[LandoCalrissian]

I tend to like skeuomorphic design, however, if you design an entire interface that way, it will look dated, for better or worse.

The one in the middle is probably what I would gravitate towards myself. The right three really wear their date on their sleeve.

[bigstrat2003]

"Dated" is subjective, and not worth worrying about. I don't care if something looks dated, I care if it's clear and easy to use.

[dd8601fn]

Little children operate these devices competently.

The usability of this stuff is not worse. It’s just taste.

[Nextgrid]

Enough trial and error will allow you to learn any system no matter how obtuse - it doesn't mean the system is well designed.

I'd argue the usage patterns of children using the device for entertainment and adults using the device for productivity are quite different.

[VerifiedReports]

GUIs' beneficial "skeuomorphism" probably peaked around the mid-'90s, where controls and their states were clearly demarcated but not absurdly photo-realistic. The bevel on a button told you if it was depressed or not, but that amounted to flipping the brightness on a couple of pixel-wide outlines.

Apple did contribute to the backlash (and the over-correction to no design at all, AKA "flat") with their brain-dead skeuomorphic UI. One example hobbled iTunes for years: Apple depicted the current-track display at the top of the iTunes window as an "LCD" with a glass window over it; obviously you wouldn't try to interact or press on a glass-covered LCD. But in iTunes, there were controls hidden in there. WTF? Why would you ever even attempt to click in it?

Equally stupid was Game Center, where Apple depicted controls as painted onto the felt of a Blackjack table. Who the hell would attempt to "operate" the paint on a felt gambling-table surface?