The Liquid Glass slider is an embarrassing outright admission of failure. Apple built its brand as a tastemaker, so to put out this new, controversial design language, and after a year of tweaking, finally throw their hands up and say "we don't know what looks good, you decide" is so disappointing.
That said, all the changes in iOS 27 are such a massive improvement from 26. The first design turnout with Alan Dye gone is making me feel very optimistic of their direction.
This keeps grids feeling proper, organised, and aligned, without feeling like the icons of Android Honeycomb.
So in theory, it opens the door to returning shape-differentiated icons to MacOS if a future display theme (a successor to the poorly-conceived Clear and Tinted themes) allows the background to be minimized while the foreground is emphasized.
What I would love to see, and should now be possible, is a revision of the Clear theme where the squircle is transparent/refractive and the foreground retains its native color.
Uh, maybe. Parts of it are certainly slightly sharper in an unimportant way when viewed at normal icon size and not zoomed way in. I'm not sure that it's any better. And if that Automator icon is the exemplar, then any improvement is extremely marginal. My god it's just such a bad icon. Whoever is managing icon design should be extremely ashamed of themselves.
Show anyone the pre-Tahoe Automator icon and ask them what it depicts and why that fits and they'll be able to tell you that it looks like a robot and robots are used in automation and therefore every time they see the little robot they'll think Automator. Ask them what the post-Tahoe icon depicts and why that fits and they'll be able to tell you fuck all because what the fuck even is that supposed to be if you don't already know.
Their first good example bumped up the color contrast. The orange examples in their set of "gorgeous app icons" are just as bad as the slack vs photos example.
I would love if the OS had an option to automatically convert every app icon to greyscale and required a minimum color contrast ratio for the original. Then, the user can pick their own overlay colors (similar to the color tags in finder).
It seems like every OS got a little harder to use in order to better vibe with VisionOS, the least popular platform they have.
While I applaud the commitment to building a new platform, I don’t like that’s is coming at the expense of the others.
I really disliked previously, when icon prominence could be wildly different because one icon takes up the full area with a big square, while another is a circle that necessarily has a significantly smaller area within the same extent. Icons from Apple were all nicely balanced in size, but third-party apps could be anything.
Giving equal visual weight to each icon is an improvement. iOS was a step forward in this direction, and now they finally brought the same standard to Mac.
Squircles aren't ugly, they're functional. "Shape" hasn't disappeared as a distinct visual cue, as the area within the squircle is made of, well... different shapes.
And let's not forget the fact that Macs still effectively use icon masks. A smaller icon is harder to click, because clicking on a transparent area... doesn't click at all. I remember icons like a skinny letter "S" that you had to click just right or you couldn't at all.
If they do, I'll consider upgrading both OS and laptop, but right now I'm holding on to Sequoia
I wouldn't mind if they allowed something similar to that audio hijack icon, where you require the rounded rect as the guiding frame but are allowed to have some elements protruding out of it. But completely arbitrary shapes are too jarring imo.
Make the icons be Free on Free OSes like Linux.
We will never know if this was AI generated or not, but I have started to flinch at this sentence structure.
Equal visual weight is another way of saying less differentiated.
> "Shape" hasn't disappeared as a distinct visual cue, as the area within the squircle is made of, well... different shapes.
Shape refers to a boundary outline, not interior patterning. A square with polkadots is still shaped like a square.
> A smaller icon is harder to click, because clicking on a transparent area... doesn't click at all.
That problem is only tangential to what shape they allow your icon to be within an enclosing NxN hitbox. Assume an implied framework where clicking on them isn't broken.
Edit: It'll always be Mac OS X to me, not macOS.
Apple spent millions convincing everyone they needed Retina displays and then churned out an update that made them all blurry.
I'm confused here. What do you think is the relationship between round icons and eye tracking?
It's legitimately a useful sentence to assist the point the author is making.
Since the eyes are the cursor, this is a problem. Desktop and mobile don’t have this issue.
I remember reading it in the HIG when VisionOS came out and everyone was complaining about the shape. I went looking to see if there was a reason, and there was.
