[HN Gopher] More assorted notes on Liquid Glass
___________________________________________________________________
More assorted notes on Liquid Glass
Author : freediver
Score : 79 points
Date : 2025-07-02 08:18 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (morrick.me)
(TXT) w3m dump (morrick.me)
| rickdeckard wrote:
| Almost hilarous:
|
| > Apple Design-Guide: "Ensure that you clearly separate your
| content from navigation elements [..]"
|
| Honest auto-complete:
|
| "[..] the OS will then use the GPU to draw all attention away
| from the content to the navigation elements"
| rickdeckard wrote:
| > I've said this before, but Apple is forcing third party devs to
| be in service of Apple. The guidelines and rules are meant to
| sublimate the brands of the third party, and replace it with
| Apple.
|
| I have the same impression. Frankly I believe the whole purpose
| of "Liquid Glass" is to create an exaggerated version of the GUI
| Apple intends to use later-on in AR glasses, which is then toned
| back again in later releases to match the feasible implementation
| on the glasses.
|
| The expected migration curve seems to be to force all
| applications now to become more bland and less distinguishable
| from the OS (and Apple services), so that at the end of the
| journey (in a future AR-product) Apple can #1 render those apps
| consistently without disrupting their UX and #2 present itself as
| the user-facing service provider for all the value created by
| those apps (with the app-developer being responsible for the
| integration and UX-compliance).
|
| It's a dream-scenario. Need a ride-hailing service? Let "the
| Apple glasses" do it for you. Under the hood the apps are then
| hopefully so streamlined already that service-providers will
| compete to be the fulfilment entity for this task.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Under the hood the apps are then hopefully so streamlined
| already that service-providers will compete to be the
| fulfilment entity for this task.
|
| Probably going to be against the hivemind on this one, but I
| for one welcome this. Public transport, taxis, flights, hotels,
| to a degree even restaurants are fungible. I want to get from A
| to B, I want to have a bed for a few nights in some other city,
| I want to get some specific food.
|
| That's what I need. What I _do not_ want is to waste time to
| get what I need with bullshit.
|
| That's why I love the "evil B" of hospitality - I see all
| available hotels for my travel, the associated price and
| pictures. I select an offer (usually the cheapest one that
| still has decent reviews), I click on "book", I confirm my
| data, that's it. I don't need to wade through dozens of
| websites, enter my data a dozen times, and then finally enter
| payment data on yet another shady website that's probably gonna
| get hacked sooner or later.
|
| I don't want to waste my time researching the phone number of
| the local taxi company, so taxi.de it is, I only select where I
| need to go and a few minutes later a taxi shows up, no need to
| call someone, spell out the street name I live in to someone
| barely understanding me on the phone because Germany's phone
| service is dogshit.
|
| I don't care about which specific Chinese restaurant I want, so
| I go on Lieferando, and half an hour later a nice load of fried
| rice with greens shows up at my door. And every time I have to
| go to a specific place (say for an anniversary) I know exactly
| why I despise the old way - everyone does seat reservations
| differently, no integration with _anything_.
|
| What still irks me is flight booking, because while Google and
| a fair few other resellers/brokers _do_ at least compare
| available options of different fulfilment providers, the actual
| booking I have to do is still on each airline 's different web
| page. And rail travel is similarly annoying once you try to
| leave Germany.
| rickdeckard wrote:
| This is very valid, I also don't like to install an app for
| every service. And I don't think there's a "hivemind" on this
| at all.
|
| But it's reasonable that the merchants offering in the
| marketplace of that ecosystem start to observe how their
| opportunity to become the next "evil B of X" are increasingly
| diminished, in favor of being the fulfilment entity for the
| "benevolent A".
|
| I neither need an "evil B" nor a "benevolent A", and
| substituting one for the other is not a solution either...
| dwaite wrote:
| It is a direct response to developer feedback - that they only
| are going to make iPhone apps because redoing design to support
| even just iPad, let alone a watch, TV, Mac, and AR variant is
| work. Even Facebook hasn't found the resources to port the
| Instagram app to have a proper UX on iPad.
|
| This started with the separation of iPad OS (and release of
| Catalyst, and SwiftUI 1.0) in 2019. iPad OS is effectively the
| mother platform - an iPad app can be adapted down to target
| iPhone, or to target macOS and visionOS (with both those
| platforms also supporting running iPadOS apps natively without
| modification). The L&F changes in 2020 to macOS (with release
| 11) were heavily about making iPadOS and macOS more visually
| similar.
