Your question implies the answer. It's probably not a problem that's worth solving. The industry found the most cost optimal way of sizing stuff that works for most people at the desired price and the rest is either served through misfits, alterations or boutiques. Clothing is not some niche forgotten industry where most obvious opportunities still exist.
It's like a new woodworker with a new router where every edge must be rounded. Hopefully, the new will wear off, and everyone will realize round corners do not fit in square holes
I'd even settle for it being on a switch, call it "minimal UI" or something, but I have a feeling that Apple doesn't work like that. It's burn-the-boats, we're going all in on Glass and there's no going back.
So, for example, since the toolbar at the bottom is not a separate interface but hovers over the rendered page, if the page has a button or link that only sits at the bottom of the page, it can literally be impossible to click it because the hovering toolbar will cover it. I’ve come across 2 websites in the past week itself where I had to switch to mobile Firefox to actually do something.
Yeah, because chrome is required to use -safari- webkit too, apple won't allow alternative browsers on the app store.
Except in the EU, but they don't allow it globally so no sane company is going to invest time into building a browser for iOS while apple is intentionally region-locking the ability to install them.
So yeah, on iOS, rendering bugs on Chrome are quite often apple's fault, and the Chrome team can't fix em.
There's no need to lose face to the vast majority of their customers, who don't read tech blogs or know who Siracusa is.
They can just boldy advance forwarded in a rearward direction and claim whatever they want about it. They've done it multiple times - every new iPhone and iOS has looked "the best and newest" and made the last one that looked the best and newest look old-hat.
They owned their mistake of removing all ports and function keys from MacBook Pros, so there is a chance. That being said, the UI degradation of macOS has been a slow but persistent march for about a decade now, and I don't imagine it will change now.
People keep blaming Alan Dye as if he was the only one responsible.
Federighi—who's in charge of implementing this and was busy praising it on stage—is completely blameless. As are all other managers big and small at Apple.
I mean, yeah, if you were picked to present "on stage" (when was the last time a stage was actually involved???) then of course you're going to be a team player and read the script enthusiastically. It's not like Federighi is going to present something "and now, here's the thing that I argued against doing, but was shouted down in all the meetings so here's this thing I don't like and you shouldn't feel obliged to like it either"
> I mean, yeah, if you were picked to present "on stage"
Ah yes. Federighi, the VP of Platform Development, literally responsible for the development of iOS and MacOs "was picked", and had no power to say no to the overwhelming power of the all-powerful head of design Alan Dye.
> but was shouted down in all the meetings
So, VP of Platforms was shouted down by whom exactly?
But sure, let's keep telling everyone that it was only Alan Dye who was responsible for Liquid Glass.
BTW I remind you it was the same Federighi who introduced the awful design changes in the MacOS a few years ago proudly presenting the new settings app and saying that everything will be meticulously designed in the final version (was it Sonoma? Can't remember).
You've taken the wrong interpretation from what I was being somewhat snide about. I don't know the Apple hierarchy and who is actually responsible for what. The point was that anyone presenting for Apple is going to come across as having drunk the kool-aid, otherwise, they would not have been picked.
At the end of the day, I don't care who was/wasn't responsible for any of the decisions. I have no say in the matter, and unless you're part of the management at Apple, neither do you. Lots of people wrote the code to make whatever debacle has happened. They all have skin in the game.
I would like nothing more but the goodwill (what little is left) that would be burnt with the developers who updated their apps to use Liquid Glass might be more than Apple can handle.
Best bet and to move as quickly as possible to tone it down, fix the bugs, and get someone who actually likes macOS in charge(clearly the people in charge hate it, why else would they treat it so badly). The System Settings app was the canary in the coal mine (yes, I'm sure there even better canaries but it's the first that comes to mind), whoever let that out the door should have already been reprimanded but instead Apple doubled down and created the trash heap that is Tahoe.
I like this site, and would love to love it. But the unrelenting refusal to participate in new things simply because they're new is incredibly disappointing. There's nothing wrong with Liquid Glass. There's nothing wrong with an llm. Half of this site could just be a bot complaining.
There's a lot of things wrong with liquid glass. The problem isn't that nobody has valid complaints. It's that you, and others, read those valid complaints and then just literally pretend they don't exist. Frankly, I don't even know how you manage to achieve this level of cognitive dishonesty without stepping back and seriously considering your life and purpose.