Somehow when Ive left, Dye got put in charge of design even though he had zero experience in software design that anyone seems to be aware of. He was criticized for the years following for a lot of bizarre design regressions that were happening across all of Apple's OSes. Then a few months after Dye himself announced Liquid Glass at WWDC last year, he blindsided Apple by accepting a poaching offer from Meta, seemingly because Zuck isn't aware of how untalented the guy is.
Now Stephen Lemay is in charge, who's been at Apple for many years and actually knows stuff about software design. It's said that within the walls of Apple, a lot of people were very happy about the change, and the first showing of design changes we got since then are looking very good for Apple.
Granted, you can do a 256x256 and scale it down to 128x128, for example, but if you care for quality some details will be lost anyway. So that's why nowadays you'll see most icon themes are just a bunch of logos plastered over a shaped background.
And what irked me the most was that a few weeks after that I released that first set via deviantart and opendesktop.org there were websites that included them in their sets and made them available for download in their websites, not even a redirect to my deviantart or opendesktop pages or something. And found out after that that some people were using them in commercial projects and stuff so I had to chase them asking to not use them since they were cc-by-nc'ed.
Never got a single cent of any of that. I love making icons, at some point I was even working for the icons that would eventually become the Breeze set for KDE5 with their VDG, but it happens that I also need money to buy the beans.
I mean this throughout the whole process. The only standard illustration file format I can think of is SVG, but it's largely a format to export to, not one industry-standard software uses as it's main persistence format.
So for starters, contributors tend to need access to speciality software they probably don't have installed to view and edit the source of truth. This also means you're handling at least two files in your VCS, the closed format acting effectively as a blob, no diffs, etc. and an export file (usually more, for different scales) to actually interface with the rest of the ecosystem; this is the file everyone can open, inspect and compare, the one your build consumes, etc.
This already would be a good amount of friction for someone familiar with the tools, but designers are not necessarily familiar with git, the PR process, etc. Add to it that icons are more subjective than code, which overall should follow certain rules and either works or doesn't, and it overall seems not worth it for a casual contributor.
(They still have different shapes, though)
Please suggest an actual path forward, an actual plan that is more than just "figure it out". And the plan needs to address at least 1/2 of the points I made above.
It's a "Hard Problem". The answer needs lots of time, likely money and at least two humans with strong drive to fix the problem.
All of them create excellent software with polished UIs, provide excellent support and never forget to have fun. This seems to be unique to the Mac, at least at this scale.
Just imagine how hard it would be to read a text if all the words had a similar shape! You want them to look very distinct while the predictability of the layout helps you read (which is consistency).
That would be a marvelous way to make icons unified and a differentiating move for Apple.
Like iTunes / Books / App Store. And that's basically what they went with eventually...
Dashboard and Launcher are fine, but they have a reason to be a circle. (Well Launcher less so maybe)
Chrome is terrible, it represents nothing. But I guess it's just a brand.
I wish we could go back to this instead of squircles...
They sell hardware, not software, so the state of things makes sense. It is so disappointing though.
Applications Folder (in Finder) -> Right-click on the target app -> Get Info -> Drag-and-drop the intended icon file to the top-left corner where the original icon is present.
Ik it's just a way to customise and not something official but your Mac looks the way you want it to.
Superficial, perhaps, but they were one of the things I loved about OS X when I made the switch back in 2005 or 2006.
Seriously, they look like pictures you could find in a child's book, and it's a form of occupational deformation when you think of those icons as "gorgeous".
Most cartoon characters have very distinctive silhouettes and I don't think it's a coincidence. Remember "Who's that Pokemon?"
Also, that's true for a lot of normal application icons. Any Google application, including of course Chrome, but also Slack, Apple Photos, etc ... they all decided to use a "abstract red green yellow blue" logo on a white background. Of course, Google is the main culprit here. IntelliJ icons are another variant but still a pain to recognize and they add so much fun when they are mixed with Google ones.
And that's for the multicolor icons. Less problematic but still are "one color abstract on white background", like how am I supposed to distinguish Jira from Confluence ?
Also my personal bonus is that I have slimmed down high reflective glasses which creates chromatic aberrations so all those multicolor icons are dismantled when they are in my peripheral vision.
