There’s been endless talk online about just how bad Apple’s graphical user interface design has become over the years, culminating in the introduction of Liquid Glass across all of the company’s operating systems this year. Despite all the gnawing of teeth and scathing think pieces before the final rollout, it seems the average Apple user simply doesn’t care as much about GUI design as Apple bloggers thought they did, as there hasn’t been any uproar or stories in local media about how you should hold off on updating your iPhone.
The examples of just how bad Apple’s GUI design has become keep on coming, though. This time it’s Howard Oakley showing once again how baffling the macOS UI is these days.
If someone had told me 12 months ago what was going to happen this past year, I wouldn’t have believed them. Skipping swiftly past all the political, economic and social turmoil, I come to the interface changes brought in macOS Tahoe with Liquid Glass. After three months of strong feedback during beta-testing, I was disappointed when Tahoe was released on 15 September to see how little had been addressed. When 26.1 followed on 3 November it had only regressed, and 26.2 has done nothing. Here I summarise my opinions on where Tahoe’s overhaul has gone wrong.
↫ Howard Oakley at The Eclectic Light Company
Apple bloggers and podcasters are hell-bent on blaming Apple’s terrible GUI design over the past 10 years on one man. Their first target was Jony Ive, who was handed control over not just hardware design, but also software design in 2012. When he left Apple, GUI design at Apple would finally surely improve again, and the Apple bloggers and podcasters let out a sigh of relief. History would turn out different, though – under Ive’s successor, Alan Dye, Apple’s downward trajectory in this area would continue unabated, culminating in the Liquid Glass abomination. Now that Alan Dye has left Apple, history is repeating itself: the very same Apple bloggers and podcasters are repeating themselves – surely now that Alan Dye is gone, GUI design at Apple will finally surely improve again.
The possibility that GUI design at Apple does not hinge on the whims of just one person, but that instead the entire company has lost all sense of taste and craftmanship in this area does not cross their minds. Everyone around Jony Ive and Alan Dye, both below, alongside, and above them, had to sign off on Apple’s recent direction in GUI design, and the idea that the entire company would blindly follow whatever one person says, quality be damned, would have me far more worried as an Apple fan.
At this point, it’s clear that Apple’s inability to design and build quality user interfaces is not the fault of just one fall guy, but an institutional problem. Anyone expecting a turnaround just because Ive Dye is gone isn’t seeing the burning forest through the trees.
You can criticise the Bad Man who left The Company, You can’t criticise The Company, or any of the Good Men still at The Company, or else; no access for you.
When Gruber lost access to Apple executives for his annual live podcast, the message was sent and understood.
The screenshot from a decade ago at the end of the article looks SOO good…
Yep. Apple went full effect at the initial versions of OSX with their Aqua design, and slowly, but surely, put usability before effects. Just to now return to effects full galore.
I loved Aqua!
I don’t own a Mac so don’t really have an opinion about its UI, but if you’re angry enough about how rounded the corners are enough to right an entire article about it, you should probably go outside and touch grass.
On the surface I’m inclined to agree. However, there are things that I find distracting or out-right drive me crazy that other people wouldn’t think twice about. Because of that I think the people who should probably go outside and touch grass is probably the people who criticize others opinions or preferences because they don’t align with theirs.
[sarcasm]
On the surface I’m inclined to agree. However, there are things that I find to be just small details, and other people thinking twice about them feels out-right crazy. Because of that I think the people who should probably go outside and touch grass is probably the people who really should give it a break.
[/sarcasm]
[not sarcasm]
I’ll give you a do-over. Go.
[/not sarcasm]
What a silly way to dismiss the entire field of user interface design without even a passing familiarity with the subject of the article.
Yet it’s, surprisingly, correct. We have left usability and performance behind decades ago, when first versions of MacOS and Windows arrived. Well-tuned TUI interface and, for some graphical programs, Mouse+Shortcuts interface is WAY more efficient that WIMP (windows, icons, menus, pointer) style (and WIMP style, is, of course, way more efficient to what we have on smartphones). Often even command line is faster then TUI.
