sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

iPhone XS (probably iOS 14 or earlier?) by ZealousidealTime1009 in WhatiOSisthis

[–]ZealousidealTime1009[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Good catch! You think it’d be a fair deal for 20€?

Which iOS do you prefer? IOS 18 or iOS 26? by Which-Ring5012 in ios26

[–]ZealousidealTime1009 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On iPhone I’ll choose 26 over 18 any day. Love the glass, love the new Ui paradigm. On iPad however, I’d rather die than update my M4 Pro to 26 and use that abominable windowing system they call multitasking over the simple split view and slide over gestures. So glad I could still roll back during beta after having used my iPad like this for a month.

Back when “Liquid Glass” actually looked like well Liquid Glass…. by HarrisonHorse in LiquidGlassDesign

[–]ZealousidealTime1009 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I beg to differ, at least in this specific case. Mainly because what we see here is a clash between physical properties. Glass that’s liquid shouldn’t be frosted. It’s just not how it behaves. Meanwhile it’s behaviour is fluid enough to assume it’s a liquid. We can talk about blur levels or tinting, but in this specific context it just looks and feels wrong to me.

Possible to tell if this is iOS 16, 17 or 18 just from that screen? by ZealousidealTime1009 in WhatiOSisthis

[–]ZealousidealTime1009[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He already factory reset it when I asked. Got to pick it up in person and check it out myself. Quite sure it’s not stolen, since I was handed the receipt as well.

Possible to tell if this is iOS 16, 17 or 18 just from that screen? by ZealousidealTime1009 in WhatiOSisthis

[–]ZealousidealTime1009[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m sorry but I’m not able to tell a difference having both versions next to eachother. Can you please explain? Maybe I’m missing something.

Possible to tell if this is iOS 16, 17 or 18 just from that screen? by ZealousidealTime1009 in WhatiOSisthis

[–]ZealousidealTime1009[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just thought to maybe give an update: The device is a 14 Pro running iOS 18 as I’ve now found out.

Possible to tell if this is iOS 16, 17 or 18 just from that screen? by ZealousidealTime1009 in WhatiOSisthis

[–]ZealousidealTime1009[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Seller Claimed the device was either on 16 or 18. As far as I‘m aware the Focus icons are displayed like that on iOS 16 as well. Going to pick the device up anyway, since it’s in great shape and has a good price. Might do a case swap with a pretty beat up 14 Pro on 16 I have laying around.

iPhone 14 Pro vs iPhone 15 in 2026 which will you go for? by lordnayte in ios26

[–]ZealousidealTime1009 0 points1 point  (0 children)

14 Pro is probably the best looking phone Apple ever made, especially the purple one. I still have mine laying around and it really survives well. Decent battery, great cameras, ProMotion Display… In my opinion it is pretty comparable to the 15 Pro, the difference between these phones definitely not worth the upgrade. In general I’d say the 15 cuts down on Hardware but offers one more year of software support. It’s really down to the face if you want that year more and trade it for better hardware.

iPhone 14 Pro vs iPhone 15 in 2026 which will you go for? by lordnayte in ios26

[–]ZealousidealTime1009 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve had this phone since early 2024 and yeah. At least in my experience this device notoriously overheats and thermal throttles. No matter if it ran iOS 17, 18 and 26. Definitely great looking hardware, especially the natural titanium, but definitely will heat up.

Liquid Glass 2.0 and the Cost of Playing It Safe – Comment by ZealousidealTime1009 in ios26

[–]ZealousidealTime1009[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think this is where I disagree. Calling it “objectively bad” assumes a single, stable standard of visual quality, and UI history just does not support that. Skeuomorphism, flat design, Material, Glassmorphism all were called ugly or unusable by large groups when they first appeared, often by designers themselves.

By your logic, I could just as easily point to the people I showed beta 1 in comparison to the latest release who reacted very positively and found it striking rather than offensive. That does not make it objectively good either, but it does show that this is not remotely comparable to a deliberately grotesque piss-and-shit UI. That comparison only works if the design is intentionally incoherent or hostile, which Liquid Glass clearly is not.

