John Gruber Shares Scathing Commentary About Apple's Departing Software Design Chief

[uacd]

That’s what I am trying to say, only person who genuinely hates UI design can approve such an inconsistent and unfinished release as Liquid Glass 26. I wholeheartedly agree with John and hope new chief will reverse the ensh**tification course Apple has taken in recent years.

P.S: actually good designer won’t ever choose to work for Facebook, even for money. The issue isn’t even about tracking but, I mean look at Facebook UI design and how inconsistent it is. Probably Alan will feel at home there🤣

 

[dmaterialized]

It’s sad watching these old school Apple commentators entering their “grumpy old man” phase.

You don’t agree with the design direction Apple’s taken in recent years. Totally fair. Design is subjective. But just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean the man doesn’t care about design.

Different people have different tastes.

If you’d read the article, you’d know that he didn’t even say he hates Liquid Glass, and also notes that his opinion on Dye is remarkably universal and agreed upon by nearly all members of the UX community. Alan Dye is a fraud and always has been. He has graphic design skill, but he is not and has never been an acceptable UX and UI designer. There is no downside to this news whatsoever.

 

[neotint]

Hallelujah.

New priorities:
- Remove “glass” transparent Hollywood drunk anti-HCI design nonsense and accept it as Apple’s New Coke moment.
- Fix QA team/standards with more support and tools including funding more human review of user paths to *verify* HCD is all well crafted

HCI Design Request: level up user color management. Add mode for “Full Color” view in control widgets that shuts off True Tone and Night Mode. For example, when users are on e-commerce or looking at artwork or paint or editing photos/videos there needs to be a one click way to level set the display to a standard full color viewing mode right, so that any websites that are posting color corrected product information can be properly viewed by users/customers, and of course for any media editing.

An on device assistant for helping users switching and managing color viewing and display settings based on content or work mode detected would be amazing. Right now it’s all buried and takes toooo many clicks to switch back and forth between color driven work and eye relief document work, general use.

 

[FatLouie]

There are two types of Apple Fanboys, one that accepts with joy and love, anything that Apple puts on the shelf for sale. No matter the limitations or uselessness of a device or any of its features, blind love is always there. These individuals are easily swayed into accepting less and less from a company, while believing they are getting more and better.

Then there is the group that truly loves the Apple product line and wants it to grow and improve, and when it falters, expects Apple to keep improving. I am in the second group... and I detest LG and what has happened over the past years that has led to Liquid Glass being perceived as an improvement.

Once we remove our individual fanboy 'Apple Bias' from the equation, and regardless of one's like or dislike for John Gruber, he is correct in his view of what has happened to Apple under the leadership of particular individuals.

I now use an OPPO Find X9 Pro due to Liquid Glass; my iPhone 15+ is now boxed and sitting on a shelf. "Apple Arrogance" has a price, and Apple is losing me as a customer. They won't miss me, and I won't miss Liquid Glass, but it is my money and not theirs.

I hope that with the exodus of Cook and others, we are witnessing the last of these poor decisions. Cook was great for sales and profits. Apple did produce some nice products with interesting hardware designs, but they lost the cause when considering the aesthetics, look and feel, and usefulness of the software. More than anything else, it is the software that makes Apple great. Granted, the hardware is essential, but the software was the interface that we all loved and made the hardware lovable.

 

[satchmo]

Re. your statement I bolded above: To the best of my knowledge (and cursory research to re-confirm) Ive started professional life with a product orientation.

I have huge respect for graphic designers, but it's an entirely different discipline from product.

I'm aware. My point was he had a similar path of coming from a discipline that was not suited for the role.

Ive was similarly promoted to Creative Director. He had no interface design experience leading the UX team with iOS 7.

But this is a long standing challenge for creatives who have reached a high level in their field.

Do they continue to 'create' or accept a promotion with no experience in both management or overseeing different design disciplines?

 

[Arran]

Maybe Apple had plans for Dye that he didn't agree with, I guess going to Meta is like a big FU.

Interesting thought. Rumor-mill worthy.

 

[Sphincty]

If you’d read the article, you’d know that he didn’t even say he hates Liquid Glass, and also notes that his opinion on Dye is remarkably universal and agreed upon by nearly all members of the UX community. Alan Dye is a fraud and always has been. He has graphic design skill, but he is not and has never been an acceptable UX and UI designer. There is no downside to this news whatsoever.

