[gffrd]

… but people _do_ care about consistency.

They're willing to accept a certain amount of "specialization" for things they care about deeply / use all the time / demand unique approaches, but people like things to look and behave the same when they're pure utility. Which most things are.

People don't complain about Spotify, because (1) the design feels and performs like something Apple would design, and (2) music is something people have feelings about, and so expect differentiation.

[bitpush]

> but people _do_ care about consistency.

But Apple doesnt? Why else would they throw away their current design language, and invent something new ("Liquid Glass").

[gffrd]

I mean … it looks an awful lot like an evolution of the prior one to me. It's being billed as a major departure, but the elements, relationships, and how you interact with them remain unchanged.

They're rolling it out across their entire product catalog, so more consistency if anything.

[halpow]

Hard disagree. If people cared, then all iOS apps would use standard styling, but the matter of fact is that every app has its own style, which does not stop at colors. They all share the same affordances (top left arrow to go back, bottom tab bar) but the UI is more often than not heavily customized.

Take Slack for example with its fancy menus, not even close to what Apple uses. No feelings expected there. Let's not talk about Google apps, which live in its own UI world.

[gffrd]

> If people cared, then all iOS apps would use standard styling, but the matter of fact is that every app has its own style, which does not stop at colors.

This assumes they have a choice between equivalent apps that OS-integrated and one that are not. Many times, they don't.

Anecdotally: while some people don't care about consistency in the art they put on their walls, most do.

Slack is included in the "apps that you use all the time" rule. Also in the "apps you don't have a choice about" rule.

(Edit for spelling and wording)