Im sorry. But Liquid Glass looks cheap.

[Ursadorable]

Alot of this nonsense would be resolved if Apple allowed people to customize their UI instead of the "My way or the highway" approach.

Every OS has a way to reskin and re-theme the UI. Except for iOS and MacOS.

 

[fisherking]

I agree. From my perspective, Sequoia was simply a better user interface. No giant "look at me!" window corners or showy controls, no inset curvy rectangles where a sidebar makes more sense, etc. That was peak Mac, IMO.

where is this? i don't have anything in tahoe that fits this descrption: "giant "look at me!" window corners" 🤷

 

[Ursadorable]

where is this? i don't have anything in tahoe that fits this descrption: "giant "look at me!" window corners" 🤷

You made your point in this and other threads, we get it, you love Tahoe's UI. There's nothing wrong with that.

But why do you consistently feel the need to dismiss other people's complaints because it doesn't match your aesthetics?

 

[turbineseaplane]

Neither Apple, nor Liquid Glass, need anyone defending it.

If you love it, that's great.
But why spend time in a thread where folks that do not like it are discussing that?

 

[SDAVE]

But why spend time in a thread where folks that do not like it are discussing that?

Tale as old as time, especially with diehard Apple users 🤣
I've been using Macs since the 90s and its always been like this. People get passionate. Since the advent of social media, folks have gotten more vocal.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Tale as old as time, especially with diehard Apple users 🤣
I've been using Macs since the 90s and its always been like this. People get passionate. Since the advent of social media, folks have gotten more vocal.

It just cracks me up..

"I love Tahoe/iOS26/Liquid Glass, it's fine"

(ok, so why be in here where we are discussing how we do not like it?)

"Apple doesn't read these forums!"

(ok, so why spend time defending Apple or their designs? If nobody sees this stuff, who cares if those of us who don't like something want to talk about it?)

 

[fisherking]

You made your point in this and other threads, we get it, you love Tahoe's UI. There's nothing wrong with that.

But why do you consistently feel the need to dismiss other people's complaints because it doesn't match your aesthetics?

not dismissing anyone's complaints, just suggesting that there are other points-of-view, and that the sky has not fallen. nothing more or less.

if someone's unhappy with the UI, that's fine (btw i don't love it, i just don't hate it). but when ppl start insisting that their POV is the 'correct' one, or the only one that matters... i am fine suggesting otherwise.

 

[fisherking]

It just cracks me up..

"I love Tahoe/iOS26/Liquid Glass, it's fine"

(ok, so why be in here where we are discussing how we do not like it?)

"Apple doesn't read these forums!"

(ok, so why spend time defending Apple or their designs? If nobody sees this stuff, who cares if those of us who don't like something want to talk about it?)

i'll say this again: a discussion usually involves multiple points-of-view. how is that not ok? do you only want threads where everyone agrees with you? (how dull a world would that be; but i imagine it would make some on this forum happy 🤣).

personally, i have never referred to apple not reading these forums. but if that were true... how sad for the ranters & whiners (AND the ppl with legitimate issues). 😔

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

I agree. From my perspective, Sequoia was simply a better user interface. No giant "look at me!" window corners or showy controls, no inset curvy rectangles where a sidebar makes more sense, etc. That was peak Mac, IMO.

This. A user interface shouldn’t be trying to draw attention to itself, it should separate itself from content in a meaningful way.

Buttons hovering over PDFs with shadows and rounded corners that hide content are not meaningful.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

not dismissing anyone's complaints, just suggesting that there are other points-of-view, and that the sky has not fallen. nothing more or less.

No one has suggested that are no other points of view; users are writing comments as they feel required.

 

[maxoakland]

Which brings me to the actual problem 😎… you’ve diagnosed a discourse pattern but attributed it entirely to ego protection. What if - bear with me here - there’s something else happening: identity fuses with product choices. People who’ve invested in an ecosystem can perceive criticism of that ecosystem as personal attack. The rhetorical moves you’ve catalogued are defensive mechanisms, yes, but they’re not calculated manipulation. They’re psychological protection of sunk costs and self-concept.

You're right but that's exactly what ego protection is. It's usually subconscious and automatic

 

[maxoakland]

i am agreeing that there's room for improvement (there's always room for improvement). am also ok working on my mac just as it is... am enjoying that experience.

no one is arguing that some ppl are having issues; this has been true with every mac OS.