What's up with the use of the word fraud when describing this guy? Do you personally know him? Have you worked with him and are privy to actions that would rise to the level of him being labelled a fraud?

I agree that Apple UX/UI has taken a hit over the years but describing someone as a fraud because you don't like their UX/UI sensibilities is pretty harsh.

I have a lot of issues with Craig Federighi's stewardship, even to the point of joking about his hair, but I think Craig is probably a smart and talented guy and I would never trash him just because there have been some substantial issues with the overall path Apple has taken with it's dev.

CTFO...

 

[turbineseaplane]

When I saw the timeline of Dye starting in this role in 2015, it all makes sense now.

It's been a full decade of downhill on UI/UX, finally culminating with the Liquid Glass disaster.

I sure hope it doesn't take a full decade to recover from it.

Swift action is needed.

 

[albebaubles]

I think we all kinda are ok with liquid glass, if it had been done with the attention to detail required to pull such an insane thing like that much on the fly rendering and it the apple way smooth as well glass. There are a few more heads that need to roll, and I hate to say it but my boy CRAIG, it may be your time to just ride the marketing mini bus and stay where they have the next retreat for good. The fact software with this many no just UI/UX bugs hit the street but battery life and performance issues is telling it is also time for CRAIG to bounce as well, and JAWS who has pushed so hard for new features every year at the cost of quality. Tim your not getting out this one alive either, you let all this happen and it is time you retire to you farm and live your life, The guard needs to change at apple, and it needs to change quickly to evolve into the next version of it self, the jobs era was products, the cook era was scale and profits to fund, the next chapter one of innovation and design changes. So I am sure most will not agree with me but it is time for a large portion of apple leadership to put down there iPads and take off there vision pros and leave it to the next crop of talented ready to try things group with a focus on what makes apple apple, which is quality above all, the joke it just works, was not a joke at one point in time it was the mantra to live by.

unreadable.

 

[satchmo]

Stumbled across this post.

😂

 

[bluecoast]

Does Gruber really want us to believe Craig Federighi had no involvement with Liquid Glass or hated it but couldn’t stop it?

I guess we’ll not know until the next insider support.

Obviously CF and AD have / had the same boss…

 

[canukstorm]

I guess we’ll not know until the next insider support.

Obviously CF and AD have / had the same boss…

I subscribe to Above Avalon newsletter by Neil Cybart. His take / theory on Alan Dye leaving is definitely something to think about. I probably shouldn't be posting it but I'm doing it anyway because it's a perspective worth reading.

"Here are the facts:

• Alan Dye, who has overseen user interface design at Apple since 2015, is moving to Meta to oversee an all-new creative studio that will be positioned within Reality Labs and tasked with bringing "together design, fashion, and technology to define the next generation of [Meta] products and experiences.” That structure means Dye will be reporting directly to Meta CTO Andrew Bosworth, not Mark Zuckerberg.
• Meta also hired Apple’s Billy Sorrentino who oversaw various design groups within Dye’s portfolio.

As for items that we have good reason to believe are true:

• Dye was not fired by Apple. That doesn’t mean that Dye may have felt like he was getting indirectly pushed out. More on that shortly.
• Zuckerberg is feeling pressure to show more for the approximately $70B spent on Reality Labs to date. Hiring Dye is a far bigger announcement for Meta than losing Dye is for Apple.

My Reaction

My initial reaction to the news is that the move is a good thing for both Apple and Meta, but for vastly different reasons.

For a designer, moving from Apple to Meta is crazy, to put it bluntly. The two companies are very different from each other. If an Apple designer feels that Meta is a better fit for them, then they probably shouldn’t have been working at Apple in the first place. The companies are that different from each other. There would be very little upside for Apple found with having such design talent stay on. Accordingly, my view is that it’s a good thing for Apple that Dye is leaving.

To work for Zuckerberg and Bosworth, who in my view waged a gaslighting campaign against the Apple Vision Pro and visionOS, is quite the choice by Dye (and Sorrentino). As we will talk about shortly, the move suggests to me that Dye was not completely content at Apple.

Some people will go further to say an employee wanting such a change means that they didn’t contribute to Apple in any meaningful way, but that goes down a path that is unfair to the employee in question.

