[3cats-in-a-coat]

"Everything new is the well forgotten old" is in full force here.

Although I didn't think we'd forget Mac Aqua, Windows Aero and Glassmorphism so soon. Three different times in the last 25 years when this trend kept popping up. Except... worse every time.

Aqua was simple and functional. Slightly cheesy maybe, but very usable. At the time, impressive. While Liquid Glass is... a bizarre display of form over function. Its transparent with the aim of blending in, and then performatively distorting the light behind, even diffracting it into a rainbow in some components (?!) which is the opposite of "blending in". It distracts by design.

[Penguin_]

this isn’t new, i know that. Aqua, Aero, and Glassmorphism all paved the way. The nostalgia is valid.

But Liquid Glass isn’t just aesthetic reuse, it’s a reframe.

This time, the visual noise isn’t a byproduct. It’s the product. It’s meant to provoke, to feel alive, to signal a shift toward interfaces that are less tool, more experience.

Is it distracting? 100%. Is it usable? Not really. But is it worth paying attention to? Definitely.

Because when Apple makes something this bizarre, they’re usually early, not wrong.

[3cats-in-a-coat]

Your entire thesis can be summed up to “if Apple does it it’s good, even if it’s bad.” It doesn’t work this way. Apple has failed many times in the past, many forgotten failures, and this will be another one.

Don’t confuse buzz on the Internet with successful design that will last. I remember when the cybertruck was the topic of every discussion 1 year ago. Now their sales are in the gutter.

“Demanding attention” is the first move, not the endgame. For a product to succeed it needs to fulfill a purpose other than distraction.