|
| It doesn't surprise me at all that a team at apple tasked to
| make a consistent HIG and L&F across all products is borrowing
| heavily from the most recent HIG/L&F they worked on (Vision
| OS).
| PapaPalpatine wrote:
| I'm not a professional designer, but I like Liquid Glass. If you
| don't like it, stay on iOS 18 or switch to Android.
|
| Aside from the criticism of icons, every complaint in the article
| just came across as nit-picks.
| rickdeckard wrote:
| Beside of the fact that App-Developers don't have the option to
| "stay on iOS18 or switch to Android", that statement is
| equivalent to "Stop criticizing my country. If you don't like
| what it is doing, find yourself another country".
|
| Developers (and users) are citizens of that ecosystem, serving
| other citizens and contributing to its economy. It is their
| right to judge and criticize directions being taken.
|
| The owner of that ecosystem must endure and acknowledge this
| (especially when he continuously makes efforts to increase the
| difficulty to LEAVE that ecosystem), and other citizens should
| not take any offense from this at all.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| > The owner of that ecosystem must endure and acknowledge
| this
|
| _Do_ they need to acknowledge it? Ecosystems aren 't
| countries, they're markets, and citizenship doesn't exist
| here in the same sense - only participation in the ecosystem.
| Maybe there's some EU chicanery that makes it illegal for
| American companies to ship a UI that's displeasing to
| European tastes, but if we pretend that Apple is strictly an
| American company, would they need to acknowledge this at all
| if it didn't affect sales?
| rickdeckard wrote:
| I'm not sure we have the same understanding of
| "acknowledge". Apple can acknowledge criticism and still
| decide not to act on it.
|
| The rest of your comment I don't understand, sorry.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| > I'm not sure we have the same understanding of
| "acknowledge". Apple can acknowledge criticism and still
| decide not to act on it.
|
| We do, but what I'm suggesting is that Apple might
| exercise a third choice, which would be ignoring the
| criticism and pretending it doesn't exist if they don't
| think it will affect their sales.
| nancyminusone wrote:
| But for some reason, discussions of parts pairing, side
| loading, and app store fees tends to steer towards the "use a
| different phone, bro" argument.
| nerdjon wrote:
| I have only been able to play with iOS 26 so far a little bit in
| the simulator, and so far it seems fine. To me it feels like
| after a couple months I will likely forget that a change was made
| (which TBH I think is a good thing, unlike when Windows has tried
| to make a change and never completes...).
|
| However there is one thing that I wanted to comment on here:
|
| > I've said this before, but Apple is forcing third party devs to
| be in service of Apple. The guidelines and rules are meant to
| sublimate the brands of the third party, and replace it with
| Apple.
|
| Personally one of the things that drives me insane is when an app
| tries to be special and have its own design language (looking at
| you Google) on my iOS device. The OS has an established design
| language and really should be used for most applications.
|
| I understand wanting to have a brand identity but too many apps
| take this too far that just lead to a clunky experience.
| rickdeckard wrote:
| > The OS has an established design language and really should
| be used for most applications.
|
| This is a valid point.
|
| The other side of the story is that the iOS ecosystem is a
| marketplace where merchants offer goods and services, including
| Apple themselves.
|
| Apple increasingly wants to decide how you present your brand,
| to the point that the only brand-language Apple allows on its
| devices is its own.
|
| I think it's reasonable that merchants in this marketplace feel
| the increased pressure to work less on creating and refining
| their own identity and more on normalizing their offer like it
| could come directly from Apple, at their own expense and
| financial risk.
| wtallis wrote:
| On a phone, it can be tempting for an app developer to
| approach design as if their app is temporarily _taking over_
| the phone and transforming the entire device into the custom
| gadget your app embodies, since the app 's UI will be filling
| almost the entire screen. On a desktop, it's more obvious
| that an app should instead strive to coexist _alongside_
| (literally) other apps and the rest of the OS.
|
| But in either case, ignoring the platform's established
| design language and UI conventions is still _wrong_ , and not
| taking advantage of the user's preexisting knowledge about
| how to use their device is a wasted opportunity at best,
| insulting at worst. If the only reason for doing so is that
| you are placing your "brand identity" over actual usability
| and insist that your app look and feel the same on any device
| regardless of context, that's at the insulting hubris end of
| the spectrum. Given how widespread _that_ problem is, it
| seems entirely appropriate and _deserved_ for app developers
| to feel pressure from Apple (or any other OS vendor) to put
| more effort into conforming. We as users shouldn 't _want_
| any app ecosystem to fragment into the mid-2000s WWW full of
| Flash UIs with zero accessibility.