Real professionals held the line and used TUI as long as they could, but “new generation” who have no idea how to use command line and TUI arrived and the bling as the #1 reason for design arrived with them… now, without Steve Jobs who can push Apple in the direction that he, personally, likes (even if it’s not always the most profitable one!) Apple naturally drifts toward more blitz and away from performance and usability… this is what sells, after all… why wouldn’t they do that?
zde,
We’re talking about several different markets and classes of users. I know huge swaths of Macos users are developers using it because of it’s unix roots and not in spite of them. The eye candy crowd is real, but not everyone is into that.
IMHO in the end Steve Jobs had failed to innovate on macos in it’s own right, which was at the risk of collapse (again) and it was really the iphone that single-handedly turned the tide for apple. Being top dog in a trillion dollar mobile market created the cash cow apple needed to stay relevant in computing, but I don’t think macos based computers would have survived otherwise. Of course someone would buy the macos brand etc, but products often become disembodied from their former selves after corporate takeovers.
Sorry, I think I’m confused about what exactly you’re saying is correct. Do you feel the article was pointless or do you feel it’s important to talk about interface design?
About this: “if you’re angry enough about how rounded the corners are enough to right an entire article about it, you should probably go outside and touch grass”.
To sell Apple (and other companies, both IT and non-IT) need blitz — even at the expense of usability. Means each new generation would be more dazzling and less usable. The most egregious would be fixed, when they threaten to make product totally unusable (like the idea to make everything in car adjustable via a touchscreen was dialed back), but the general trend is obvious… and that’s normal: you couldn’t fix that tread thus the proper thing is to raise the racket when it becomes DANGEROUS (then there are chances that blitz would be dialed back to avoid fines), that’s the best one may do,
Apple’s UI has always been shit. All that has changed is that you have grown older and capable of recognizing it
Liquid Glass is a beautiful breath of fresh air and a glimmer of hope that we might move away from the desolate utilitarian flat land that we have been enduring since Windows Phone 7 created it.
Liquid Glass is a depressing example of how little thought goes into whether the thing you’re building helps the person you’re ostensibly building it for nowadays.
Yes, but that’s not the point. It looks well on presentations and in shops demo rooms… these are the ONLY thing that matter, in Tim Cook’s Apple. They perform well there.
Yup, that’s all true, but the comment I responded to is just a person praising the design of Liquid Glass itself.
But person reacted precisely like buyer was expected to act: s/he liked how it looked and wasn’t disturbed by the fact that it makes computer less usable.
Pfft. They can’t even get that right and it’s pitiful. “Iphone is Powerful” can’t do motion graphics in icons, why not? Bring back Aqua drops.
A computer is a tool. Any amount of eyecandy that affects operating the tool is objectively bad.
The desolate flatland was bad for other reasons. Just like me, with perfect eyesight, have troubles to turn my air purifier on because the backlit capacitive touch area backlight is off, flat UIs have bad discoverabilty in an era when software does not come with manuals and we are supposed to figure out on our own.
Liquid Glass is bad because of the reasons mentioned in the many articles about it.
The fact that some people like it doesnt make it good.
The big question would be: would it attract sales or not. If people would like it IN SHOPS and would BUY APPLE devices because of it then it worked as designed. And from 10 feet away, in a shop demo room it works beautifully… and it’s not so ugly that you couldn’t use it for real and would return the laptop… means it works as designed (maybe not as desired, sure, but as designed, absolutely).
Problem is, creating such UIs (flashy but legible) is a lost art now, and Liquid Glass proves this.
What ever idiot decided to change the UI from 10 to 11 making it look like linux and trashing decades of what mac used to be should get fired. You can copy and paste and you wouldn’t tell the difference from mac/linux. Several features were trashed why? The entire mac culture was ignored, for what? simplicity? Every little ui change apple has difficulty releasing and the consumers complain about the horrible choices. Apple Should LISTEN to people. Roll it back to what made a MAC a Mac. Apple is just phoning* (yes I meant it) it in. People often forget all the Features Apple releases every year and then Relegates it to the trash bin in the following years never mentioning it again as the Users Don’t use it. Why Does Apple mac os have to talk back to Apple for? I have at least 20 services pinging out for things that i Don’t use. WTF? Be quiet!
