform.
|
| This is a bingo for me. If you know your web, you know these
| effects are almost impossible to pull off. Or any other UI
| framework for that matter.
|
| This is a play that will enforce the line between proprietary
| "native" and cross platform technologies, no matter how
| performant or good they may be. It is designed to surface the
| underlying tech stack to the user, so it can be a
| differentiator kinda like the green bubble or the constant
| camera array realignment that are both pure social posturing.
|
| 10-15 years ago it might have worked, but honestly, I don't
| think it will this time. It's too specific to be adopted and
| copied by other UI platforms, and Apple-only ecosystem just
| isn't feasible for even the most hardcore Apple fans.
|
| It will certainly be adopted by Apple-only devs that make
| bespoke quality apps in Swift, but Apple really overestimates
| how much value those can deliver in a world where smartphone is
| utility in a broad ecosystem. Your average business, from
| libraries to airlines to grocery stores, don't have a reason to
| create full-native apps in 2-3 completely separate stacks. The
| differentiating features on eg iOS vs Android are simply not
| effecting the vast majority of real-life businesses.
| thewebguyd wrote:
| React native can do it, no? Don't RN components just use the
| native API?
|
| Flutter, and MAUI/Xamarin OTOH won't be able to.
| sneak wrote:
| > _In augmented reality, interface elements must coexist with the
| physical world. They can 't be opaque rectangles that block your
| view. They need to be translucent, layered, and contextually
| aware._
|
| This isn't true. You're never going to want your browser, editor,
| or Slack window to be translucent.
|
| ...or your movie playback window, or Instagram, or your ebook
| reader, for that matter.
| willquack wrote:
| > You're never going to want your browser, editor, or Slack
| window to be translucent.
|
| r/unixporn disagrees
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Maybe Apple designers should stop hanging out there and
| reread WCAG
| bigyabai wrote:
| r/unixporn disagrees with most HIGs.
| kepano wrote:
| I agree with your core sentiment but unfortunately we don't
| have a mass-producible display technology that allows for black
| pixels in a see-through optic (yet). It's going to be really
| hard to achieve.
|
| Pass-through is the only AR approach that currently allows
| black pixels, but it has uncomfortable limitations compared to
| a see-through optic.
|
| https://stephango.com/black-pixels
| polyomino wrote:
| Liquid glass design paradigm only works on reprojected
| displays. Additive displays can't replicate the distortions
| along the edges of the elements for both optical focus
| reasons and because you can see through the element.
| kepano wrote:
| That's pretty much the conclusion of my article linked
| above, at least short term. When I worked on that AR device
| we experimented with a segmented electrochromic layer that
| could allow a mixture of see-through and pass-through, but
| it's far from mass-producible, and probably a dead-end
| approach for what Apple is trying to do.
| YeahThisIsMe wrote:
| You absolutely did want all of that until the novelty of
| Windows Aero wore off.
|
| Of course, now that Apple has invented it, it will be
| completely different.
| XorNot wrote:
| The lack of stroke outlining of text on transparency is also
| just going to make it unreadable particular if the background
| has motion in it (so worse for AR).
| adriand wrote:
| I see my kid doing homework and he's got YouTube open on his
| other monitor. I don't know how that constitutes "working" but
| maybe in the future, you will indeed have your movie playback
| window underneath your vibe coding UI. Sounds terrible to me,
| but it's a distraction economy.
| XorNot wrote:
| If people wanted to do this then they'd do this right now on
| a monitor.
| layer8 wrote:
| This has been possible for well over a decade:
| https://www.mobzystems.com/tools/seethroughwindows/
| randomname4325 wrote:
| smart glasses is exactly where I saw this interface working and
| being developed for
| paxys wrote:
| > The move from skeuomorphic design in iOS 6 to the stark
| minimalism of iOS 7 sparked similar debates about usability and
| aesthetic merit. [...] Yet within two years, the entire industry
| had adopted flat design principles, from Google's Material Design
| to Microsoft's Metro language.
|
| That's quite a rewrite of history considering Windows Phone and
| Microsoft's Metro interface launched a full _three years_ before
| Apple 's move to a flat design in iOS 7.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > That's quite a rewrite of history considering Windows Phone
| and Microsoft's Metro interface launched a full three years
| before Apple's move to a flat design in iOS 7.
|
| Even Android had moved to a flatter design pattern 1-2 years
| before iOS. While Material Design wouldn't be released until
| 2014, you can see them moving in that direction from
| Gingerbread to Jelly Bean, particularly when looking at the
| system components and first-party apps, since this was before
| the concept of a unified design language across third-party
| apps had been formalized.
|
| At the time Apple introduced their flat design in June 2013,
| they were the odd ones out. In fact, I remember a Daring
| Fireball article posted in spring 2013 (a few months before
| WWDC) praising Apple for leading the pack in flat design, and
| HN excoriating it for making what was at the time a clearly
| preposterous claim.