| eviks wrote:
| > ignoring the platform's established design language and
| UI conventions is still wrong, and not taking advantage of
| the user's preexisting knowledge about how to use their
| device is a wasted opportunity at best, insulting at worst.
|
| What valuable preexisting knowledge is ignored if you make
| your button text readable instead of being blurred with the
| glassy background?
| wtallis wrote:
| Consider the simple case on a desktop OS of how to
| arrange the "OK" and "Cancel" buttons on a dialog box.
| For an experienced user of the platform, it doesn't
| actually matter at all how legible your button labels
| are, you're going to cause problems if they're in the
| _wrong place_. The platform conventions when used
| properly allow the user to entirely skip reading those
| button labels.
|
| Obviously, if Apple's committed to taking their UI in the
| direction of illegibility again, then deviating from
| their new recommendations may be worthwhile. But the UI
| design should _start_ by complying with platform
| conventions, and only break those to the smallest extent
| necessary, with good reason (which doesn 't usually
| include anything about your app's brand identity). And
| hopefully, Apple can speed-run the kind of changes they
| did over the first several years of OS X as they toned
| down the initial excesses of the Aqua design.
| dwaite wrote:
| Or that on Apple platforms, you are not supposed to use
| "OK" as a button, but rather the action it is going to
| perform (e.g. "Delete").
|
| Using non-standard labelling _and_ putting buttons in
| their non-standard order is a real issue.
|
| Not to mention that on some platforms the position of the
| buttons may be specific to localization, e.g. they may
| switch order if the user's language is set to Hebrew.
|
| On Mac, the coloring indicates which action is triggered
| by default with the keyboard - one of the first things to
| go if you stylize the UI yourself.
|
| These and all the other inconsistencies add up until you
| have something like the iOS Youtube app, where IMHO the
| UI is just complete nonsense. Just because you are full
| screen doesn't mean you can redefine fundamentals about
| how information is laid out or what taps are supposed to
| do.
| rickdeckard wrote:
| I understand the rant, but disagree on the black/white
| framing of the topic.
|
| A company like Netflix may have its own experience and
| expectation on UX for the service it offers, and it might
| be equally valid for them to want a consistent UX across
| all its devices carrying Netflix as it is for Apple to want
| it across all of Apples devices.
|
| But here Apple attempts to define the UX for its devices
| AND the services offered there. This might be useful and
| even helpful for the ecosystem when the guidelines are
| reasonable and supportive of the ecosystem.
|
| But when Apple suddenly defines "everything should be
| frosted glass!" and their design language no longer intends
| to "get out of the way" but "emphasize Apple above all", it
| becomes branding, creating a collision of interests...
| creata wrote:
| If I'm using Excel or Spotify or just about any
| application, I would much rather it look the same across
| operating systems, than try to match each operating system.
| wtallis wrote:
| I'm going to assume you don't want Excel to look the same
| on your desktop as on your phone. But even between
| Windows and macOS, I find it hard to believe you don't
| want at least a reasonable baseline of appropriate native
| behavior.
|
| Are you primarily a Windows user and just want the app on
| macOS to look and feel like the Windows environment
| you're used to--essentially wishing there weren't
| different platforms to begin with, but otherwise dodging
| the issue? How would you feel if you encountered a macOS-
| style open/save dialog while working on Windows? Or if an
| application tried to attach its menus to the top of the
| screen instead of the top of each of its windows? Or if
| it responded to Ctrl-C by cancelling an operation instead
| of copying what you had selected? Or if the window close
| button was in the wrong corner?
| WorldMaker wrote:
| Another data point here is how many people have Android setups
| or very complex iOS shortcuts that already do what Apple is
| trying to do with the tinting of third-party icons.
|
| "Everything meshes with my chosen wallpaper" is a common
| aesthetic interest, that the article author dismisses because
| they don't care about it and mostly don't notice their own
| wallpaper, but if you look at certain subreddits and "Life
| Hacks" forums you'll find lots of people with heavily
| customized Android icon themes or deeply complex configuration
| of iOS shortcuts to aesthetically align everything they want on
| their home screen.
|
| Sure, it's not earth shattering and the very definition of a
| nice-to-have that isn't hurting anyone in its absence, but it's
| also the sort of thing that enough people _want_ to do the hard
| way that it seems nice to add an easy way to do it, too (and
| maybe more people will appreciate it than will take the hard
| way to it).
