- New? https://www.nngroup.com/articles/glassmorphism/
Windows Aero: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Aero
- Not new visually, yeah. Aero and Glassmorphism walked so this could run.
What Apple’s doing here feels deeper. It’s not just a style layer, it’s starting to drive how the UI behaves. Motion, depth, and light are all working together to create more emotion in the interface.
Could be overkill, could be the start of something bigger. Time will tell.
- It’s the same old shit that no one wants. It divides us into two camps and we all take shots at each other about some pointless UI fashion.
This argument is tired and worn out. Fuck it. Grow up, use a computer as a bicycle, don’t worry about whateverthefuck color it is.
- Cool, but saying “fuck it” doesn’t stop UI from evolving.
You don’t have to care about glass, but don’t pretend design doesn’t shape how people use software.
- "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.
- 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.