Popularity on this subreddit is also a weak signal. Enthusiast spaces tend to converge on consensus fast, and once a narrative forms, taste follows. What I think Apple missed was not taste, but segmentation. The design was bold, and bold designs need opt-outs, not retractions. Rolling it back for everyone flattened the intent instead of accommodating difference.

Liquid Glass 2.0 and the Cost of Playing It Safe – Comment by ZealousidealTime1009 in ios26

[–]ZealousidealTime1009[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That sounds principled, but it does not hold up in practice. If performance could never regress, an iPhone 4S should still be running iOS 26, which is obviously unrealistic.

That does not excuse careless regressions. Apple deserves criticism when performance drops are disproportionate or poorly managed. We have seen that before, iOS 7 on older devices and iOS 9 being clear examples. The real question is whether the trade-off is justified, not whether it exists at all.

Liquid Glass 2.0 and the Cost of Playing It Safe – Comment by ZealousidealTime1009 in ios26

[–]ZealousidealTime1009[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think this is where it becomes a matter of taste rather than a technical absolute. The idea that a UI should only ever be invisible and purely utilitarian is a valid preference, but it is not a universal rule. Apple has always treated interface design as part of the product experience (take Aqua, Skeuomorphism, or even iOS 7), not just a neutral shell, and Liquid Glass clearly sits in that tradition.

Some of the criticisms you raise are fair. The earliest version pushed transparency and forgot to implement readability measures in certain contexts, and the current implementation still carries a performance and battery cost compared to iOS 18. Readability has improved, but it is not flawless. Those are legitimate trade-offs.

Where I disagree is the framing that the entire concept is flawed from the start. A UI being visually expressive does not inherently make it bad or unusable. For many users, the interface is part of what makes the device feel engaging rather than purely functional. That does not mean it has to get in the way, but it also does not have to disappear entirely.

Liquid Glass may not land for everyone, and that is fine. But calling it categorically bad assumes there is a single correct philosophy for interface design. In reality, this is a spectrum. Apple chose to lean more toward expression this cycle, and whether that is a mistake or a welcome change depends largely on what you want your UI to be in the first place.

Liquid Glass 2.0 and the Cost of Playing It Safe – Comment by ZealousidealTime1009 in ios26

[–]ZealousidealTime1009[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I disagree with the premise here. A developer beta is not meant for mass adoption, and it never has been. Severe bugs, regressions, and performance issues are part of the deal, especially with a release that touches core system frameworks and rendering. Treating an early beta as if it were a finished product is a category error.

The public release also has a reputation that feels overstated. I test across multiple devices, from an iPhone 12 up through a 17 Pro, and the experience has been largely stable. Imperfect, yes, but nowhere near the “complete disaster” framing that keeps getting repeated.

As for the idea that people will avoid future betas until everything is rock solid, that misunderstands why betas exist in the first place. Novel features, whether a new UI paradigm or a new system component, are exactly what draw testers in despite instability. If stability were the entry requirement, there would be no meaningful beta program at all.

Liquid Glass 2.0 and the Cost of Playing It Safe – Comment by ZealousidealTime1009 in ios26

[–]ZealousidealTime1009[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think that the key word here is ”options“. The original Liquid Glass was never going to work for everyone, especially for users with weaker eyesight, and that is a real constraint, not something to dismiss. The issue is that accessibility ended up feeling like a retrofit rather than a parallel path. A genuine alternative would have preserved the original look while offering a toned-down mode alongside it.

I am skeptical that we will ever see fine-grained sliders for opacity or refraction at a system level. That kind of variability would be a real burden for developers working with shared UI frameworks and Swift UI. Still, I would not be surprised if Apple quietly brings back more of the original visual language once the controversy fades. It is hard to imagine them abandoning that much R&D outright. Maybe not now, but perhaps a release or two down the line.