| dmoy wrote:
| > Even Android had moved to a flatter design pattern 1-2
| years before iOS. While Material Design wouldn't be released
| until 2014, you can see them moving in that direction from
| Gingerbread to Jelly Bean
|
| Indeed:
|
| https://www.behance.net/gallery/4315369/Google-Project-
| Kenne...
| outofpaper wrote:
| Oh that was a beautiful time for Google interfaces. google
| had subtle and clean lines. Things worked well and we
| weren't overwhelmed with advertising let alone AI Slop.
| Marazan wrote:
| Yes, that was absolute peak Guber live-revisionism-in-action
| and when I basically stopped reading him entirely.
| nntwozz wrote:
| Please link said DF article praising Apple for leading the
| pack in flat design.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| Did you try searching for it? The first result on Google
| for "daringfireball.net flat design 2013" is https://daring
| fireball.net/2013/01/the_trend_against_skeuomo...
|
| Tack on site:news.ycombinator.com, and you'll find the top
| comment too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5081618
| sheepscreek wrote:
| FWIW, I always like the Windows Phone OS design. Its text first
| minimalism was refreshingly useful. It was a big leap ahead
| from Windows Mobile. I think it had something worthwhile to
| offer.
| sunflowerfly wrote:
| Microsoft gave up on a phone operating system far too early.
| paxys wrote:
| Nah they just joined the race too late. Remember that Steve
| Ballmer was laughing at and dismissing the iPhone when it
| launched ("it's too expensive, no one will use it, it
| doesn't even have a keyboard"). Microsoft continued pushing
| Windows Mobile at that time and even spent $1B+ acquiring
| Danger and releasing Kin (remember that disaster?). Then
| Windows Phone 7 finally launched in 2010 and was rebooted
| again in 2012 with Windows Phone 8. By that time the mobile
| OS market was a duopoly, and neither users nor developers
| nor manufacturers cared for a third platform.
| DrBenCarson wrote:
| They were already working on Windows Phone when Ballmer
| said that. That's why he said it. They were targeting a
| lower cost segment.
|
| Android, courtesy of being open source, was just able to
| move much faster
|
| I think if they had just open sourced the OS, like
| Android, instead of killing it, Windows Phone could have
| been a decent Android competitor
| someone7x wrote:
| Luckily it is immortalized in GTA5, when playing as Trevor at
| least. I found it the easiest phone to use in that game.
| _dark_matter_ wrote:
| Totally agreed. I really enjoyed using my Windows phone! Even
| the tablet software was great (might still be too, but I
| haven't used one in years)
| paxys wrote:
| For sure, so many of its features were far ahead of the
| competition. Sleek minimilist UX, live tiles, Qi wireless
| charging, kids mode, Cortana, search within settings (so
| simple yet no one did it at the time). Continuum let you plug
| your phone into a monitor and use it like a full Windows
| desktop (many years before Samsung Dex and other similar
| efforts on Android). "Universal apps" that could run on
| desktop/mobile/web. Sucks that Microsoft fumbled it so bad.
| neuroelectron wrote:
| This is happening a lot. If you talk to ChatGPT about any
| company it has quite a rosy picture to paint of just about
| everyone. Probably trying to convince companies to integrate
| advertising.
| laborcontract wrote:
| The new UI is gorgeous and importantly, delightful.
| mcswell wrote:
| I don't care about "gorgeous", and I don't know what
| "delightful" means. But I do know what "useable" means, and
| that's what I want. And translucent does not enhance
| useability, on the contrary.
|
| If and when this comes, I'll be changing the setting to maximal
| opacity, just like I did with Windows Vista.
| ModernMech wrote:
| > just like I did with Windows Vista.
|
| Yeah, it's not like these lesson haven't been learned. But I
| guess Apple could always do it right, but I don't see it
| happening.
| layer8 wrote:
| You should have added an /s. ;)
| hnlmorg wrote:
| I'm all for a common design language but not at the expense of
| breaking the UX on devices that aren't interacted with in the
| same way.
|
| Or in layman's terms: Let's hope this isn't like Microsoft with
| Metro, "everything is a smart phone" even when it's not.
| MrThoughtful wrote:
| Funny, in the comparison image the article shows for the 3 design
| styles - Skeuomorphic, Flat, Liquid Glass - the Skeuomorphic one
| looks absolutely best to me:
|
| https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/6...
|
| The items look so much more tangible, and the text is more
| readable. Everything is easy to grok visually. The flat design
| looks way more confusing. And the liquid glass one looks even
| worse.