| eviks wrote:
| > The OS has an established design language and really should
| be used for most applications.
|
| Not if it's a bad design language.
|
| > just lead to a clunky experience.
|
| So no different than following the bad defaults
| _benton wrote:
| I have a feeling this will be yet another case of the nerds
| thinking something is a huge deal and when people update their
| phones this fall I bet most people won't care after 10 minutes.
| dr_kiszonka wrote:
| It is probably largely true, but for people with vision and
| memory impairments Liquid Glass will be harder to use.
| layer8 wrote:
| It will be harder to use for non-impaired people as well,
| though they might not consciously notice and/or still like
| how it looks despite being harder to use.
| Spivak wrote:
| Then you turn on "Reduce Transparency" in the Accessibility
| options. And then it's all gone. Testing it right now in the
| beta and everything is opaque. Even the faux-glass elements.
| perching_aix wrote:
| Is that not every major software release? Like what are you
| gonna do, stop using your phone / laptop and turn hermit?
| Because I 100% feel people would be more likely to do that than
| to hop ecosystems, but then this is obviously not happening
| either. So yes, people will just shake their fist at the sky
| and then just slowly accept whatever instead. Not because
| "nurds stoopid", but because life moves on. Life's not anywhere
| near so narratively satisfying.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| You can easily wait for a few years to update MacOS or iOS,
| so it's not a huge deal.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| iOS starts shoving the update down your throat the moment
| it's out. I wonder if there's a "don't try to auto update
| the OS dammit" setting somewhere. I guess I'll be
| investigating this fall!
| carlosjobim wrote:
| MacOS has the same annoying behaviour, but you can still
| close the notice and keep on keeping on.
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| Nerds are the canary, not the mainstream user, in product
| development.
| owebmaster wrote:
| This reminds me able the time people would protest Facebook
| changes. What's more interesting is that Facebook is now dead
| and nobody cares about its UX anymore.
| djoldman wrote:
| It's time we acknowledge that the purpose of most UI "progress"
| or "change" is sales.
|
| An entity like Apple introduces UI "enhancement" to attract
| prospective users and persuade existing users that the
| functionality of the product is new, efficient, or otherwise
| "good."
|
| UI is generally fashion and trend that seeks the "new" at great
| cost.
|
| This is why there is a lack of internal consistency or rigor with
| respect to some UI direction: consistency, functionality, etc.
| are not the point.
| wtallis wrote:
| I think "sales" is just one of the post-hoc rationalizations.
| The real purpose very often is simply to justify the money you
| spent on UI designers; there's a kind of sunk cost fallacy
| where spending resources exploring design changes leaves
| management feeling like they must _ship_ some kind of design
| change, and the UI designers are strongly in favor of leaving
| their mark on the product and securing a big accomplishment on
| their resume.
|
| The incentives simply aren't aligned to support a long-term
| strategy of _not_ constantly messing with your UI.
| esafak wrote:
| > The real purpose very often is simply to justify the money
| you spent on UI designers
|
| It's backwards. It's for the _UI designers_ to justify the
| money spent on them. They can 't just sit there and do
| nothing. Designing is their job! It's the same with every
| position.
| wtallis wrote:
| It's a management failure. Either management is directly
| approving gratuitous UI redesigns, or they're making the
| mistake of giving designers unrestrained freedom to decide
| what UI changes ship.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Or they needed some kind of glossy faux-development to
| headline the marketing year when Apple AI tanked, and
| this was the best they could cobble together at
| relatively short notice.
|
| Meanwhile I get regular connection issues on Facetime on
| my iPhone 15 Pro Max, even though bandwidth isn't a
| problem here.
| diegof79 wrote:
| Do you dress with a hat and shirt like someone in the 50s?
|
| I see many angry comments because it's a change without a
| practical reason, and it's meant to make things more "new"
| or "fresh" at the cost of CPU and GPU resources. That's a
| valid complaint since making old devices obsolete is a
| design choice.
|
| However, it's good to see it from a humane perspective.
| Fashion trends change because they are associated with
| identity, novelty, status, self-expression, etc. Companies
| make fashion changes to appeal to those things. For
| example, nobody complains if Nike changes a model just for
| fashion; however, everybody uses the same phone every day,
| just as they do with a pair of shoes. For us, working on
| programming or software design, the phone is just a tool,
| but for most people, the phone is a form of self-expression
| (like using single or double quotes in code, or tabs vs
| spaces). And every few years, tech companies undergo a
| fashion refresh.