Saying "there's always room for improvement" again minimizes the very serious issues people are having with Liquid Glass. These aren't the normal issues that just require a little polishing after a big interface update.

These are fundamental misunderstandings of the purpose of a user interface and a complete lack of concern for accessibility. That's not something that has been true with every Mac OS. In fact, Mac OS used to be the *best* at these things and now the UI team doesn't even consider them. Even when they've been given massive amounts of feedback directly to Apple's feedback app, on web forums, in youtube videos...

but i have gotten my work done, comfortably, since tahoe beta 1. being able to work on my mac is my main concern.

We already talked about this. I pointed out that you getting your work done is awesome but there are tons of people talking about how they can't get their work done because of the severe UI design issues

EDIT: i don't love all of apple's choices; in fact, i've had the dock locked away since 10.3.9 (thru the terminal); that's 20 years. i don't use a lot of the features in the OS (stage manager, widgets, etc).

You don't see that the differences is your issues with the design have either been easy to ignore or possible to "lock away" while the people complaining have absolutely no recourse because there's no way to change the user interface other than Apple's options and Apple's options aren't fixing the issues?

Of course you're not bothered! You're being given the options you need. These people are not. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[fisherking]

Saying "there's always room for improvement" again minimizes the very serious issues people are having with Liquid Glass. These aren't the normal issues that just require a little polishing after a big interface update.

These are fundamental misunderstandings of the purpose of a user interface and a complete lack of concern for accessibility. That's not something that has been true with every Mac OS. In fact, Mac OS used to be the *best* at these things and now the UI team doesn't even consider them. Even when they've been given massive amounts of feedback directly to Apple's feedback app, on web forums, in youtube videos...


We already talked about this. I pointed out that you getting your work done is awesome but there are tons of people talking about how they can't get their work done because of the severe UI design issues


You don't see that the differences is your issues with the design have either been easy to ignore or possible to "lock away" while the people complaining have absolutely no recourse because there's no way to change the user interface other than Apple's options and Apple's options aren't fixing the issues?

Of course you're not bothered! You're being given the options you need. These people are not. Why is that so hard to understand?

i give up; you're not hearing me, you're just being combative, and challenging everything i say.

issues need to be resolved, always. aesthetic judgements are worthy of discussion; in that situation, there may not be anything to fix. sorry you don't see that 🤷

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

i give up; you're not hearing me, you're just being combative, and challenging everything i say.

Challenging a point of view isn’t being combative, it’s called a discussion.

If you choose to be offended when someone has a different point of view and raises this, then you shouldn’t be in a place of debate.

issues need to be resolved, always. aesthetic judgements are worthy of discussion; in that situation, there may not be anything to fix. sorry you don't see that 🤷

Why are you sorry?

 

[fisherking]

Challenging a point of view isn’t being combative, it’s called a discussion.

If you choose to be offended when someone has a different point of view and raises this, then you shouldn’t be in a place of debate.


Why are you sorry?

point 1: SO true. not sure why i would get attacked for challenging a POV.

point 2: am sorry some prefer to argue rather than acknowledge that we don't all see things the way they would like us to see things.

thanks for being on the same page with me! (we usually aren't)

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

point 1: SO true. not sure why i would get attacked for challenging a POV.

point 2: am sorry some prefer to argue rather than acknowledge that we don't all see things the way they would like us to see things.

thanks for being on the same page with me! (we usually aren't)

You shouldn’t feel that I’m not on the same page as you. I’m not sitting here trying to troll or annoy anyone, I’m just having a discussion like everyone else.

We all have different experiences and backgrounds that relate to how we debate, and (in my opinion) you take a very different approach.

I was always taught to justify through education; if you have an opinion, explain it. That’s not trying to place someone in an uncomfortable position or demanding information, it’s simply etiquette in a formed discussion where several points of view can be analysed.

Much in the same way that if I visited a car showroom with my wife - I like one car and she doesn’t - I would happily explain why I like said car but I would be perplexed if wifey didn’t even say “I don’t know, I just don’t like it”. Why should I take her seriously in this instance? That’s not rude, it’s just reality of the situation.

