DESIGN SHOULD FEEL AS EFFORTLESS AS REAL GLASS BUT NOT AT THE COST OF READABILITY.
While most publications are blaming readability and GPU strain, the real problem might run deeper and more strategic.
The Problem Was Philosophical, Not Just Visual
Apple’s core design principle has always been “clarity and deference”. Liquid Glass tried to bend that by putting aesthetic immersion ahead of clarity. This wasn’t just a visual mistake it was a philosophical contradiction.
In simple terms: Apple forgot who it was. It tried to impress Vision Pro fans without asking, “Will this improve everyday use on a 6.1-inch iPhone screen in sunlight?”
Too Much VisionOS Influence, Too Quickly
Liquid Glass was likely born from Apple’s push to unify its ecosystems iOS, macOS, visionOS, and beyond. But Vision Pro’s floating UIs live in 3D space, not 2D flat displays. What’s immersive in a headset is chaotic on a phone.
Translucency in VR is depth. Translucency on a phone is distraction.
This UI might’ve looked amazing during internal demos on white backgrounds with controlled lighting. But Apple likely overestimated how adaptable the effect would be across real-world use dark wallpapers, low-light, outdoor glare, low vision users, etc.
There Might Be a GPU Lifecycle Strategy
It’s possible Liquid Glass wasn’t just a design leap it was also a silent push to sunset older devices. Similar to how iOS 11 killed support for 32-bit apps, the extra GPU strain of this UI might’ve pressured users to upgrade to newer, more GPU-efficient chips (like A17 Pro or M4).
If that’s true, the rollback wasn’t purely about usability. It was likely damage control before consumer watchdogs or EU regulators flagged it as planned obsolescence.
The UX Testing Culture Has Changed at Apple
In Steve Jobs’ era, Apple would test every font weight and pixel until it “felt right.” Today, Apple’s testing process is more agile and modular, and often driven by hardware launch cycles.
That means features sometimes ship without real-world testing across all use cases. Liquid Glass may have passed internal tests under ideal scenarios, but not under varied lighting, motion, accessibility, or cognitive stress environments.
This explains why beta testers not in-house teams were the first to raise hell.
Health & Visual Fatigue Risks Were Probably Ignored
Glass-heavy interfaces, even when well-designed, increase cognitive load. Constant blur transitions, motion layers, and subtle shifts may feel “cool” but actually increase eye strain, especially in dim environments.
We’re entering a world of UI fatigue and Apple’s R&D might not have fully modelled the long-term ergonomic impact of Liquid Glass.
Don’t be surprised if, in a few years, lawsuits or studies link overly dynamic UIs to screen-related visual stress or migraines.
What do you think should Apple have given users control over Liquid Glass settings instead of rolling it back entirely? Would you prefer a customizable UI even if it impacts performance?
Let me know your thoughts below!