|
| So, even if Apple fires all the visual designers and keeps
| the same design for many years, people will likely grow
| bored with their UIs, which will push them toward
| competitors offering more stylish options.
| esafak wrote:
| I agree! The problem is that in software users don't have
| to option of retaining the old UI while updating the rest
| of the product, so there's always a fuss when some people
| prefer the old UI but are unwillingly forced to use the
| new one.
| wtallis wrote:
| The problem is this mindset that constant UI churn
| chasing "fashion" could ever be purely superficial and
| harmless. You say people would grow _bored_ with a UI
| that never changes, but on the other hand, people _learn
| to use_ a UI that doesn 't constantly change.
|
| Changing UI layout obviously breaks muscle memory, but
| even just reskinning the same layout with a new color
| scheme that changes the relative visual prominence of
| different UI elements brings usability penalties. It's
| rare that _any_ UI change is purely beneficial or has no
| effect on usability. Unless proven otherwise, any UI
| change should be assumed to impose some usability _harm_
| on existing users, and the potential usability benefits
| of the change need to be weighed against that harm.
|
| Don't pretend that the downsides of messing with an
| existing UI aren't real.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Do you dress with a hat and shirt like someone in the
| 50s?_
|
| I don't want my OS to have bell-bottoms and afro one
| year, a mohawk and ripped jeans the next, and a raver
| neon top with tracksuits and glow sticks the next.
|
| A basic tee and jeans haven't went out of style since
| Marlon Brando and James Dean. Or a good shirt and a
| jacket. Or, if that's your thing, a
| Perfecto/Bomber/Motorcycle leather jacket. Or a sundress
| for women.
|
| > For example, nobody complains if Nike changes a model
| just for fashion;
|
| That's because shoes are part of clothes fashion. And
| even so, if established, long available models are
| changed or removed altogether (e.g. Doc Martens 1460,
| Converse Chuck Taylors, Timberland classic boot, Levis
| 501, etc.), these companies would get an earful from
| customers too.
|
| Besides my OS is not the place for fashion to begin with.
| Especially when it messes with utility. It can look
| stylish or even "lickable".
|
| But it absolutely doesn't need to change for fashion's
| sake.
| toss1 wrote:
| And messing with the UI is the single most salient thing that
| makes regular people _hate_ using computers, and do so only
| when it is required.
|
| It doesn't matter what is their justification about making
| something "better".
|
| The industry has reached saturation; there no longer exists
| any justification for making a UI somehow "better" to invite
| in more users. Changes ONLY create frustration and anger
| among existing users, which is essentially everyone at this
| point.
|
| Changing the way a UI operates is like in an automobile
| swapping the position of the accelerator and braking pedals
| and moving the windshield wiper controls to the center
| console, heater controls to a steering-wheel stalk, and then
| claiming it is a "New Fresh User Interface!!". Of course
| people _CAN_ adapt, but they will not like it. And automakers
| are already discovering how moving features from tactile
| knobs & buttons to a center touchscreen is hated and are
| going back to what people know and like.
|
| It is past time for the software industry to get the message.
| reedlaw wrote:
| Does it drive sales though? Windows XP remained popular long
| after Vista was introduced. It was seen as stable and familiar.
| I guess the difference is that in the Apple ecosystem, you
| don't have much choice over which OS version you use. Apple
| tends to keep users on the latest version that the hardware
| supports.
| duped wrote:
| People stuck with XP because Vista was slow and buggy.
| eigen wrote:
| Looks like the currently 3 versions of mac OS are supported.
| current is macos 15, macos 13-14 are supported.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_os#Timeline_of_releases
|
| macos 13 supports hardware back to 2017.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS_Ventura#Supported_hardwa.
| ..
|
| looks like only 2 versions of Windows is supported. current
| is windows 11 and windows 10 support ends in October. of
| course, windows 10 was released in 2015 so comparing version
| support isnt a fair comparison.
| _benton wrote:
| UI change is similar to fashion. Things can't remain stagnant,
| they must change.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I don't see that as a bad thing. Nominally superficial change
| can a nice way to have a fresh look at something you've
| stopped noticing. I can be enjoyable simply because its new.
| _benton wrote:
| Yeah I agree. I think it's the same way as fashion - it's
| often not new styles, just new takes on the past. But it
| keeps things fresh and interesting.
| tempodox wrote:
| > ... the purpose of most UI "progress" or "change" is sales.
|
| If only! I wouldn't install macOS or iOS with that GUI if they
| payed me for it.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| Pity those of us with commercial Mac apps.