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> the Skeuomorphic one looks absolutely best to me_
|
| Same. But how would large teams of UI designers justify their
| jobs if they'd leave it like that for 10+ years?
| buran77 wrote:
| The cause and effect are not so clear cut. Customers also
| expect something new. That way they feel like they got
| something new when they have to replace their phone,
| especially in the "evolution not revolution" phase of a
| device.
|
| And it's not just phones either. Car companies spend money on
| retooling to give a model a facelift because people expect
| it. Sales drop and then pick up again after the facelift
| because nobody wants to buy something that looks dated from
| day one.
|
| Manufacturers take cues from each other because once a
| "modern" trend is set everything else looks dated. Everyone
| went with flat UIs in a matter of a few years. Cars went with
| lightbar lights in the past few years too. That's what feels
| modern now.
|
| As long as a huge part of the market remembers skeuomorphic
| design and associates it with the early 2000s it will never
| feel modern so designers stay away from it.
|
| P.S. For me suspenders are still the third best way to keep
| my pants on (right after "picking the right pants size" and
| "fastening the buttons"). But nobody wants them these days
| and it's not a Big Belt conspiracy. They just don't look
| modern.
| msgodel wrote:
| Do they? I used FVWM's MWM theme for 13 years starting from
| when I was 12 and was pretty happy with it. I've been using
| CWM for the past 6 years with roughly no changes and am
| happy with that. Having themes and UI changes forced on you
| is annoying.
| buran77 wrote:
| You are using a niche window manager, with a niche theme,
| on a niche OS. This is almost as far as it gets from
| being representative of the majority.
| mcswell wrote:
| One reason I use a plain black background for my iPhone--I can
| actually read the labels under each icon. (I could use plain
| text rather than icons, but that's a different gripe.)
|
| Also, I can actually read the battery level indicator in the
| skeuomorphic display. I sometimes resort to getting out a
| magnifying glass to read it on my iPhone's current display.
| (Yes, I have old eyes. And I have to keep telling those Apple
| UI people to get off my grass.)
| furyofantares wrote:
| I really hated all the liquid glass screenshots, and had a bad
| reaction when I first updated my phone to it. I also updated my
| macOS, and had a MUCH better reaction to that. And after a few
| days I really dig it on my phone too.
|
| I thought there was supposed to be a way to add a tint to it
| though, which I haven't found a setting for, and think I would
| do if I could find it.
| astrange wrote:
| Please don't live on developer betas like that. They're not
| meant to be stable enough for it.
| furyofantares wrote:
| I'm alright man
| frereubu wrote:
| As I remember it, there was actually a step between Transition
| and Native in that image, which was noticeably flatter than
| Native. It was the first Ives interface, mentioned in the
| article: "iOS 7's initial release had similar problems: ultra-
| thin fonts that were hard to read, blue text links that didn't
| look clickable, animations that made some users motion sick.
| Apple responded with gradual refinements: thicker fonts, higher
| contrast, optional accessibility settings, and more obvious
| interactive elements." i.e. they made it much worse and then
| made it slightly less bad. I presume they'll follow a roughly
| similar path with this, when really, in my view, they should be
| reversing course on some of the fundamentals to make it easier
| to use. Scrollbars are a great example. I've got used to the
| fact that they're hidden on macOS now, but looks at some of the
| great ones from the past that have an almost tangible feel to
| them: https://imgur.com/scrollbars-through-history-fixed-jpdGk
| dvngnt_ wrote:
| Yeah at the default sizes i couldn't read the glass ones nearly
| as easily. the icons themselves look like a bad icon pack that
| i could download on android 14 years ago
| IsTom wrote:
| Is it just me or the glass design makes everything look
| disabled? Why are you supposed think that these are active when
| they're all gray?
| yrcyrc wrote:
| <<If history is any guide, we'll all be using glass-like
| interfaces within five years, wondering how we ever lived without
| them>>. Thanks but no thanks. I'll keep my current phone until I
| can't anymore but that's it then.
| xnx wrote:
| Also, no evidence that Liquid Glass isn't a bad UI for AR too.
|
| John Carmack writes:
|
| Translucent UI is usually a bad idea outside of movies and non-
| critical game interfaces.
|
| The early moments of joy are fleeting, while the usability issues
| remain. Windows and Mac have both been down this road before, but
| I guess a new generation of designers needs to learn the lessons
| anew. Sigh.
|
| _All of the same issues apply in AR as well._ Outside of movies,
| people do not work out their thoughts on windowpanes or
| transparent "whiteboards" because of the exact same legibility
| issues.
|
| Would you prefer a notebook of white sheets, or hundreds of
| different blurry image backgrounds?
|
| https://x.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1932521605340483607
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| _> Translucent UI is usually a bad idea outside of movies and
| non-critical game interfaces._
|
| We're taking about Apple here, who prioritize aesthetics over
| everything else, shipping a defective keyboard design for 5
| years straight just to shave 1 millimeter of thickness on the
| laptop.
|
| It needs to 'wow' people in the Apple Store in terms of looks
| and feel, usability be dammed.
| oxygen_crisis wrote:
| I thought the touch bar was even worse than the butterfly
| keys...
|
| I put off upgrading my personal MacBook for years after work
| issued me a MacBook with the touch bar. Such a usability
| nightmare for the sake of eye candy. That was a long seven
| years.
| bigyabai wrote:
| Hey, at least Apple hedged their bet on the future needing
| emoji keyboards.
| encom wrote:
| You'd rather go 7 years without upgrading, than buy a
| computer without an apple on it?
| iw7tdb2kqo9 wrote:
| Liquid glass looks great on the "Meet Liquid Glass" video.
| Implemention feels wrong. I think it was rushed. Video has some
| selective background/font color combinations.