For Meta, given how much they are lacking on the design front, getting their hands on any Apple design talent is an upgrade. There’s a reason why Meta outsourced their smart glasses design to Essilor Luxottica. With that said, positioning Dye as basically your chief designer with oversight over hardware design is a risky bet. It gives off the impression that Zuckerberg is desperate and a bit clueless when it comes to design.

Thoughts on Alan Dye

Alan Dye was one of the key remaining carryovers from the Jony Ive design era at Apple. After working in Apple marketing communications in the late 2000s, including overseeing Apple device packaging, Dye joined Jony’s design team in 2012 around the height of Jony’s influence within Apple. Dye was tasked with overseeing the user interface group beginning with iOS 7 and later watchOS.

Back in the early 2010s, Apple’s industrial design group saw how technology’s evolution (digital assistants, digital apps, wearables, content distribution services) required an expanded design team. That expansion led to Dye gaining power, including during the span when Jony was trying new leadership arrangements to avoid burnout. This photo comes to mind as summing up that period – Dye on Jony’s right was given the VP of user interface design title, Richard Howarth on his left given the VP of industrial design title, with Jony getting the Chief Design Officer title.


At a core level, Dye oversaw user interface for an Apple that knew it needed to constantly move forward and look beyond its current products to remain relevant. Some people – many long-time Mac users – remain bothered by that strategy and would like the company to turn inward. The problem in doing so is that such efforts would likely come at the expense of appealing to the 90% of Apple users who don’t use a Mac, in addition to users new to the Apple ecosystem.

Online Reactions

Reactions to Dye leaving Apple have been all over the place, although there has been a general theme to the madness.

In essence, reaction has been based on one’s location within the Apple ecosystem.

The near-universal reaction within the Mac community, including long-time user interface designers, has been that Dye’s departure is a great thing for Apple. Long-time Apple/Mac pundits who have (unfairly) railed against most of Apple’s newest product categories and initiatives are happy Dye is leaving. X posters who routinely bemoan Apple strategy are dancing in the streets.

Simply put, the Mac community felt like they were being attacked by Dye. The sentiment isn’t too different from how they felt about Jony Ive in the 2010s. At the heart of this reaction is the belief that making macOS more like iOS has hurt the Mac, in addition to many people having gripes about specific design choices here and there. (It intrigues me how Craig Federighi continues to sail by this criticism. Federighi is not some powerless executive who would have trouble getting Cook’s attention. If there was displeasure with Dye’s work, blame should be placed on Federighi in accepting such work, and yet we don’t see that blame materializing.)

Reactions among newer Apple users and those likely to be iPhone-only users tend to be kinder to Dye, positioning his departure as a loss for Apple. That sentiment likely reflects how the average iPhone user agrees with the general direction user interface has taken with Apple. Sure, there have been misses, but we are talking about a massive device ecosystem spanning from devices worn on the body to 30+ inch displays and TV sets.

All in all, the reaction to Dye leaving seems too harsh for what he accomplished.

In assessing the criticism thrown at Dye, there may be some legitimacy found in Dye elevating looks over functionality. There are also several design choices that feel like a step back in which additional actions are needed to accomplish what previously required less work. However, for such an expansive ecosystem, this is nitpicking.

My Theory on What Went Down

What led Alan Dye to view working for Mark Zuckerberg and Andrew Bosworth at Meta more attractive than working for Tim Cook at Apple?

It would not surprise me if some of Dye’s ambitions ultimately led to disillusionment in his current role.

Let’s follow the clues.

In his new role at Meta, Dye will be tasked with overseeing all aspects, including HW, of consumer gadgets. That is an expanded role compared to what he had at Apple. It will be interesting to see if Dye eventually takes on a broader design role across Meta.

Given how Dye is moving to Meta to oversee an entire design team, that kind of move tells me he may have had his eyes set on something more at Apple – say a “Chief Design Officer” or SVP design role, overseeing the entire Apple design team.

Dye was coming off of visonOS being a major win on the user interface front. As someone who has used Apple Vision Pro since Day 1, it is magical device for a variety of reasons including the user interface.