Likewise, we are all well aware now that a computer operating system has both artistic and practical applications: subjective and objective design choices. Liquid Glass is contentious because many believe that the artistic design has taken precedence over the practical design, the main argument being that this choice has made the OS a worse experience. Not unusable, worse.

Where the bickering originates from, from what I can see, is that a small minority who like Liquid Glass don’t articulate why they do so, thus a discussion cannot be balanced.

But this is a minority and I’ve actually had a lot of fun discussions with those who do like it, and are willing to say why they do - even if it’s just assembling works like fresh, new, etc, which i believe is better than saying nothing but disparaging comments towards those with issues.

 

[fisherking]

You shouldn’t feel that I’m not on the same page as you. I’m not sitting here trying to troll or annoy anyone, I’m just having a discussion like everyone else.

we're good! i wrote this: "thanks for being on the same page with me! (we usually aren't)" 👍

 

[Sniper08]

You made your point in this and other threads, we get it, you love Tahoe's UI. There's nothing wrong with that.

But why do you consistently feel the need to dismiss other people's complaints because it doesn't match your aesthetics?

Neither Apple, nor Liquid Glass, need anyone defending it.

If you love it, that's great.
But why spend time in a thread where folks that do not like it are discussing that?

It just cracks me up..

"I love Tahoe/iOS26/Liquid Glass, it's fine"

(ok, so why be in here where we are discussing how we do not like it?)

"Apple doesn't read these forums!"

(ok, so why spend time defending Apple or their designs? If nobody sees this stuff, who cares if those of us who don't like something want to talk about it?)

No one has suggested that are no other points of view; users are writing comments as they feel required.

Saying "there's always room for improvement" again minimizes the very serious issues people are having with Liquid Glass. These aren't the normal issues that just require a little polishing after a big interface update.

These are fundamental misunderstandings of the purpose of a user interface and a complete lack of concern for accessibility. That's not something that has been true with every Mac OS. In fact, Mac OS used to be the *best* at these things and now the UI team doesn't even consider them. Even when they've been given massive amounts of feedback directly to Apple's feedback app, on web forums, in youtube videos...


We already talked about this. I pointed out that you getting your work done is awesome but there are tons of people talking about how they can't get their work done because of the severe UI design issues


You don't see that the differences is your issues with the design have either been easy to ignore or possible to "lock away" while the people complaining have absolutely no recourse because there's no way to change the user interface other than Apple's options and Apple's options aren't fixing the issues?

Of course you're not bothered! You're being given the options you need. These people are not. Why is that so hard to understand?

Quoting a few posts here together because they show the same issue using different phrasing and/or angles. I think you guys are trying to understand this issue from a logical 'this person must be trying to participate in good faith and don't understand how unhelpful and/or disruptive their comments are. 'This assumption of good faith hasn't survived contact.

What you guys keep circling around and addressing on a case-by-case basis is the repeated reframing of concrete criticism into something easier to dismiss: panic, absolutism, intolerance of disagreement, or people supposedly insisting their view is the only valid one. That reframing keeps happening without ever being demonstrated.

At no point has there an attempt to show where anyone has claimed their view is the only valid one. At no point is there an example of what 'acceptable discussion' would look like. Instead, the conversation keeps getting redirected into abstractions about tone, emotional state, or the mere existence of other opinions. None of these redirections happen in normal discussions because participants can infer the difference between claimed factual statements, exaggerations, and shorthand.

That’s not neutral attempt to build a healthy discourse, no matter the claims; it’s a rhetorical maneuver. By insisting that criticism are secretly absolutist or panicked unless exhaustively caveated, the critique never has to be addressed. The burden gets shifted from responding to what’s being said to questioning whether it’s permissible to say it at all. This entire page is a great example of that.

If the standard for clarity is that every sentence must be prefaced with “in my opinion,” then the issue is an unwillingness to infer meaning from context in a normal discussion. That standard conveniently ensures nothing ever needs to be engaged with directly. So we see the pattern: minimise, abstract, reframe, repeat. Not because the points are unclear, but because clarity would require responding to them.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Quoting a few posts here together because they show the same issue using different phrasing and/or angles. I think you guys are trying to understand this issue from a logical 'this person must be trying to participate in good faith and don't understand how unhelpful and/or disruptive their comments are. 'This assumption of good faith hasn't survived contact.