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IrGYUq1mklk
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Two points stand out in that demo video:
|
| - most of the close look examples are on very simple buttons
| with a single geometric shapes, like ">" or "#". Those will
| be legible even in pretty extreme conditions, and we can't
| expect real world applications to be mostly composed of
| those.
|
| Imagine the screen at 11:51 with a "Select" as the button
| text instead of the geometrical icons. It wouldn't be great.
|
| - text is only presented on very low contrast areas. When
| scrolling the elephant picture around 9:30 to show the title
| go dark -> light for instance, it's a switch between a very
| pale background to a very saturated one, and they stop the
| scrolling when the title is against the darkest part of the
| image, where it's the most legible.
|
| It's not just the implementation IMHO, in a real application
| you can't adjust every screen and interaction to only hit the
| best absolute conditions to make Liquid Glass look good. The
| whole idea behind it is just harder to look good in real
| world, short of giving up and going for very low
| transparency.
| didgeoridoo wrote:
| I think the issue is less about whether it's a good idea or
| not, but rather that AR interfaces essentially HAVE to be
| translucent (unless you're doing video passthrough) -- so might
| as well figure out how to get it right.
| layer8 wrote:
| In AR the user needs to be able to tell which objects are
| real (R) and which are virtual/injected (A), but the latter
| type doesn't need to be indicated by transparency. Consider
| the scenario where, instead of conventional HUD-type AR, we
| could conjure up the A elements as physical objects into thin
| air by magic. There is no particular reason why those would
| have to be translucent. Sure, depending on the situation it
| can be useful to control their opacity in order to be able to
| see what's behind them, but otherwise there is no more reason
| than for real physical objects.
| two_handfuls wrote:
| Parent was talking about current screen technology ("real
| AR" vs "passthrough AR").
| manmal wrote:
| I get the legibility argument, but if you want to make an AR
| device that's safe to use in _any_ context, you just can't
| occlude the environment. People would have accidents because of
| that - as drivers, but also while walking or just bumping into
| things while putting something in the fridge.
|
| For walls of text you can still opt out of this and use a less
| translucent material.
| philwelch wrote:
| That's unfortunate because it would make it extremely
| difficult to implement adblocking in AR (as in, blocking ads
| from the real world).
| behnamoh wrote:
| how would that even work? what ads do you see in the real
| world?
| nemomarx wrote:
| Billboards, posters on bus stops, etc?
| bee_rider wrote:
| > Would you prefer a notebook of white sheets, or hundreds of
| different blurry image backgrounds?
|
| Weird tangent, but I used tracing paper over piece of graph
| paper for notes for a while. I liked it because I could use the
| graph paper for drawing my figures or align my text, but then
| have something more aesthetically pleasing and nice for reading
| after. I find reading on graph paper annoying, due to the
| vertical lines.
|
| Anyway, I can't think of any way that a transparent OS window
| could be similarly helpful.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > I find reading on graph paper annoying, due to the vertical
| lines.
|
| You might get on with a Whitelines pad[0]?
|
| [0] https://www.whitelinespaper.com/product/engineering-
| pad-8-5-...
| hxtk wrote:
| I've definitely been preferring a transparent background on my
| terminal lately, particularly when I only have one screen,
| because it increases my ability to read the reference material
| I have opened behind it. At the very least, if I have to alt-
| tab it out of the way, I'm already oriented on the page. So I
| can see the benefit in at least some use cases.
|
| I don't think I'd like to have it on everything, though. Or
| basically anything except my terminal, for that matter.
| evanextreme wrote:
| As a visionOS user (somewhat) what is so funny about all of
| this is that the translucency effects in visionOS are
| significantly toned down compared to liquid glass for this
| specific reason. The glass is heavily diffused, you can maybe
| get an idea of what is behind (a person moving, a television
| thats turned on) but nothing even close to the level that I
| have experienced in the iPadOS beta
| carabiner wrote:
| Big exception is aviation HUDs that are much closer to AR than
| conventional workspaces. In HUDs, everything is overlaid with
| bright green lines. It must be visible in day/night all sorts
| of conditions. But Apple's take on an overlay GUI isn't like
| this at all.
| Aloisius wrote:
| As someone who uses an exterior sliding glass door as a
| whiteboard, I haven't experienced any legibility issues while
| using it. It's actually remarkably easy to read.
|
| This could be partly because there's nothing immediately close
| to the window so any writing is the only real thing in the
| focal plane.