Admittedly, the term is unavoidably subjective. But what I like about them is that they are distinct, and that each one has character. Honestly, the fact that they looked like pictures I could find in a child's book is the main part of what I like about them: they have simple ideas ("a bird") and forms so distinctive a child could tell them apart.
Time to go icon hunting.
Man... I stand by it being an interesting idea that they fumbled by not following their own HIG.
Even if it is a bit of a silly line of reasoning, there was (at least originally) a purpose to the brushed metal UI. Anything that was capable of external IO (quicktime for ingesting firewire feed from camera, itunes for syncing with an iPod, finder for disks) was supposed to have a brushed metal interface. There's a world where 2 different classes of windows stuck around (one for things INSIDE the computer, one for things OUTSIDE of the computer) and I bet we would've gotten a lot more afforadances for real-life devices. Maybe a predictable device status UI in those sorts of windows or something. Maybe they'd just be those white panes with fancy animated product shots that show up when you get an Apple-blessed bluetooth device near an iPhone. There's at least some reasoning to treat external IO windows as sharing some sort of common UX. (Answering pretty common gadget questions like: is it connected, is it charging, is it lost, etc etc etc)
But then the waters get muddied with the calculator being brushed metal because it's trying to look like a calculator. And safari... because I guess the network is external but...?
I think a little after John wrote this blog post I'm using to jog my memory, all pinstripe windows were gone except maybe the preferences panes... so it was definitely arbitrary form over function at that point.
(Jogging my memory from: https://daringfireball.net/2004/10/brushed-metal)
I genuinely find my apps harder to navigate now than I used to. Part of that is that I have far more apps installed today, but the uniform white borders also contribute. They make every icon look about 20% more similar, which adds just enough friction that scanning for the app I want takes a little longer.
Poorly executed icon shapes were distracting, but when they were done well they provided subtle visual cues that made the interface easier to navigate. I miss that more than I expected.
https://movq.de/blog/postings/2026-06-16/0/POSTING-en.html was an interesting look at Win2K's UI controls and how much clearer they are compared to modern UIs.
it started as a computer for professionals
now its for people who want to look cool. so form is much more important than function, it's literally what you buy
I feel like what computers really lost was sounds, we used to have so many joyful sounds and background music on computers while now they are all silent. I think it’s a tragedy the Nintendo switch broke the long history of music in the menus and apps.
Right now my dock is a soup of squircles. I have to scan multiple times to find icons even though I know roughly where they should be.
They aren’t distinct. They don’t stand out.
That was never a problem until last year. 40 years of Mac was fine. Then that.
Preach it! https://daveon.design/creating-joy-in-the-user-experience.ht...
Is it a bad thing? Not necessary. Smartphones revolution made Internet truly accessible to everyone by cost of dumbing down software by features and UI - turning effectively these devices to work like any other home appliance. Software today has to have that captivating appearance so user wouldn't be scared away. But nothing is perfect and there are examples where users are being treated with this nasty infantile approach by literally showing confetti and balloons as the satisfaction derived from interaction.
The peak was flat style which not only introduced maximum simplified interfaces, design but also provided grounds for all sorts of darkpatterns where content is indistinguishable from active element. That let companies manipulate the user's informed choice.
I feel as if it was the opposite. It started as a true "home computer," and nowadays, it's used to do work.
The fact that MacOS is probably the worst gaming platform on Earth (and Apple doesn't seem to lose sleep over it -although I think they'd like iPad to be a better gaming platform), is an indicator that people use the computer to get work done; whether at home, or in the office.
But there's a lot of pretty visceral hatred for Apple -especially in tech circles- so I don't expect much reasoned discourse about it.
I'm a senior platform engineer who at the time I bought it was a senior software developer, who can still use it for my daily tasks despite it having 8gb of ram. Until very recently the 32gb T14 I had ad work was frankly worse performant than the little air, while having a battery life of around 45 minutes a fan sounding like a jetengine and a keyboard so hot it made the sun jealous. My new model is way faster than my macbook air though, but the old model was technically newer than the air. Obviously the comparisson isn't completely fair since we run a lot of corporate enterprise stuff on our laptops, but still.
