What frustrates me about Tahoe is that there are some genuinely nice features as far as software improvements goes (I particularly like the idea behind Control Centre and the ability to shortcut system functions), but the interface just spoils it for me.
Tahoe was a great opportunity for Apple. They wanted to update the macOS UI for a new generation of Mac. Great. But they allowed completely the wrong person - Alan Dye - to head up the operation, and his pseudo-intellectual ideas on why mimicking the properties of glass was bold, innovative: not because it improved the user experience, but because he was too preoccupied with whether he (and his team) could accomplish the feat in the first place. Classic Jurassic Park philosophy.
You only have to look at their official video to see what a load of absolute self-applauding backslapping hipster-snob nonsense these guys are. They’re focusing their multi-million dollar creative pay checks in the dumbest of details, purely so they can say they have “great attention to detail”.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, nothing wrong with an opinion that has reasoning. But I’ve yet to read a single clear argument for why Liquid Glass is better than what we had previously; and I get criticised for raising clear and obvious drawbacks.
Apple has a history of designing to “less is more”, their current hardware being perfect examples. Liquid Glass could not be more polar opposite. Apple has added more complexity in areas where it doesn’t need to exist. You can create a pleasing sense of depth without the need for distracting floating pills, inconsistent button shapes and placement, overly rounded window corners, overuse of shadows.
I’m genuinely still wrapping my head around why the dock on my desktop needs to create refractions. Why?