|
| If I stand further back, it is somewhat harder to read, but I
| imagine this wouldn't be a problem with displays that can
| emulate that (like laser retinal displays iirc)
| bigyabai wrote:
| Do you use multiple marker colors? Or just one?
| jimmySixDOF wrote:
| not OP but I use normal wb markers any color and as long as
| you wipe down pretty regularly using glass cleaner it is a
| great option in certain rooms
| xnx wrote:
| Probably not very good at night?
| bongodongobob wrote:
| This is completely dependent on what's behind it, not mention
| you need to light an entirely separate room/hallway to read
| it.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Is Liquid Glass really "translucent" though? I mean, aside from
| the gimmicky transparent setting, which is going to be
| _horrible_ for accessibility (can you say "contrast"?) so
| anyone with less than perfect vision and/or a sensible concern
| for usable UX is going to turn that off immediately. The non-
| transparent icons and widgets look a lot like the older "flat"
| ones with some glassy/ceramic 3D effects on top. Still a bit
| fuzzy, but they're at least bearable for long-term use.
| serf wrote:
| >s Liquid Glass really "translucent" though? I mean, aside
| from the gimmicky transparent setting, which is going to be
| horrible for accessibility (can you say "contrast"?) so
| anyone with less than perfect vision and/or a sensible
| concern for usable UX is going to turn that off immediately.
|
| I have a hard time parsing this.
|
| "Is the glass effect transparent if I don't turn off
| transparency?"
|
| uhh.. Yes.
|
| As a bit of a citizen scientist myself let me explain how I
| wrapped my laymen's brain around it :
|
| If I can see _through_ it, it 's transparent. If the color
| changes _behind_ the thing, and I can somehow intuit that --
| good chance 's we're dealing with transparency.
| brailsafe wrote:
| Seems like you're conflating translucency and transparency,
| and Apple is being a bit imprecise with those terms too. As
| in, if you turn off what Apple is calling "transparency",
| is the interface still arguably "translucent" in the way
| that's implied by the Carmack quote, which I take to mean
| some Minority Report barely frosted-glass effect in the
| background.
|
| > If I can see through it, it's transparent.
|
| Yes, if you can clearly make out the details behind
| whatever it is you're looking through.
|
| > If the color changes behind the thing, and I can somehow
| intuit that -- good chance's we're dealing with
| transparency.
|
| This would normally be translucency, akin to a shower door
| or curtain that lets you see that someone is in there and
| maybe who, but not much more.
|
| In this case though, it's a bit weird, and it seems like
| the person you responded to did have a relevant question,
| because as far as I've seen it's kind of pseudo-transparent
| but not quite translucent in different contexts, in the
| sense that you can more clearly see through to detail
| that's sometimes there (slider position, magnifying glass)
| and sometimes only derived from the bottom layer, like
| colors changing.
|
| To me, it's less like a shower door vs window, and more
| like a window vs looking through the bottom of a shot
| glass, but im some cases closer to opaque than translucent
| if the transparent gimmick is turned off, based on how the
| question was asked.
| anon373839 wrote:
| I haven't downloaded the beta, but from what I can see in
| the demos, Liquid Glass dynamically adjusts the properties
| of the overlay (text color, background blur, alpha, fill)
| based on what is underneath so that the illusion of
| transparency is there but the text is still readable. The
| only time this doesn't seem to happen is while in animation
| / scrolling. The adjustment comes after the movement stops.
|
| All of the outrage screenshots I've seen appeared to have
| been taken during animation.
| outofpaper wrote:
| Writing on blurry glass can work but it requires effort. It the
| real world we have elements that can create shadows and refract
| light around writing making it more legable but we still don't
| bother printing books on overhead sheets and tracing paper!
| mrandish wrote:
| > Translucent UI is usually a bad idea outside of movies and
| non-critical game interfaces.
|
| Reading the article's claims about translucent UI being ideal
| for AR, all I could think about was how bad this roadside
| traffic sign would be if it was white text printed on
| translucent glass. https://images.app.goo.gl/MU4kJmWZ8ogNGAD9A
|
| Assuming the information a daily-use AR headset is presenting
| is important, it needs to be instantly legible to be useful. I
| guess my counter to this article would be having an AI create
| images of "Roadside traffic signs as re-imagined in Apple's
| Liquid Glass." Would showing an intersection with a Liquid
| Glass stop sign and a car crashed into the side of another be
| too much?
| raverbashing wrote:
| Yeah, I'm more tempted on believing the other takes on it
|
| That basically is just a way of making people upgrade their
| iPhone
| Someone1234 wrote:
| I've seen this speculation a lot, but that's all it is
| speculation. Apple has been working on an AR concept for going on
| 4-5 years now, and as recently as January this year were reported
| to have given up yet again:
|
| https://www.theverge.com/news/604378/apple-n107-ar-glasses-c...