| tempodox wrote:
| I do. My condolences.
| eviks wrote:
| This doesn't explain much since there is no sound proof that
| worse design improves sales but real progress
| /change/enhancements wouldn't
| coldtea wrote:
| > _It 's time we acknowledge that the purpose of most UI
| "progress" or "change" is sales._
|
| It's time we separate sales from UI progress.
|
| If they want to "attract prospective users and persuade
| existing users that the functionality of the product is new,
| efficient, or otherwise "good." they can make substantial
| changes, of which there are numerous areas currently lacking.
|
| Which is what they did in the first 10 or so years of OS X.
| whartung wrote:
| I think this UI update is designed to distinguish native
| applications on iOS from non-native.
|
| Folks aren't going to be able to simply pound out a bunch of
| new icons to make their non-apple toolkit apps look "native".
| There's far too much compositing and such going on here.
|
| I doubt Google is going to rush out and try to mimic the L&F
| either.
|
| This MAY give native iOS apps a leg up over web and other
| "portable" toolkit apps.
| 0x457 wrote:
| > It's time we acknowledge that the purpose of most UI
| "progress" or "change" is sales.
|
| It's such a stupid argument. Also wrong, because the purpose
| for everything that company does is profit.
| cedws wrote:
| The rounding on the corners bothers me more than anything else.
| It just doesn't look good on a mobile screen. There's already
| minimal space to play with, why make the target zone for a button
| even smaller? It adds to visual noise as well.
| rickdeckard wrote:
| I believe that at this point Apple is less concerned about the
| mobile screen, with their existing userbase sufficiently
| locked-in the priority is probably a UI-language that works
| (and blends) well on large surfaces (AR-glasses)...
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Which is strange given that VR and AR are niche at best. The
| smartphone took off at the time because it was affordable and
| unobtrusive, Apple's own AR device is just silly to use in
| public.
|
| (I'm aware this is partly cultural desensitization, I
| remember the memes back when of people looking like shrimps
| staring at their phones etc).
| rickdeckard wrote:
| It is less strange when you consider that AR could be the
| technology to replace the smartphone itself.
|
| So far nothing could replace it (headsets, watches, other
| wearable) because while different ways of interaction
| exist, the users always needed a screen for (media)
| consumption.
|
| An AR device could suddenly tick all boxes, make a user buy
| such glasses as companion device and slowly transition away
| from his iPhone. So Apple needs to prepare and expand its
| ecosystem stickyness to AR.
| geysersam wrote:
| That actually makes a ton of sense and I don't know why you
| are being downvoted! In AR there's much more space, so
| padding and rounded corners matter less, and in VR you don't
| want control surfaces obstructing the view completely. It's
| useful to be able to see there's "something" behind that
| navigation icon. Even if you can't distinguish it clearly at
| least you won't walk into it.
|
| Not saying it's a good bet for Apple or for users, but it
| seems that's the bet they are making.
| owebmaster wrote:
| > but it seems that's the bet they are making.
|
| That's absolutely obvious. What people are arguing is that
| this is a terrible move for many reasons. 0.1% of iphone
| users have a Vision Pro and Apple just degraded the
| experience for all of us.
| kakuri wrote:
| > I've said this before, but Apple is forcing third party devs to
| be in service of Apple
|
| I got my first taste of computers on early 90's Macs and was
| enchanted. Within a year I discovered DOS, Windows - and freedom.
| I did tech support for both Mac and Windows computers for several
| years. It's always been abundantly clear that the Empire of Mac
| exists for its own glorification (and obscene profits) -
| customers, developers, partners - they are all in service of
| Apple. It's unfortunate that Apple does some things with
| unparalleled quality and maintains a loyal following, because the
| apple has always been rotten at its core.
| a3w wrote:
| About the icons: Original book looked best: we have lots of
| pixels, why not use them? The icon has a non-standard shape,
| making it easy to spot. Or if you actually need to have icon-
| shaped outlines, top-right one is beautiful, too. Although the
| shading should perhaps be removed if some OSs have their own
| shade logic for the whole images.
| renecito wrote:
| Same sh _t over and over again.
|
| Apple keeps good or great things as their are: Apple is loosing
| its edge look how other are so innovative.
|
| Apple takes some risk and go bold on things: Why changing things?
|
| At the end everyone else complaining would just follow and copy.
|
| Rinse and repeat, bring the eyeballs and the money to my b_tching
| site or profile.
