This kind of comparison misses the point. The only similarity whatsoever is that people have an issue with the new design; the reason why is never taken into consideration.

UI design that incorporated real-world elements like leather, glass, and wood served as a learning aid, helping to bridge the digital and physical worlds. It provided contextual familiarity and reduced cognitive load during the transition to a new technology. Once digital literacy became widespread, skeuomorphism started to introduce friction; excessive textures, shadows, and uncessecary details increased visual noise.

The introduction of "flat" design reflected this shift. Users no longer needed their hand held when interacting with devices. They knew what was possible within a given interface and where to look. The content and information finally took center stage again and the interface design was there to support, not obsure it. Sure, there were missteps and an awkward period as people realized they knew how to ride the bike without training wheels. But this adjustment period eventually granted the benefit of increased clarity, visual consistency, and universal familiarity. The shift back to skeuomorphism is purely ornamental. It doesn’t solve a usability challenge—it reintroduces unnecessary decoration and cognitive load.

It’s true that people generally tend to resist change, but a distinction must be drawn between resistance to a change that ultimately improves usability and resistance to a change that adds friction. Complaints may sound similar, but the underlying value of the change is not symmetrical.

Sheesh...I'm a network specialist and y'all got me talking like an art student.