|
| Yet I see this speculation copied (TechCrunch), copied
| (MacRumors), copied (Substack), from one article to another with
| the fervor rising at each one. Yet we never approach anything
| close to substantive.
|
| I read in 2023 AR is due in 24, then 24 it was 25, and now in 25
| it is due in 26. AR also now has something to do with AI because
| of course it does, and Apple's new blurry UI is something to do
| with this product 1.5 years out at minimum... Sure.
| samwillis wrote:
| This would make sense if there was any indication that AR is
| going to happen. I would argue that there isn't even the faintest
| signal that it will.
|
| People do not want invasive glasses, even if they make them as
| small at normal glasses. I just don't see it becoming anything
| other than a niche product.
|
| It's like all the moves to voice/audio interfaces powered by AI.
| They simply won't take off as audio is inherently low bandwidth
| and low definition. Our eyes are able to see so much more in our
| peripheral vision, at a much higher bandwidth.
|
| Some would argue that's an indication that AR will happen, but
| it's still so low deff, and incredibly intrusive, as much as I
| love the demos and the vision (pun not intended) behind it.
|
| As far as I can see, the only motivation for the visual overall
| is that they need _something_ to fill the gap until they have
| some real AI innovations to show. This is a "tick" in the
| traditional "tick" -> "tock" development and release cycle - a
| facelift while they work on some difficult re-engineering
| underneath. But that's not AR, it AI.
| msgodel wrote:
| I actually have a homebrew Linux AR setup that I use heavily
| and absolutely think it will be the future (although it will be
| similar to the smartphone where you get a combined form factor
| and paradigm shift that people think are both connected.)
|
| Good AR glasses are already available and combined with modern
| LLMs you can have normal people thinking about computers the
| way we do. This will _feel_ less invasive than smartphones do
| currently while being able to do much more.
|
| I'm absolutely certain Apple will not survive the transition
| though.
| kbos87 wrote:
| I think the appeal and the value equation of AR would be
| completely different if it didn't feel like you were donning a
| heavy headset to step into the matrix. It's very likely that
| there will be innovation in translucent displays and input
| methods that make AR ubiquitous at some point in the future. I
| just don't know if that will be in 5 years or 15 years.
| msgodel wrote:
| Zero years. http://swiley.net/arglassescroped.jpg
|
| It's just a matter of packaging and selling it the way the
| palm pilot was packaged and sold as the smartphone.
| Geee wrote:
| VR / AR will definitely replace desktop / stationary computers,
| but they need to be as lightweight as headphones. Steve Jobs
| said it best (also his opinion of the current Vision Pro at the
| very end): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQECSInWVPY
| iw7tdb2kqo9 wrote:
| Some insights/vision lost to history because interviewer
| needed to interrupt.
|
| This is why I like Lex Fridman style podcast.
| roughly wrote:
| > People do not want invasive glasses, even if they make them
| as small at normal glasses. I just don't see it becoming
| anything other than a niche product.
|
| Wait, are you arguing that consumers will reject something that
| puts, say, a social media feed in front of their face 24hrs a
| day? That will allow them to just gaze at an internet site
| constantly without even having to think about it? That will
| allow them to have videos in their peripheral vision while they
| "concentrate" on something else?
|
| AR headsets will not replace computers, they'll replace phones.
| coastalpuma wrote:
| The comparison to the evolution of iOS is misleading. With iOS,
| they introduced users to a new platform by using familiar and
| appropriate design language on that platform. With the current
| redesign, they're using design language that is really geared
| towards AR on non-AR devices. The design is in service of devices
| that most people don't use and haven't showed much interest in
| using.
| coastalpuma wrote:
| The better comparison are those operating systems which tried
| for mobile-desktop convergence without adequate consideration
| of the differences between those platforms, thereby making the
| desktop experience worse and alienating users. In fact, it's
| not even as well considered as that, since mobile was a well
| established phenomenon at that point, whereas AR is still very
| niche.
| thenaturalist wrote:
| As other comments allude to, there are several factual weaknesses
| quickly obvious in contrast to the storyline of the article.
|
| Another rather significant historical fact the author completely
| omits is that the iPhone generated crazy hype among consumer
| customers [0] and bored the business community.
|
| I think it would still even be graceful to assume the opposite
| about AR "computing".
|
| Constructing the premise of "this is a precursor of the next big
| thing" in light of this contrast is rather hard to follow.
|
| [0]:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/technology/circuits/27pog...
| cma wrote:
| The looking forward part about additive AR glasses won't really
| work with liquid glass: how will you do refraction without
| doubling up the unrefracted version passing through?
|
| Maybe it would still work ok in low light.
| htrp wrote:
| So we're waiting for a cheaper to use Vision Pro (Vision SE?)
| ModernMech wrote:
| I've seen this "theory" floating around social media. I mean, it
| makes sense but also Apple has a history of boneheaded UI
| decisions, so I'm not going to put much weight on it. It reads
| more like cope because of how poorly the UI has been received.
| Such apologizing also usually follows Apple's boneheaded
| decisions. "It's 4D chess, you just don't have the vision that
| Apple has to understand it. But I do, and here's the plan."
| iamleppert wrote:
| I wonder if they will release a transparent frosted glass iPad
| next?!