| eviks wrote:
| > while you won't actually be able to see the part of the image
| under the sidebar, on the other hand the transparency effect
| applied to the sidebar will make the text on it less legible
| overall. A great lose-lose situation, visually, don't you think?
|
| Yes, of course, but it looks bold and innovative and designers
| can waste years tweaking various details across many apps!
|
| > reduces the amount of information displayed on screen, and
| you'll have to scroll more as a consequence. ... You're just
| injecting white space everywhere.
|
| Sure, but that's a common scourge in all modern design, why would
| an innovative design company stay behind?
| jm4 wrote:
| I liked Liquid Glass when I first saw it. I don't especially like
| the whole flat look everyone has had going the past few years so
| I was really looking forward to a refresh.
|
| I downloaded the beta and the more I use it the less I like it.
| The icons are blurry, washed out and look terrible overall. I
| have a difficult time using the buttons on the lock screen to
| activate the flashlight and camera. Most of the time, I push them
| and the lock screen customization screen comes up instead of the
| flashlight turning on. I don't know if they changed the geometry
| of the buttons or what, but I can't reliably use them anymore.
| There are other instances of low contrast text, weird blurry
| artifacts and janky animations.
|
| I hope these are all things that get worked out during the beta
| period. Overall, the whole thing looks unimpressive so far. I
| keep telling myself that OSX had the same kind of jank during the
| first beta and it will all work out. I want to roll back to iOS
| 18, but I can't do that without using iTunes, which isn't
| possible because I only have Linux machines.
| MangoToupe wrote:
| > I want to roll back to iOS 18, but I can't do that without
| using iTunes, which isn't possible because I only have Linux
| machines.
|
| I don't know about now, but about 20 years ago iTunes worked
| under Wine to connect with my iPod and perform backups.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| I use virtual box to run Windows under, precisely to have
| iTunes to sync my mp3 library to my phone. No streaming here my
| dudes, you'll rip (pun intended) my mp3 collection from my cold
| dead hands.
| foxglacier wrote:
| God I gave up trying to use the camera from the lock screen
| because if you fail, it's slower than just unlocking it and
| using it from the main screen, which is itself pretty
| unreliably and slow. I wish there was a way to quickly and
| reliably take photos without constantly fighting the stupidly
| fragile UI. Back in the day, you could just press the shutter
| button on your camera and it would take a photo instantly, but
| somehow we've regressed and nobody cares. It eliminates a whole
| range of spontaneous photos.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Apple cares. The iPhone 16 introduces a hardware camera
| button. You can use to launch to Camera while the phone is
| locked. You can use it as a shutter button. And other stuff.
|
| https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/use-the-camera-
| contro...
| dbspin wrote:
| Except that it doesn't actually take a photo - it (slowly)
| launches the camera app, which you can then use to take a
| photo. You can long press to begin filming a video, but at
| least by default it won't actually take a photo to press
| the shutter. Poster above is correct, it's slow enough that
| I frequently miss spontaneous pictures on my iPhone 16 Pro
| - as much because of the terrible recessed design of the
| shutter button as the software delay.
| red369 wrote:
| This may work for you for restoring using Linux, but you'll
| want good backups:
|
| https://github.com/libimobiledevice/idevicerestore
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| > Why would you want to "focus on the underlying content" here?
| Tab bars and toolbars still cover the underlying content, and the
| more transparent/translucent they are, the worse. When something
| fades to the background, it literally ceases to be in the
| foreground, so there's no point in focusing on it. This is like
| proposing an interface that helps you focus your sight on your
| peripheral vision.
|
| I believe that's exactly what Apple wants. This new design
| direction appears to be a strategy to unify all UI for VR as
| well.
|
| If all controls are designed to be translucent, they (Apple) have
| freedom to put the control anywhere on the user's field of view
| on VR and allow "focus on the underlying content" (which in the
| case of VR, is the real world).
|
| Time will tell if this approach makes sense for 2D screens.
| vjvjvjvjghv wrote:
| UI unification strategies for different platforms seem to be
| very temping but usually make things worse. MS tried it with
| Windows 8 but it turns out that it made all platforms worse.
| Not a good tablet and worse desktop experience.
|
| On the other hand, Apple optimized iOS for a phone without
| unifying with MacOS and was very successful.
|
| Optimizing phones for VR seems a really bad idea.
| thmsths wrote:
| I am not sure if I agree with the conclusion about the
| Windows 8 UI unification, I still believe it could have made
| sense. It's just that as is often the case with MS, they let
| a good idea go to waste by doing a half assed implementation,
| then backtracking...