I'd really like a Linux laptop, but a Framework laptop is expensive (and it has loud fans and runs hot). A tuxedo is even more expensive and has fans where you'd place it on your legs for whatever reason, and runs hot. Looking at the laptop market now, I can't see what you'd buy. A week ago I would've said the Neo (if the 8gb of ram holds up as well on the mobile chip as it does on the m1), but today I'm guessing a refurbished air with 16gb would be the only real option for someone who want's a cool low noise machine with decent battery time.
Whether you run OS/X or Asahi, I really can't see what you'd buy other than these. At least if you actually use it on your lap and don't just have it sit in a dock on a table.
Then again, I'm the sort of person who would buy the pink neo because it would fuck with the perception people have of my mid 40 Scandinavian conservativeish dad look. So maybe it is just about the message?
I haven't used iOS 27 yet, but from what I've seen it's going to get worse. We already have swiping down from the top left or top right bringing up different things, while swiping down anywhere else in the middle of the screen brings up search... unless you're swiping down at the bottom of the screen, then it's Reachability. From what I understand, iOS 27 will also bring swiping down from the Dynamic Island to trigger Siri. So that's 3 different behaviors from a swipe down from somewhere on the top of a <3" wide screen, with no real way to know what's going on intuitively.
Except that (in my view, which is shared by many others though of course not universal) Liquid Glass is ugly as sin. Even if it worked properly I’d still rather not have it. But there’s also nothing entertaining or beautiful about unreadable overlapping text, flashing UI as you pan, visually cut off scrollbars, excessively rounded corners, or any from a plethora of bad decisions.
Liquid Glass is the worst of both worlds.
macOS used to be both functional and visually entertaining, and they’ve been removing that incompetently and for no apparent reason. One obvious case is removing an app from the Dock: It used to be that it went away in a quick puff of smoke with an appropriate sound; some versions back they removed the puff of smoke but kept the sound.
I find nowadays iOS is as complex as the Android I remember. I can navigate it just fine because I'm used to it but even my parents who've been using iPhones longer than me have found themselves getting lost in the OS with iOS 26 in particular.
That is, until two weeks ago when I got my new iPhone. I had to, the old one couldnt upgrade to the newest iOS.
I feel ashamed to admit, that I had one or two days of extreme frustration just learning to do basic stuff. It was not about the shape of icons, but more along the lines of what you write. Swiping patterns, button press sequences, and the time you should hold down a button. It is ridiculous.
Some of the blame is on me for not being mobile phone savvy, but it is indisputable that the UX has deterioted significantly. I suspect it will just get worse going forward.
At least you can have 3-button navigation
2. Can apple ‘regress’ the camera app so the it is easy to use. The interface is a disaster of mixed inputs and over loaded widgets. Theres so many modes and sub modes. Swipe to zoom works mostly except when it changes modes. I spend about 10 seconds every tone inise the camera app just making it take a picture because accidentally touching it in the wrong place switches to some other mode.
3. The genrel consistency has went downhill. Its difficult sometimes now to know just how to interact with an app.
4. Search box. If i do another attempt at a web search when i am in mail search box i dunno. Either unify it or make it distinct. Also sometime its at the top sometimes the bottom
Cultural context, the same way you'd know tapping on an icon opens an app.
I have found that we need to be very, very careful, when making the UI more "fun."
Things like rounded affordances, short transition animations, easy-to-understand elements, etc., are good. They remove the "friction."
However, cute icons, unprompted animations, and overuse of whitespace for the sake of design aesthetics, can cause the UI to be too prominent.
UI needs to be approachable, useful, and unobtrusive. i.e. "forgettable." Many designers absolutely can't stand the idea of designing stuff that no one pays attention to; but that's actually exactly what most UI needs to be.
The metaphor that I use, is that most waitstaff at restaurants, wear black.
The reason is, is because people don't go to a restaurant to pay attention to the staff (with a couple of ahem exceptions <owl emoji/>). They go for the food, and the ease of having it provided without the need to cook and wash up.
I feel that UI needs to be the same.
I am currently working on a version 2 of a pretty popular app that has been out for a couple of years. The original was almost entirely designed by a professional graphic designer, and he did a great job -for the most part. It looks great, and people like it.
But I am constantly encountering people that have no idea about some of its most important features, mainly because the affordances were deprecated in service to visual aesthetic. The new version uses a distinct "accent color" for elements that can be manipulated, as well as simpler, clearer design. It's working well.