If the goal was to continue gaining power within Apple, the structure Apple put it place after Jony left wasn’t a good one for Dye. With Jeff Williams overseeing the entire design team, there was no clear path for Dye to continue his ascend to grab control of the entire Apple design group. Instead, we saw Apple maintain the power structure of Dye sharing power with his equal of sorts in an industrial designer. To have Jeff Williams, who had overseen the design team for years, retire presented something of a leadership vacuum. Tim Cook is reportedly now overseeing the design team.

Dye also likely saw an opening given an influx of new design talent which would have sided with him over other factions.

Apple had been deliberate in not moving down the road of having a Chief Design Officer after trying it with Jony in the 2010s, likely due to avoiding an all-out revolt among some (SW) teams. Having a Chief Design Officer would signal a far more empowered designer / design team that in essence could better overrule engineering. The setup Apple has now is much more supportive of a collaborative effort.

One possible timeline of events involving Dye would have looked like the following:

- Dye gauges the temperature in the room regarding a design promotion but either gets ignored or turned down by Apple senior leaders. Simply put, Apple’s inner circle probably wasn’t having any of it, and there was no sign of things changing following a CEO transition possibly beginning as soon as 2026.
- With his ego having taken a hit and with growing doubts as to where to go from here from an Apple leadership perspective, Dye may have begun more seriously entertaining offers by Meta and other companies. Such offers, which certainly would be accompanied by significant compensation packages, would give Dye exactly what he was looking for: a Chief Design Officer role of sorts leading an entire design studio including HW.
- Apple’s senior leaders would have known change may be in the air with Dye given his desire for greater power, so they lined up a successor who wouldn’t be loyal to Dye to prevent further poaching. The fact that Dye’s successor has more, not less, experience at Apple than Dye is certainly a choice.

There is no evidence to suggest that Dye was fired or pushed out directly. Would we be more accurate in saying Dye was indirectly pushed out by not getting something that he was looking for, feeling disenchanted, and finding that something at Meta? Maybe."

 

[Tagbert]

It’s sad watching these old school Apple commentators entering their “grumpy old man” phase.

You don’t agree with the design direction Apple’s taken in recent years. Totally fair. Design is subjective. But just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean the man doesn’t care about design.

Different people have different tastes.

This is not about differences in taste.

Apple used to base their designs on functional design first and use the Human Interface Guidelines document as their design bible. Recent Apple software designs have completely ignored that and pursued flashy design while removing functionality and making things harder do. The whole idea of stripping away the controls to "highlight your content" ignores that this software is a tool to produce that content, not just a passive viewer.

 

[rappr]

View attachment 2585263

Stumbled across this post.

😂

I still can’t figure out how to make my iPad do this!

 

[canukstorm]

Acclaimed Apple designer says he ‘could not be more excited’ for new design era

An acclaimed long-time Apple designer says he ’could not be more excited’ about Steve Lemay taking over design leadership from Alan Dye.

9to5mac.com

 

[canukstorm]

Apple used to base their designs on functional design first and use the Human Interface Guidelines document as their design bible.

This is what Apple needs to do: go back to the fundamentals and the HIG principles.

 

[rappr]

It intrigues me how Craig Federighi continues to sail by this criticism

LOL….I don’t understand why Craig gets a pass in general. People complain about Apple’s software quality all year, but when WWDC comes around its “Wow, Craig is so funny!”, “Craig should be CEO”, “Craig’s the best!”.

 

[bluecoast]

I subscribe to Above Avalon newsletter by Neil Cybart. His take / theory on Alan Dye leaving is definitely something to think about. I probably shouldn't be posting it but I'm doing it anyway because it's a perspective worth reading.

"Here are the facts:

• Alan Dye, who has overseen user interface design at Apple since 2015, is moving to Meta to oversee an all-new creative studio that will be positioned within Reality Labs and tasked with bringing "together design, fashion, and technology to define the next generation of [Meta] products and experiences.” That structure means Dye will be reporting directly to Meta CTO Andrew Bosworth, not Mark Zuckerberg.
• Meta also hired Apple’s Billy Sorrentino who oversaw various design groups within Dye’s portfolio.

As for items that we have good reason to believe are true:

• Dye was not fired by Apple. That doesn’t mean that Dye may have felt like he was getting indirectly pushed out. More on that shortly.
• Zuckerberg is feeling pressure to show more for the approximately $70B spent on Reality Labs to date. Hiring Dye is a far bigger announcement for Meta than losing Dye is for Apple.