Now look back to what you wrote and answer one, simple, question: what you propose… how would it bring more money back to Apple? Would it induce more sales, would it allow Apple to raise prices or… what would it bring TO THE APPLE?
zde,
Not really speaking for the OP here, but I think apple have been resting on their laurels in regards to macos. They are so blinded with success under their mobile duopoly that they forgot about desktop computing. They do not depend on macos and it shows. There are several obvious improvements that would make mac computers more popular (and I believe more profitable). Don’t betray your enthusiast user base! Non-upgradable/irreparable products can increase profit per unit sale, but it’s a major turn off for the very type of enthusiast customers who actually spend a lot of money on tech. Want the best GPUs? Can’t get that on an apple computer. Even eGPUs are nixed.
Gaming…seriously this one is so obvious that apple deserves the award for “WTF were they thinking”. Realistically I am actually glad apple dragged their feet on this one because I wouldn’t want to live under an apple gaming monopoly, but both the market and consumer base were there for the taking yet apple never got their game together. Apple are stumbling on AI too.
As users it’s kind of disappointing to see corporations amass mountains of wealth only to do so little with it. For better or worse though, many successful companies end up ceasing innovation and turn towards rent seeking models that build up a buttress around their markets that can continue to extract wealth for decades even with innovation being stalled.
Almost 2 decades and Apple have Failed on any gaming initiative. Every WWDC you see gaming companies up on the stage and then it goes silent after the conference closes. Could Apple make a Gaming Platform? yes, Why Couldn’t they? They always Tout their CPU as being Better than everyone elses, but could they tweak it for the gamers? yeah. could they blow MS/Sony out of the box, They really could and give Apple another revenue stream with their app store being hammered on. Their pitiful ios/apple tv gaming stance is bad. Thinking about the huge Apple Park Campus, WTF do they do everyday? Seems like they would have loads of projects in the works, but we never see them, it’s same o same o. Meh, I have low Faith in Apples future product lines.
You have to remember that Apple IS an insanely profitable gaming juggernaut. But it’s making its profits out of mobile gacha games and thus all moves should be made to not jeopardize THAT marked.
This limits what Apple can do, pretty severely.
I mean… lots of people have said Apple will eventually just replace Mac OS X with iOS. Chromebook’s OS and Android are merging now.
Lennie,
This seems plausible to me as well. I suspect a majority of mac computer users would hate it, but apple corp might not necessarily care. Mac is not their cash cow and migrating Mac users onto IOS could be something that apple sees as beneficial for apple (while apple marketing spins it as a pro-user move, obviously).
In the end, how a GUI should look is just a bad way to differentiate your product from the competition. Not counting in the usual PR BS with all the animations and story telling about how “craftful” they were to conceive the new iteration for their most beloved and loyal consumers.
If a GUI really matters in the way it present information in the most concise and optimal way, just look at embedded and industrial displays : straight to the point, no white void around a thin column of information “because reactive”. Just the essential bit of information, all the buttons and status bar directly visible, not hidden after a few seconds of lack of user’s interaction or mouse hovering.
Best IMHO is TUI : cutting the crap out of the way, maybe with a tiling “window manager” à-la Turbo Vision or Tmux and voilà.
The main problem is that an UI should be coherent and not in the way. That means something boring. No thrills. That goes against the shiny new thing that moves capitalism. A good, boring UI will not make any new customers (but surely can keep your old ones).
I would even go to say that GUIs usability was overhyped, but GUIs are shinier than the command console and the apps may look better than their character counterparts. But then, for many users the console way of doing things is clearly superior, specially for those willing to automate.
So user interfaces should be consistent, coherent and be kept fairly static once reached a certain point. But this won’t sell the shiny new thing.