Another example is my "Spinner" UI element[0]. This was a UIKit element that I designed, to provide an interactive "prize wheel" spinner feature for iOS. It works nicely.
But I have never been able to justify actually using it for any of my projects. It's too "in your face."
A conputer interface does not have those. You need to track the cursor and then decide how you want to move it. There’s no muscle memory. And no tactile perception. What’s left is visual differentiation and it should be slightly exaggerated.
Comparing a subsidised computer for children to one that isn't isn't exactly a fair comparison, is it?
> No fan,
You know why Macbooks don't need a fan? It's because they aren't powerful enough to draw heat in the first place. A month ago, for the same price as a $1700 Macbook Pro (before the recent increase) I got a laptop with a CPU that is literally twice as fast on parellelisable workloads, has a 5070 Ti vs. nothing at all, and 32GB RAM. A superior screen, keyboard, and I can install my own choice of OS on it, too. Now that same dingy Macbook Pro costs $2000, or $2400 if you want 32GB RAM. Apple's greatest coup was convincing people that paying twice as much for half the hardware was a killer feature, and now everyone goes on and on about how Macbooks are the most premium hardware money can buy because they're so weak they don't need a fan to keep them cool. It's truly remarkable how susceptible people are to status-culture-based marketing.
Username related.
I think if you just compare cost then yes the Mac is a good deal but there is more than cost that matters. I think flexibility, reparibility and so on matter.
I will say that Apple has solidified on the design and reliability "recently". But let's not pretend that the MBP line, to pick on one, didn't go through some rough rough days. I've had laptops that had the delaminating screen, the 'single grain of sand can ruin it' butterfly keyboard, hell, I've had two models that had recalled logic boards. Early Magsafe connectors (fantastic invention) where the rubber would routinely fail even without tension (I had two that failed, exposing bare wire, even though they spent the entirety of their life on a desk, routed through a cable organizer, far away from any UV sunlight hitting them directly.
But now? Things are much, much more solid.
Except for the fact that you can’t scrub on the native video player by swiping anywhere, you now have to use the time-bar. Drives me nuts.
4. The top vs bottom search boxes drive me nuts. I still instinctively reach for the top of the screen for search, so going to the bottom is weird. The move to the bottom is also a symptom of the phones being too large, so they have to move all the UI users interact with down to the bottom. Not being 100% consistent with it makes it hard to retrain my habits around it.
I used to describe iPhone being an Appliance, with some smart function added to it. Android was a PC trying to made into a Phone form factor and act like an appliance.
It was that simplicity of iPhone that was great.
And you are right now iPhone and Android have converge in many ways it has added complexity. And no one seems to be doing anything about it. And somehow after 15 years of UX Craig Federighi is still popular and gets no blame for it.
You can be all those things without being forgettable. What matters to the user is the cohesiveness of the whole experience, not individual widgets. People use apps, they don’t just stand there looking at it like a video playing.
I have to keep it in battery saver mode or the fans just spin up when it's idle. They come up anyway (and irregularly) when watching a movie, loud enough to be heard over the movie -- though that may also be partly the fault of the milquetoast speakers that also inexplicably point down (so if you're watching something in bed you'll need to find a hard surface to put it on so that the sound isn't completely muffled).
That said, i have a macbook pro for work and macOS infuriates me, i would not trade my framework for any apple device under any circumstances. I love my framework more than any laptop I've ever owned. I just wish the hardware was more polished.
I was recently at the airport and also saw several pairs of fake AirPod Max headphones. They looked fine from a distance, but up close it was really obvious and they looked bad.
I would never trust media covering youth trends. It's a bunch of 50yos whose teenager told them something as a joke and they took it seriously.
See also: latest millennial trend is avocado toast, and that's why they're all broke
The problem is that you can go too far here, and it is in fact reminding me of:
Drag corner... hmm... seems a change in recent browsers - that has not changed in the website implementation since it worked in all three (FireFox, Chrome, Safari.) And I may have to break my no-Javascript ethos to get it working again!
It trails GPU workflows on the high end but wins on the low end. It still wins on efficiency.