| munificent wrote:
| Of course it makes things worse.
|
| The whole point of having different platforms in the first
| place is to cater to different needs, contexts, and user
| experiences. If they could be unified, they wouldn't be
| different platforms in the first place.
| cnrad wrote:
| This beautifully summed up a lot of what I've been thinking about
| Liquid Glass since I first saw it. A lot of it doesn't really
| make sense - in an effort to make usability clearer, they are
| designing everything to look the same and create more empty space
| for... vibes?
|
| As the years have gone on, it feels like computers are slowly
| losing every ounce of personality they once had. Software should
| be delightful to use! Computers felt fun! I'm hoping we
| eventually get through this minimal/bland era of UI design and
| come back around to design with a little creativity.
|
| It feels like Apple is trying to subtly introduce the concept of
| spatial UI for the future, where the norm will be to have
| controls and content on separate "layers" - but I don't think it
| should come at a cost of sacrificing the interfaces we already
| have.
| ctkhn wrote:
| I agree, and I'm frustrated this is the new big update because
| it seems like liquid glass ate up most of the energy that might
| have gone to a real major feature. Not only is it just UI
| changes, it looks worse.
| damiante wrote:
| I see the same sort of thing happening in housing, and I think
| it's because the nature of the thing has changed.
|
| Houses used to be for families; they were often quirky or
| strange or emergent, with weird layouts or materials. They may
| have garish wallpapers or floor to ceiling wood panelling. But
| these touches were reflective of the personalities of the
| owners. They met the needs of the specific people who inhabited
| them.
|
| Nowadays, as houses are more of a commodity, they must be
| generic. All flat white interiors, straight corners, no
| cornicing or archetraves or plasterwork or anything to give the
| home a unique character. Instead it must be a blank canvas such
| that any inhabitant can put his own things inside it to make it
| his.
|
| Computers are the same; what was once a niche product for
| enthusiasts and businesses has now become an instrumental part
| of nearly every moment of nearly everyone's lives. Thus they
| also must be generic and same-y, with limited avenues for
| superficial customisation, so that they can be interchanged or
| upgraded without jarring the user against the new version or
| device.
|
| Personally I prefer radical customisation and quirkiness. I
| find it charming. But it seems that those who are designing (or
| perhaps only selling) the things disagree with me.
| nixpulvis wrote:
| When we all occupy subcultures the macro culture becomes a
| shell. The least common denominator wins.
| kulahan wrote:
| Not that I have much of a bone in this fight - I already own
| a home and don't plan to ever move (which makes this
| especially easy for me to say) but generic, identical housing
| is probably going to be essential moving forward. One of the
| reasons we haven't found a way to make home construction
| faster is because every single project is about as unique as
| can be.
|
| Not to mention, there are still billions of people needing
| housing, and with the climate situation we're already in,
| building billions of unique homes will make the problem a LOT
| worse.
|
| Again, I don't really care much about the issue, but I just
| think it's worthwhile to remind people that the American way
| of life (which developing nations aspire to) is absolutely
| untenable as far as all modern as currently-feasible
| technology is concerned. Maybe we could live with not being
| expressive just on the outside of our houses specifically?
| SirMaster wrote:
| First option I will be enabling immediately is "Reduce
| Transparency"
| arthurofbabylon wrote:
| Excellent summary of critiques.
|
| Not mentioned is the peculiar response by the Apple ecosystem
| pundits. They were oddly supportive of these maladaptive design
| system changes on the basis of excitement (they can't afford to
| be left out of the media momentum...). I believe their collusive
| tendencies mask what would otherwise be perceived as a major flop
| or severe error.
|
| Also not mentioned in the piece, I remain curious as to the
| internal Apple team/culture changes that resulted in this design
| system failure. What on earth happened?
| erickhill wrote:
| This is likely going to look really cool and feel even better on
| iOS and iPadOS. The phones haven't changed visually (hardware or
| software) a ton in a decade because, frankly, they are a really
| mature and solid product. There's a reason not many iPhone 15
| users upgraded to 16. With Liquid Glass, for once in a long while
| iPhone users will look down and instantly see drastic change.
| Remember iOS 7? That took a long time to iron out all the "oof!"
| as well. But it slowly did improve.
|
| On MacOS, though, I really do worry it's going to take several
| iterations before things make a lot of sense. God forbid this new
| UI layer hurts performance, too, on these exceptionally fast
| machines.
|
| Good news is things are still in beta. Some ideas can always be
| walked back.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-02 23:01 UTC)