What you guys keep circling around and addressing on a case-by-case basis is the repeated reframing of concrete criticism into something easier to dismiss: panic, absolutism, intolerance of disagreement, or people supposedly insisting their view is the only valid one. That reframing keeps happening without ever being demonstrated.

At no point has there an attempt to show where anyone has claimed their view is the only valid one. At no point is there an example of what 'acceptable discussion' would look like. Instead, the conversation keeps getting redirected into abstractions about tone, emotional state, or the mere existence of other opinions. None of these redirections happen in normal discussions because participants can infer the difference between claimed factual statements, exaggerations, and shorthand.

That’s not neutral attempt to build a healthy discourse, no matter the claims; it’s a rhetorical maneuver. By insisting that criticism are secretly absolutist or panicked unless exhaustively caveated, the critique never has to be addressed. The burden gets shifted from responding to what’s being said to questioning whether it’s permissible to say it at all. This entire page is a great example of that.

If the standard for clarity is that every sentence must be prefaced with “in my opinion,” then the issue is an unwillingness to infer meaning from context in a normal discussion. That standard conveniently ensures nothing ever needs to be engaged with directly. So we see the pattern: minimise, abstract, reframe, repeat. Not because the points are unclear, but because clarity would require responding to them.

You wrote so eloquently. Thank you for your input.

 

[Sniper08]

Alright, fair enough. You’ve identified a real pattern in how people defend companies online.

If I got it right, you are basically claiming, : thatthere’s a specific rhetorical playbook defenders use. vocabulary inflation, subjectivity deflection, hypothetical concern, deferral mechanisms, and tone-policing… things that systematically relocate accountability away from the software and onto users.

Yes, this pattern absolutely exists. I see it constantly in tech forums. Someone says „I can’t find the button anymore” and three replies later we’re discussing Fitt’s Law and information architecture paradigms. The vocabulary does escalate. The „it’s subjective” move is often deployed to shut down conversation rather than acknowledge legitimate usability failures. And yes, „just wait for the next update/check accessibility settings/ file a bug” often functions as indefinite deferral rather than actual solutions.
The power dynamic you’re pointing to is real: users experiencing problems absorb the costs (time, frustration, workarounds) while defenders maintain the position that nothing fundamental is wrong.

But I think you’re overreaching: not everyone using precise terminology is performing elitism. Sometimes „cognitive load” actually is the accurate description, and accessible language would require three paragraphs. The question is context and intent - are they explaining or excluding?

„It’s subjective” can be a deflection, but preferences genuinely do exist in UX. The iPhone’s lack of a back button isn’t a bug - it’s a design philosophy some people hate. The trick is distinguishing between „this is taste” (minimalist UI) and „this is broken” (buttons that don’t respond). Defenders conflate these; you’re conflating them in reverse by treating all „subjectivity” claims as bad faith.

Which brings me to the actual problem 😎… you’ve diagnosed a discourse pattern but attributed it entirely to ego protection. What if - bear with me here - there’s something else happening: identity fuses with product choices. People who’ve invested in an ecosystem can perceive criticism of that ecosystem as personal attack. The rhetorical moves you’ve catalogued are defensive mechanisms, yes, but they’re not calculated manipulation. They’re psychological protection of sunk costs and self-concept.

Which doesn’t make them right, but it does make them different from the deliberate, strategic gaslighting you’re describing. Most defenders aren’t thinking „how do I trivialize this complaint?”. They’re thinking „this criticism feels wrong and threatening, let me explain why.”

I disagree with you on whether this pattern is conscious strategy or emergent behavior. Whether acknowledging edge cases is always dismissal or sometimes statistical reality. Whether the goal is ego protection or genuine (if misguided) attempts at problem-solving.

But you’re correct that the effect is the same either way: legitimate issues get indefinitely deferred, users absorb the costs, and nothing fundamental gets examined.


TL;DR: the pattern you’ve identified is real and worth calling out. I just think it’s more „defense mechanism” than „coordinated rhetorical strategy.”

I think this is a fair reading, and I appreciate you engaging with the words rather than the tone. We’re mostly aligned on the existence of this dismissive pattern and its effects on healthy discussion, which is already more than most exchanges end up lol

Where I still disagree is on awareness. I’m not saying there’s a smoke-filled room to coordinate rhetorical strategies. What I’m pointing to is closer to learned or preferred behaviour. This behaviour may begin as unconscious defence mechanisms, but over time they become familiar, repeated, and only used when they want to.