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| I would've saved that one for April Fool's Day, myself. People
| would tie themselves in knots arguing about whether it was real
| or a joke. "A product only Apple could deliver."
| layer8 wrote:
| Just let the backside camera feed be the wallpaper. They'd
| probably do it if it didn't cost too much battery.
| tzury wrote:
| Apple's pattern has always been to enter markets later but with
| more refined, integrated solutions.
|
| They weren't first with MP3 players, smartphones, tablets, or
| smartwatches - but when they entered, they often redefined those
| categories. The current AI situation likely follows this same
| playbook.
|
| Apple's culture of secrecy means we only see what they choose to
| release.
|
| What's often overlooked is that Apple might be playing a
| different game entirely.
|
| Tim Cook's measured approach and the company's $100B+ R&D budget
| suggest they're building something substantial, not scrambling to
| catch up.
|
| They may be betting that the current LLM race will commoditize,
| and the real value will come from integration and user experience
| - areas where Apple traditionally excels.
| munificent wrote:
| _> Tim Cook 's measured approach and the company's $100B+ R&D
| budget suggest they're building something substantial, not
| scrambling to catch up._
|
| It could also be that Tim Cook is just an ops guy who only
| knows how to hill climb graphs up and to the right and Apple is
| running out of the innovation momentum it had when Jobs died.
| shinycode wrote:
| Well it even if he's only that it seems to work pretty well
| regarding sales over the last +10 years. Cash is the blood of
| companies so even if that's not the best decisions ever
| regarding pure/first player innovations, as long as the
| company last more years alive in a competitive market it's a
| win for him/them
| DannyBee wrote:
| "Apple's pattern has always been to enter markets later but
| with more refined, integrated solutions."
|
| Err, no it isn't. It would be more accurate to state "the only
| thing that apple has recently been successful at is entering
| markets later with more refined, integrated solutions".
|
| But it's definitely not the pattern of what they've tried.
|
| The 100 billion also includes tons of expensive failures, like
| self-driving cars, etc. Those are not cheap, and they were
| definitely playing catch-up.
|
| Here's an alternate take - apple fails at things sometimes, and
| has historically been able to get people to ignore and minimize
| the failure. Leading to folks saying things like "Apple's
| pattern has always been to enter markets later ...." because
| they just ignore the failures that contradict this. In this
| case, they are not just failing at AI, but are failing to get
| people to ignore the failure.
|
| Why isn't that a better explanation than "apple never fails,
| they secretly were not trying to succeed at AI, they aren't
| spending billions trying to catch up, they are spending
| billions on a secret knockout blow that nobody knows about"
| bitpush wrote:
| > While the tech press fixated on Apple's relatively quiet AI
| story at WWDC 2025, the company was executing a more subtle
| strategy. Rather than engaging in the current LLM arms race
| (where it's demonstrably behind), Apple doubled down on what it
| does best: creating compelling user experiences through design
| and integration.
|
| I cant believe real people actually believe this kind of stuff.
| The author seems to think tech press alone is fixated on AI
| story. Apple themselves was all gung-ho about AI last time
| around. They sold an entire line of iPhones touting the benefits
| of AI. They even "invented" a brand for their line of offering -
| Apple Intelligence.
|
| And when it all fell flat, Apple had to apologize and _had_ to
| (yes, had to) showcase other things. Liquid Glass essentially was
| a replacement for that. If Apple had anything meaningful to show
| in AI world, it would have show cased that.
|
| And author seems to think Apple is playing 4D chess. Sometimes
| the simplest explanation is what is really going on.
| bombcar wrote:
| The reality distortion field didn't die with Jobs.
| DannyBee wrote:
| The author is far enough into apple fanboy conspiracies that
| they will probably next claim the reality distortion field
| didn't die because Jobs never died.
| paxys wrote:
| The fact that the majority of AI features which were promised
| (and pushed _hard_ ) by Apple for iPhone 16 are still nowhere
| in sight should honestly be a bigger story. So many people
| upgraded to that phone entirely for AI.
| kitten_mittens_ wrote:
| I updated to avoid paying the new American tariffs. The
| advertised AI features were decidedly underwhelming.
| layer8 wrote:
| There is a class action lawsuit regarding that:
| https://clarksonlawfirm.com/lp/apple-intelligence-false-
| adve...
| behnamoh wrote:
| i hope it wins against apple. i also bought my new iphone
| mainly for AI reasons but looking back, i should have
| purchased a pixel.
| DannyBee wrote:
| No, you see, Apple has spent untold billions of dollars chasing
| AI as a feint. Them repeatedly apologizing and telling
| investors they are working as fast as they can is all lies.