My Reaction

My initial reaction to the news is that the move is a good thing for both Apple and Meta, but for vastly different reasons.

For a designer, moving from Apple to Meta is crazy, to put it bluntly. The two companies are very different from each other. If an Apple designer feels that Meta is a better fit for them, then they probably shouldn’t have been working at Apple in the first place. The companies are that different from each other. There would be very little upside for Apple found with having such design talent stay on. Accordingly, my view is that it’s a good thing for Apple that Dye is leaving.

To work for Zuckerberg and Bosworth, who in my view waged a gaslighting campaign against the Apple Vision Pro and visionOS, is quite the choice by Dye (and Sorrentino). As we will talk about shortly, the move suggests to me that Dye was not completely content at Apple.

Some people will go further to say an employee wanting such a change means that they didn’t contribute to Apple in any meaningful way, but that goes down a path that is unfair to the employee in question.

For Meta, given how much they are lacking on the design front, getting their hands on any Apple design talent is an upgrade. There’s a reason why Meta outsourced their smart glasses design to Essilor Luxottica. With that said, positioning Dye as basically your chief designer with oversight over hardware design is a risky bet. It gives off the impression that Zuckerberg is desperate and a bit clueless when it comes to design.

Thoughts on Alan Dye

Alan Dye was one of the key remaining carryovers from the Jony Ive design era at Apple. After working in Apple marketing communications in the late 2000s, including overseeing Apple device packaging, Dye joined Jony’s design team in 2012 around the height of Jony’s influence within Apple. Dye was tasked with overseeing the user interface group beginning with iOS 7 and later watchOS.

Back in the early 2010s, Apple’s industrial design group saw how technology’s evolution (digital assistants, digital apps, wearables, content distribution services) required an expanded design team. That expansion led to Dye gaining power, including during the span when Jony was trying new leadership arrangements to avoid burnout. This photo comes to mind as summing up that period – Dye on Jony’s right was given the VP of user interface design title, Richard Howarth on his left given the VP of industrial design title, with Jony getting the Chief Design Officer title.


At a core level, Dye oversaw user interface for an Apple that knew it needed to constantly move forward and look beyond its current products to remain relevant. Some people – many long-time Mac users – remain bothered by that strategy and would like the company to turn inward. The problem in doing so is that such efforts would likely come at the expense of appealing to the 90% of Apple users who don’t use a Mac, in addition to users new to the Apple ecosystem.

Online Reactions

Reactions to Dye leaving Apple have been all over the place, although there has been a general theme to the madness.

In essence, reaction has been based on one’s location within the Apple ecosystem.

The near-universal reaction within the Mac community, including long-time user interface designers, has been that Dye’s departure is a great thing for Apple. Long-time Apple/Mac pundits who have (unfairly) railed against most of Apple’s newest product categories and initiatives are happy Dye is leaving. X posters who routinely bemoan Apple strategy are dancing in the streets.

Simply put, the Mac community felt like they were being attacked by Dye. The sentiment isn’t too different from how they felt about Jony Ive in the 2010s. At the heart of this reaction is the belief that making macOS more like iOS has hurt the Mac, in addition to many people having gripes about specific design choices here and there. (It intrigues me how Craig Federighi continues to sail by this criticism. Federighi is not some powerless executive who would have trouble getting Cook’s attention. If there was displeasure with Dye’s work, blame should be placed on Federighi in accepting such work, and yet we don’t see that blame materializing.)

Reactions among newer Apple users and those likely to be iPhone-only users tend to be kinder to Dye, positioning his departure as a loss for Apple. That sentiment likely reflects how the average iPhone user agrees with the general direction user interface has taken with Apple. Sure, there have been misses, but we are talking about a massive device ecosystem spanning from devices worn on the body to 30+ inch displays and TV sets.

All in all, the reaction to Dye leaving seems too harsh for what he accomplished.

In assessing the criticism thrown at Dye, there may be some legitimacy found in Dye elevating looks over functionality. There are also several design choices that feel like a step back in which additional actions are needed to accomplish what previously required less work. However, for such an expansive ecosystem, this is nitpicking.