The reason I lean toward calling this out as more than emergent is the response after it’s been identified. When the pattern is named, the behaviour rarely stops. Instead posts become more evasive, replies are selective, or the the person who got called out exits entirely and maybe responds with a laugh emoji to try to act unbothered (but never actually respond). To me that tells me there's at at least some level of understanding that they got called out.

I also agree that subjectivity exists in UX, and that precise language isn’t inherently elitist. Ironically, I was unclear. I'm not talking about terminology, but the direction. When precision is used to clarify, it’s helpful. When it’s used to redirect attention away from issues and toward abstract debate, it's not.

In other words, I’m less interested in proving malice than in seeing the limits of this behaviour. Whether it starts as ego protection or identity defence doesn't matter to me since the same attitudes are repeatedly used to neutralise criticism without engaging it. After a certain point repetition stops being accidental, and when it continues after being called it it reads as a preference.

 

[fisherking]

At no point has there an attempt to show where anyone has claimed their view is the only valid one.

i wish that were true. since the first beta dropped, there have been numerous posts attacking anyone who did not agree with the negative perception of LG (which, as we know, has improved over the beta cycle).

but so it goes. and interesting that those who hold to the negative assessments, attack anyone who contradicts them. then posts something like the above 🤔

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

i wish that were true. since the first beta dropped, there have been numerous posts attacking anyone who did not agree with the negative perception of LG (which, as we know, has improved over the beta cycle).

but so it goes. and interesting that those who hold to the negative assessments, attack anyone who contradicts them. then posts something like the above 🤔

This is where I would be reviewing what is meant by attacking, challenging, being combative.

Those who dislike Liquid Glass are indeed mostly vocal, but I haven’t seen rudeness to the point where it was defined by the above.

 

[Ursadorable]

Quoting a few posts here together because they show the same issue using different phrasing and/or angles. I think you guys are trying to understand this issue from a logical 'this person must be trying to participate in good faith and don't understand how unhelpful and/or disruptive their comments are. 'This assumption of good faith hasn't survived contact.

You're not wrong. I feel it has a lot to do with tension, frustration and fatigue from being continuously being told to "stop whining", and "it's fine" in the countless threads where people express that Liquid Glass either doesn't suite their esthetics and/or adds unnecessary fluff that gets in the way of performing a task where there was none before.

 

[Sniper08]

This is where I would be reviewing what is meant by attacking, challenging, being combative.

Those who dislike Liquid Glass are indeed mostly vocal, but I haven’t seen rudeness to the point where it was defined by the above.

Actually, this is great! This hinges on word choice, and it isn’t a mistake. Words like 'attacking' are being applied to a normal disagreement to reframe it as hostility. Notice how beings shift happens before any actual escalation and predictably changes how responses are read.

Nothing in the substance or tone of the discussion has changed but the labels have. That’s a deliberate reframing to provoke defensiveness and then argue about tone instead of engaging the point.

You're not wrong. I feel it has a lot to do with tension, frustration and fatigue from being continuously being told to "stop whining", and "it's fine" in the countless threads where people express that Liquid Glass either doesn't suite their esthetics and/or adds unnecessary fluff that gets in the way of performing a task where there was none before.

Yeah, and that's why I made my point about how this pattern continues after it's been called out. The goal isn't to actually encourage participation or 'discussion', it's to make this forum unwelcome to anyone who would criticise Apple. Why else would someone go into every thread that has an issue with Tahoe and then derail it by needlessly claiming that people are hysterical or try to impress upon us that these are our opinions and not a discussion?

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Actually, this is great! This hinges on word choice, and it isn’t a mistake. Words like 'attacking' are being applied to a normal disagreement to reframe it as hostility. Notice how that beings shift happens before any actual escalation and predictably changes how responses are read.

Nothing in the substance or tone of the discussion has changed but the labels have. That’s a deliberate reframing to provoke defensiveness and then argue about tone instead of engaging the point.

Please take this as a compliment, but when I read your comments for some reason I do it in Adam West ‘Batman’ tone 😂 Good boy Robin!