| They have everyone just where they want them, and are poised to
| deliver the killing blow of ... a new UI that everyone has to
| relearn.
| conradev wrote:
| An even simpler explanation is that regular UI redesigns are an
| important tool for a device manufacturer to make the experience
| feel new or refreshed, and this novelty helps sell devices.
| Everyone reacts to the content of the redesign when it lands,
| but the fact that it happens should not be surprising.
|
| Usability issues only manifest after point of sale.
| Messaging/marketing happens after the work has been done (and
| can involve post-rationalization).
| KaiserPro wrote:
| As someone who works with a wide range of AR displays, if this is
| the reason for the UI change, they've fucked up hard.
|
| Blurring in AR is quite difficult as it requires an accurately
| aligned image to overlay the world. The point of AR is its just
| an overlay, you don't need to render whats already there. To make
| a blur, you need the underlying image, this costs energy, which
| you don't really have on AR glasses.
| bitpush wrote:
| I just had a holy-shit moment reading through what you just
| said. I had not considered that AR overlays wont be blurred,
| without sampling what's behind the overlay/glass.
|
| People are in for a world of pain when they realize this.
| roughly wrote:
| One note on this with regards to the "flat" design - the
| technical reasoning for that was it decoupled the interface from
| the screen. Flat designs were all vector, and could scale to any
| screen or interface size. This has effectively unpinned Apple
| from fixed screen sizes (I'm genuinely not sure if any two iPhone
| designs have shared the same pixel counts in the last 5-10 years)
| and allowed them to scale the interface to any size.
|
| I'm not sure what I think about liquid glass, but I do agree with
| the premise that it's being driven by the move towards AR and
| extending interfaces outside the phone/tablet.
|
| I think another interesting tell here will be the 20th
| anniversary iPhone, which should be coming in 2027 - the iPhone X
| set the tone for Apple devices for the next decade (so far), and
| I'd expect to get a better idea of what Apple's doing here when
| they show off that hardware.
| wizzledonker wrote:
| I've seen skeuomorphic designs done with vector art, surely
| this can't be the only/real reason.
| curiousgal wrote:
| The same AR they built a product for and flopped? Oh please..
| exe34 wrote:
| I remember when the armchair experts were laughing at us old
| people for reminiscing about the eye candy of OS X from Tiger to
| Snow Leopard - no, they told us, the nice looking things are from
| the past. Now everything needs to be flat. It's better. It's more
| usable. You're not supposed to know the difference between text
| and buttons based on sight.
|
| Oh now the shiny is back, but worse.
| runjake wrote:
| This was initially my hunch, but after using the betas quite a
| bit, I changed my mind.
|
| The pre-WWDC rumors suggested that iOS and macOS would be
| refreshed with inspiration from "Apple Vision Pro." However,
| after using the interface, I don't see much similarity beyond the
| use of translucency and some of the toolbar shapes.
|
| I had preconceived notions from watching the WWDC videos before
| trying the new interface, but I didn't really _get it_ until I
| used it. The videos don 't do it justice and fail to provide a
| genuine feel for the experience.
|
| Keep in mind that much of what you see in the videos consists of
| marketing renders.
|
| Note: None of this is to claim that AR isn't going to be a thing.
| I completely believe it will come to dominate.
| scudsworth wrote:
| windows vista was prep work for ar interfaces
| exiguus wrote:
| This article presents two speculations: first, that Apple has a
| strong belief in augmented reality (AR), and second, that the
| company is adapting its user interface and user experience
| (UI/UX) design in preparation for AR integration. However, where
| is the evidence to support these claims?
| partiallypro wrote:
| This was obvious from the start. Microsoft tried to do a
| convergence of design across devices too and it failed. I have a
| feeling this will be a failure as well, different use cases
| simply require different designs. Despite all the talent at
| Apple, I can't see them escaping this reality. I like some of the
| aspects of Liquid Glass and some of the aspects of it are
| somewhat mind blowing, but it needs to be toned down a lot. If
| they want it to truly be a cross device idea it needs to be
| fleshed out a large amount with some features dropping for some
| devices, and that's when it gets complicated to keep together.
| excalibur wrote:
| Didn't Microsoft do this whole glass UI thing 20 years ago?
| I_dream_of_Geni wrote:
| This just seems like a skeuomorphic design refresh. Which Apple
| HATED and tore down with prejudice. And then proceeded to replace
| it with childish, flat, candy-colored icons for kids.... smh
| ray_ wrote:
| > The same pattern appears to be playing out with AI. While
| competitors race to stuff large language models into everything,
| Apple is taking a more measured approach. The Liquid Glass design
| language actually creates opportunities for more contextual AI
| interactions. Imagine smart suggestions that appear as
| translucent overlays, or AI-generated content that floats
| naturally over your existing workflow. The glass metaphor
| provides a visual framework for AI that feels ambient rather than
| intrusive.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-13 23:00 UTC)