The point is that all those related products have reached maturity long time ago, but the vendors keep adding glitter in the hope that will make people buy the. next new thing.
It’s not just “hope”. Adding glitter WORKS. The trick is to not add TOO MUCH glitter and make your existing customers leave in disgust… that’s very hard to do with Apple because it perfected the way to capture customers, once they have chosen Apple. I don’t think there are anything wrong with what Apple did in Tahoe, when viewer from THAT perspective: it looks better in shop, it’s usability is worse then it was before but not TOO MUCH worse, it’s still usable… people are not dropping Apple devices… what’s not to love?
The funny part is: they don’t even need to add glitter, etc. people will upgrade regardless (because you need to stay current because of updates), just add useful features people want (like multi-desktop, etc.). The truth is: people use an OS because of the applications they use/the use cases they have.
No. Apple, more than anyone else, sells fashion, not a usable device. Lots of people buy iPhones and macs because they “look cool”. If Apple would stop “looking cool” they would stop upgrading.
Sure, you may keep the updates going without that, but ultimately when you are in a fashion business (and Apple, more than anyone, understands that smartphones and laptops today are fashion business) then you could afford looking “ridiculous”, but couldn’t afford looking “stale”.
At least they don’t do ridiculous hardware anymore, that’s a plus.
zde,
They used to be more of a status symbol, but then everyone got one; they look pretty much the same and it’s not special or cool like it used to be. Especially in the past few years iphone users have not been upgrading like they used to and it’s public knowledge that iphone sales have been slumping…
https://trendspider.com/blog/apples-sales-struggle/
https://apnews.com/article/apple-iphone-quarter-sales-artificial-intelligence-fdfeb6b12bdd69504672ef3b60a300f5
IOW as the market matures, consumers have become less interested in upgrading and apple/iphone are not exempt from this trend. Of course I would not claim that nobody is on board the superficial upgrade train, but it’s clearly becoming a less dominant trend in a mature market where people’s attitudes have become more “meh” with each product generation.
This change happened with desktop computers a long time ago. The smart phone market is younger and therefor took longer to get here, but over time we’re seeing the public reception for superficial smart phone changes is a collective shrug. Even those who used to buy new phones as a compulsive instinct are becoming more bored with it as they themselves become more mature. In theory younger generations could pick up those compulsive instincts, but I’m seeing more young kids taking phones for granted. Of course they’re very addicted to their phones, but even so you can tell they don’t get the “christmas experience” around new phones the same way we might have a couple decades ago. Try as they might, mobile phone companies, apple included, are not creating the feeling of having something unique and special because it’s flat out neither.
The Motif/CDE/Irix look was the best. You can see window borders! There is no shit in the title bar stopping you from dragging a window! It’s crazy!
Liked Windows XP’s GUI, especially Olive theme :
https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/winxppro
But also QNX 6.1-6.3 Photon :
https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/qnx621
https://www.operating-system.org/betriebssystem/_english/bs-qnx.htm
My personal opinion is that BeOS has to be one of more polished user experiences out there – peak design.
I abandoned the mac after 2015 and went full Linux, first to Gnome (mac to gnome feels like a natural transition) but now daily drive hyprland. Even on mac I used to have linux vm’s running FVWM which also felt far more usable than modern desktop environments from the large corps.
Windows XP ? I really don’t know why it gets any praise from anyone. We used to call it: Fisher-Price Desktop.
Yet everything was visually very clear and clever.
Switch to Olive Green theme if you don’t like the blue/orange interface.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_visual_styles
https://github.com/B00merang-Project/Windows-XP
http://interface.free.fr/Archives/GUI_Xp.pdf
Just because users don’t complain doesn’t mean they aren’t impacted by the bad design.
“The possibility that GUI design at Apple does not hinge on the whims of just one person” – I mean, Steve Jobs might have had in the past and maybe that’s why these people treat it that way ?
Alan Dye (Apple) or Allan Day (Gnome) – pick your poison