My Theory on What Went Down

What led Alan Dye to view working for Mark Zuckerberg and Andrew Bosworth at Meta more attractive than working for Tim Cook at Apple?

It would not surprise me if some of Dye’s ambitions ultimately led to disillusionment in his current role.

Let’s follow the clues.

In his new role at Meta, Dye will be tasked with overseeing all aspects, including HW, of consumer gadgets. That is an expanded role compared to what he had at Apple. It will be interesting to see if Dye eventually takes on a broader design role across Meta.

Given how Dye is moving to Meta to oversee an entire design team, that kind of move tells me he may have had his eyes set on something more at Apple – say a “Chief Design Officer” or SVP design role, overseeing the entire Apple design team.

Dye was coming off of visonOS being a major win on the user interface front. As someone who has used Apple Vision Pro since Day 1, it is magical device for a variety of reasons including the user interface.

If the goal was to continue gaining power within Apple, the structure Apple put it place after Jony left wasn’t a good one for Dye. With Jeff Williams overseeing the entire design team, there was no clear path for Dye to continue his ascend to grab control of the entire Apple design group. Instead, we saw Apple maintain the power structure of Dye sharing power with his equal of sorts in an industrial designer. To have Jeff Williams, who had overseen the design team for years, retire presented something of a leadership vacuum. Tim Cook is reportedly now overseeing the design team.

Dye also likely saw an opening given an influx of new design talent which would have sided with him over other factions.

Apple had been deliberate in not moving down the road of having a Chief Design Officer after trying it with Jony in the 2010s, likely due to avoiding an all-out revolt among some (SW) teams. Having a Chief Design Officer would signal a far more empowered designer / design team that in essence could better overrule engineering. The setup Apple has now is much more supportive of a collaborative effort.

One possible timeline of events involving Dye would have looked like the following:

- Dye gauges the temperature in the room regarding a design promotion but either gets ignored or turned down by Apple senior leaders. Simply put, Apple’s inner circle probably wasn’t having any of it, and there was no sign of things changing following a CEO transition possibly beginning as soon as 2026.
- With his ego having taken a hit and with growing doubts as to where to go from here from an Apple leadership perspective, Dye may have begun more seriously entertaining offers by Meta and other companies. Such offers, which certainly would be accompanied by significant compensation packages, would give Dye exactly what he was looking for: a Chief Design Officer role of sorts leading an entire design studio including HW.
- Apple’s senior leaders would have known change may be in the air with Dye given his desire for greater power, so they lined up a successor who wouldn’t be loyal to Dye to prevent further poaching. The fact that Dye’s successor has more, not less, experience at Apple than Dye is certainly a choice.

There is no evidence to suggest that Dye was fired or pushed out directly. Would we be more accurate in saying Dye was indirectly pushed out by not getting something that he was looking for, feeling disenchanted, and finding that something at Meta? Maybe."

For me, it's simply how decisive Liquid Glass has been.

I like it - it's not without faults and I'd expect Apple to iterative it, just as they did with the iOS 7 redesign. But 'internet'' has not like it, as per the above.

I also wonder though, whether there was a lot of AppleCare tickets from regular people who were confused where their UI elements went in apps like safari and who plain struggled with with UI.

Yes, I realise that what I've said probably screams 'confused older regular people' - but hey, the iPhone is a product for everyone and these people - if they were confused - should NOT be confused.

 

[rappr]

For me, it's simply how decisive Liquid Glass has been.

I like it - it's not without faults and I'd expect Apple to iterative it, just as they did with the iOS 7 redesign. But 'internet'' has not like it, as per the above.

I also wonder though, whether there was a lot of AppleCare tickets from regular people who were confused where their UI elements went in apps like safari and who plain struggled with with UI.

Yes, I realise that what I've said probably screams 'confused older regular people' - but hey, the iPhone is a product for everyone and these people - if they were confused - should NOT be confused.

I don’t think Apple has pushed iOS 26 as a “required” update until just this week, so I question how many regular people have stumbled into the new design.

 

[alexjohnson]

Design is subjective.

I don’t agree. Design can’t be quantified, and of course there is value judgment. But it isn’t all relative, either. We all experience examples of good design and bad design every day. And the, there is truly excellent design, and without being sidetracked by butterfly keyboards and whatnot, few would dispute that Jony Ive is an absolute titan. The original Macintosh work was, is, transcendent.