It falls over on storage and RAM prices (well, for about 6 months it was competitive here).
I say this as someone who over the last year has done the majority of my competition on PC hardware running Linux.
You may be looking at this as a status game but it has clouded your vision. It is implausible that mass market products with mass adoption find their success solely on status. If believing that makes you feel superior, well, enjoy the rush.
You can get a functional Apple Watch on Facebook for 50-100 bucks. So not much of a signal for status.
We have much sillier, trendier accessories to choose from :)
Posted By Paul Kafasis on June 26th, 2026
![]()
With last year’s release of MacOS 26 (Tahoe), Apple made a mess of app icons. In the first betas of MacOS 27 (Golden Gate), however, there are signs of a turnaround. We’re urging Apple to continue making improvements, by restoring the ability for MacOS app icons to have distinct shapes.
In Tahoe, Apple modified the icons for dozens of their first-party apps to give them a “Liquid Glass” appearance. The changes were a substantial regression, leading to blurry, dumbed-down icons.
![]()
With the recently unveiled Golden Gate, Apple has again updated their MacOS app icons. This time, however, the changes are genuine improvements. Here’s the refined Automator icon, for example:
![]()
The newer icon is sharper, with superfluous Liquid Glass removed. Dozens of Apple’s apps have seen similar updates. The result is that Golden Gate’s icons are superior to Tahoe’s, as this comparison from Basic Apple Guy shows. Seeing these improvements led me to think about another fix Apple should make in MacOS.
With the Tahoe release, Apple didn’t just mess with their own icons. They also dictated the shape of every third-party app icon, forcing them to adopt the same prescribed squircle. Any icon that failed to do so found itself shrunk down and imprisoned in an ugly gray background, in order to fit Apple’s desired aesthetic.
![]()
Audio Hijack’s icon as it used to appear, and in Tahoe icon jail
To avoid this icon jail, developers were forced to redesign their icons to match Apple’s preferred form. After decades of beautiful, memorable Mac icons in varying shapes, Tahoe flattened personality to obtain bland uniformity. The platform is worse for it.
Past icons weren’t just more expressive. They were also more usable. Having distinct shapes provided a useful way to tell icons apart. Tahoe eliminates that cue by forcing everything into the same squircle, leaving color as the primary way to tell icons apart at a glance.
That falls down if you’ve got color vision deficiency, or even just multiple icons with similar color schemes.1 I’m looking at you, Slack and Photos. I have to look closely, because it’s so difficult to tell you apart now.
![]()
Apple’s prohibition on shapes is a step backward for both usability and creativity in app icons. Icons are now harder to distinguish because they’re no longer allowed to be distinctive. But there’s no technical reason for it. Apple could, and should, once again allow icons to take on a wide variety of shapes.
It’s clear that some people within Apple recognize that the transition to Liquid Glass introduced mistakes. They also appear to have the authority to fix those mistakes. Refinements to Apple’s own icons in Golden Gate are a welcome course correction, as is the much-celebrated Liquid Glass opacity slider. It’s time to correct the mistake of banning icon shapes as well.2
Apple should stop forcing every icon into the same squircle. Let’s return to a world of gorgeous app icons like these:
![]()
Free the icons.
With color now so critical to tell icons apart, it should be no surprise that the new “Clear” and “Tinted” icon styles added in Tahoe are seeing so little uptake. As Adam Engst noted, “[I]t’s nearly impossible to identify a particular app when they’re all clear or tinted squircles, as you can see below. My brain just shuts down when it sees them.”
![]()
I’m not sure this “Tinted” style would be a good idea even if these icons had distinct shapes, but I know it’s a very bad one given their uniformity. ↩︎
For folks within Apple, this was feedback filed as FB23388490 (“Third-Party App Icons Should Not Be Restricted to Apple’s Dictated Squircle Shape”). I imagine it is a duplicate many times over. ↩︎
Back then, the coolest way to use an iPhone or iPod was to put Cydia on it. You could run emulators, live wallpapers, sideloaded apps, pretty much anything that Android had was at the tip of your fingers. Once Apple pushed for a return to the locked-down software distribution philosophy, I gave up on iOS and started dailying Android instead.
I can absolutely support that.