Yes, liquid glass does actually have problems. It has performance problems. It can be a big distraction, and some people believe UI whitespace shouldn't detract from the main content. It has huge legibility problems. Sometimes text straight up cannot be read. It has predictability problems. Stuff moves around when it shouldn't, text magically changes colors based on heuristics, which throws users off.
Personally, the icon and widget edges constantly moving around when moving the phone even slightly in any direction got on my nerves so bad that I had to disable Motion completely (the only fix for it). This unfortunately also downgraded a lot of other UI components/interactions as well.
It did give me a battery boost though, so at least there's that.
I don't care when somebody doesn't like aesthetics or look and feel of a new theme. It is subjective. Giving people an option to turn it off is kind. But Liquid Glass is usability terror. Just bring up the onscreen controls when you are playing video and compare that with what it was before. What is incredibly disappointing is people like you who defends new things just because they are new without paying any attention to usability, ergonomics or -sadly- performance. There is nothing good about Liquid Glass. Half of this site could just be a bot complaining.
I also use polars in new projects. I think Wes McKinney also uses it. If I remember correctly I saw him commenting on some polars memory related issues on GitHub. But a good chunk of polars' success can be attributed to Arrow which McKinney co-created. All the gripes people have with pandas, he had them too and built something powerful to overcome those.
I saw Wes speak in the early days of Pandas, in Berkeley. He solved problems that others just worked around for decades. His solutions are quirky but the work was very solid. His career advanced a lot IMHO for substantial reasons.. Wes personally marched through swamps and reached the other side.. others complain and do what they always have done.. I personally agree with the criticisms of the syntax, but Pandas is real and it was not easy to build it.
Why do you say Amazon doesn't know what they are doing? I think among those mentioned, they are the best positioned alongside Apple in the grander schema of things.
Also you say meta will never field a competitor to GPT - but they did llama; not as a commercial product, but probably an attempt at it (and failed). Otherwise agreed.
They achieve that by not generating the scene you see, but a lens warped version of 360 degree view. So you turning the other way doesn't delete what's happening / generated on your back side. However I expect it to breakdown if you put a blocker in between and remove it. i.e. go behind a wall and come back, or enter and exit a building. Would be nice to play with.
Why should Apple care about LLMs? They missed the boat on cloud, cryptocurrencies and on search engines. So what? It's not their business - they can just license a good offering and move on to what they do best : Products.
It is basic antitrust practice. If a company starts to control a vertical so much so that they start to exclude others, they get broken up into components and ordered to offer the basic infrastructure service to others. This is how it worked for 100 years (read up on telecoms/fiber; train companies/railroads; heck, even roads used to belong to people in the UK). This is why we have net neutrality - I recommend Tubes by Andrew Blum to go the heart of the matter. Imagine Internet if Google was able to throttle other services if you are not using their own? Here the author is arguing the search index is like infra that needs to be shared for public good. The state will not confiscate it - Google will break it into an independent company, will start paying for it, and let others to pay as well. It's not whitelabeling, stealing and reselling. Gosh - just read a bit people.
Soft deletes in banking are just a Band-Aid to the much bigger problem of auditability. You may keep the original record by soft deleting it, but if you don't take care of amends, you will still lose auditability. The correct way is to use EventSourcing, with each change to an otherwise immutable state being recorded as an Event, including a Delete (both of an Event and the Object). This is even more problematic from a performance sense, but Syncs and Snapshots are for that exact purpose - or you can back the main table with a separate events table, with periodic "reconstruct"s.
> The correct way is to use EventSourcing, with each change to an otherwise immutable state being recorded as an Event, including a Delete (both of an Event and the Object).
Another great (and older) approach is adding temporal information do your traditional database, which gives immutability without the eventual consistency headaches that normally comes with event sourcing. Temporal SQL has their own set of challenges of course, but you get to keep 30+ years of relational DB tooling which is a boon. Event sourcing is great, but we shouldn't forget about other tools in our toolbelt as well!
I am using Temporal tables in SQL Server right now - I agree it's a bit of best of both worlds; but they are also painful to manage. I believe there could be a better solution without sacrificing SQL tools.