I don’t really know where Alan Dye started, and those working for him took over, in terms of responsibility. But every day, on my Studio Display, I see the round rec of the display, and the round rec of a window, and how they are no longer the same. In no universe is that “good.” I can’t believe that escaped alpha testing. We’ve all seen the Settings on a Mac. Ben Thompson has a bit on how he now goes to ChatGPT as who can remember where anything is now. It’s so bad we have to have mini-settings in the menu bar. New icons aren’t just “flat” but actively make it harder to identify what they are at a glance, which is literally the point of a pictorial depiction! So you can think it was time to put away a hyper-realistic HD icon for Disk Utility as a relic, but a wrench on an Apple-branded nut?

Not everything is bad: of course it isn’t. But there have been too many things that aren’t good. And, I don’t think this is a “two sides” issue. I for one am glad that there will be a new set of eyes.

 

[Tig_one]

"If you care about design, there's nowhere to go but down after leaving Apple," said Gruber

Not that I disagree with Gruber's comment in general, but this statement sailed long ago with Jobs. Nothing excels in design at today's Apple.

The liquid gas(light) attempt failed miserably. Many of the stock apps perform poorly and their UX has worsened big time. Safari, Music, System Settings, Mail, Spotlight just "revamped".

In hardware, taking out the Apple silicon, the 2008 wedge design of the MacBook Air looks fresher than any of the current soulless & chunky MacBook designs. iPhone 5s the same. Today we have notches, huge humps, Vision Pro is a brick strapped to your face, worse, messy UI & UX.

They also keep crippling macOS by iOSificating it, as if they couldn't bring consistency while preserving key functionality & differentiation for each device's target users.

 

[X38]

Hopefully this is a chance to bring back the pre iOS 7 look. More skeuomorphic, less flatness.

 

[RealMonster]

This to me sounds like sour grapes by all because there is no way Apple would put someone in charge of a department that they were not capable of running. Alan Dye was put in charge of creative design in 2015. So people are telling me that a man who is considered not a good designer, is disliked by all was allowed to stay in a job he was given in 2015? no, that is not going to happen because if that was the case Apple would have got rid of him a few years in to the job.

Do you remember the era of Macbook Pros that everyone kinda hated? Tim Cook put up with that for way too long. Eventually, Apple relented and made some changes. People get into positions that they're deeply unqualified for all the time: just look at Elon Musk, or most politicians. It is very naive to think that only the most qualified people end up doing the management jobs.

Alan Dye literally had NO design experience. I would say that he still doesn't, even after all these years, because every interface he touched got worse.

 

[johnsawyercjs]

this situation presents an opportunity for Apple to make significant improvements.

Sure, but why did it take Dye leaving Apple for this opportunity to arise? Couldn't Cook have pointed out to him the obvious problems, as they arose, which Dye was responsible for, like those in icerabbit's comment directly above yours, and tell him to fix them:

"skinnier fonts, medium grey text on light grey backgrounds, crucial settings windows that can't be resized, ... columns and windows that never remember their settings .... all the way to this crazy mandate of Liquid Glass design and extra extra rounded borders, squircles, fuzzy icons, ..."

 

[zenmacx]

Sure, but why did it take Dye leaving Apple for this opportunity to arise? Couldn't Cook have pointed out to him the obvious problems, as they arose, which Dye was responsible for, like those in icerabbit's comment directly above yours, and tell him to fix them:

"skinnier fonts, medium grey text on light grey backgrounds, crucial settings windows that can't be resized, ... columns and windows that never remember their settings .... all the way to this crazy mandate of Liquid Glass design and extra extra rounded borders, squircles, fuzzy icons, ..."

I prefer to let the past go and focus on moving forward. The change that’s happening now and in the coming months presents Apple with an opportunity to improve.

The specific people involved matter little to me as I don’t know them and have no desire to judge or speculate. Of far greater interest is how Apple responds and what they do to improve in the many areas that require attention.

In the meantime I will continue to enjoy my primary 16” M4 Max MacBook Pro, the cornerstone of my Apple ecosystem.

Should things get worse and devolve into a messy version of macOS, I am fully prepared with Linux well sorted and running flawlessly on my other MacBook Pro. Nothing beats choices.