Wouldn’t surprise me, if modern CSS can handle it.
2. Go to previous app view. This is app-dependent though it will probably, successively with each press:
a. Close menus if open (context, sidebar, etc)
b. Go to previous (web)page if web/file browser c. Go out of submenus (ex: settings/WiFi -> settings) if not in a browser or if the oldest page has been reached. Keeps walking the tree upwards.
3. Reach the main app view (usually the one you land on when opening the app)
4. One more press minimizes the app.
It is fairly consistent, but some apps decide otherwise:
* some will minimize as soon as you press it (I've seen games do it)
* some will open a new menu (again, games: pause menu)
* some will seemingly walk you the history of visited pages instead of the hierarchy -- which may make sense but can be confusing
* some old apps will display a toast "press back twice to exit". This used to be common back when physical buttons were the norm, but I haven't seen this message a lot.
So, mostly consistent with some weird-behaving apps. Same as on desktop I guess?
[citation needed]
> It is implausible that mass market products with mass adoption find their success solely on status.
People still pay a massive premium for blood diamonds over physically indistinguishable lab diamonds. You underestimate how wildly irrational the market is when it comes to status perception.
I don't use anything, but it's not like Windows is AWOL - my partner's Dell is quality construction, and the Yoga Pro my stepdaughter uses for college. You could still say (and I'd agree) that the MBP is still better designed (for me: "except the edges" - I hate the sharpness) but it's not like "there's Macs and there's dogshit".
It breaks the intuition that one tap == one piece of state on the navigation stack.
Keeps walking the tree upwards.
If i switch to my browser and hit back what happens : I go back to my previous app ? I go back in my browser page cache history ? I go back to the page that opened that web page i'm looking at ? something else ?
also mixing Back and Up is just wrong. I've had arguments with people that don't understand the difference.
Apple M5, Single core Geekbench: ~4,200 (https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/macbook-pro-14-inch-2025)
Apple M5 Pro (15-core, lower core version), multicore: ~26,000 (https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/18535781)
compare this to the top of the line Intel Panther Lake chips, which have comparable battery life. I cherry picked a 16" Dell XPS machine, which has the best thermal headroom, for its best score: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/18390748
Single core: ~2,900 Multicore (16-cores): 16,900
Geekbench is bursty, so we can look at more sustained test, Cinebench 2024:
https://nanoreview.net/en/laptop-compare/dell-xps-16-2026-vs...
Single core:
XPS 16 (2026): 111 MacBook Pro 16 (M5, 2026): 203
Multicore: XPS 16 (2026): 613 MacBook Pro 16 (M5, 2026): 2065
on GPU, https://spylab.ai/seo/v5/C54a/
"Despite the XPS 16's discrete Nvidia RTX 4070 laptop GPU, the MacBook Pro M4 Pro's unified memory architecture outpaced the Dell in 4K video export and machine learning inference benchmarks by 22 percent on average."
For GPU, this is not comprehensive. It depends heavily on whether it needs raw grunt, where Nvidia discrete chips will win. When the processes uses the NPUs on Apple's chips, it will often win. They trade blows.
Efficiency I think is close to a wash on the latest machine, but before Panther Lake, Apple's win handily. My Framework 13 on AMD would last me about 2 hours doing regular work; my Macbook Pro doing the same workload would last over 10 hours. Thank goodness Intel caught up here.
I do scientific computing where Apple has some disadvantages. Matrix math heavy things lose out to discrete GPUs, as do -- I'm told -- things depending on 512-bit extensions (e.g., AVX).
Until last week, prices on Framework/Dell vs. Apple were similar. I think Apple is probably 10-20% expesnive at this point, but adjusting for performance, Apple still comes out ahead.
Apple's displays used to have a huge advantage. Now that you can get OLED displays on performant, efficient Panther Lake machines, this is far less of an Apple advantage.
The upshot is that the new Panther Lake machines caught up considerably to Apple, but they're still about 20-30% slower (sometimes more) in most workloads, and IMO the build quality is still not quite as good. I think many of them actually have better displays. Battery life is comparable on better equipped PCs. IMO once you can work an entire day and a little more unplugged, you're good to go.
It's not hard to find this data and evaluate it objectively.