Apple Liquid Glass: first thoughts, early fears

It’s fair to say that – after months of careful information leaks, unsubstantiated rumors and wild speculation – the one thing most of us tech reporters were genuinely curious to find out more about during the WWDC 25 keynote was Apple’s redesigned graphics user interface. We all knew that the company’s new operating systems would get some minor or even major additions, we all knew they’d be named differently, but what they would actually look like was still anyone’s guess.

Well, now we know… and if Apple hoped that Liquid Glass would be the software slam dunk the company needs right now, one thing’s for sure: since feelings seem to be mixed already, that slam dunk it definitely isn’t.

What the company calls “Liquid Glass” is essentially a whole new visual style for all of its operating systems, unifying their look and, to some degree, the way consumers are expected to use them going forward (obviously depending on the nature of each device). It extensively uses variable transparency, layered translucency and refraction effects so as to create the impression of dimensionality, as “light” changes how all user interface elements visually interact with each other, with screen backgrounds or with various types of content.

Parallels between Liquid Glass and Microsoft’s Aero visual style for Windows Vista are already being drawn on social media but – being fair to Apple – it’s a rather unfortunate comparison. Aero was basically a system-level official UI “skin”, of sorts, with limited extra functionality and not exactly subtle when it came to shadow or transparency blur effects. Aero felt forced and often pointless – ultimately a waste of precious system resources.

Liquid Glass is more refined from a visual standpoint and more ambitious from a functionality standpoint. Some things about it are already cause for concern, though, beginning with the very concept that defined the direction Apple followed with this particular visual style.

Liquid Glass: from visionOS to every Apple OS

Addressing the elephant in the room, then: yours truly, just like many others, was rather concerned about Apple’s redesigned user interface ever since Bloomberg reported that it would be coming for all of the company’s operating systems and that it would also be taking cues from visionOS.

The cause for concern is obvious: the operating system powering Apple’s Vision Pro looks that way and works that way because it has to. Variable transparency, layered translucency and light refraction effects on objects or surfaces are absolutely necessary in order to visually “place” icons, system requesters, content windows etc. in physical space – the one surrounding whomever wears an Apple Vision Pro, a mixed reality device.

So how is this user interface supposed to work on traditional flat screens of different sizes and resolutions?

As it turns out, all owners of virtually all iPhones, iPads, Macs, Apple Watches and Apple TV boxes – released in the last seven years or so – will find out in a few months, because all of those devices will be getting operating system upgrades featuring the Liquid Glass visual style. We are collectively talking about more than a billion consumers here, so this approach is ambitious, bold and downright risky: how does one make a single graphics user interface that can scale flawlessly between so many different devices and work truly well on all?

Based on early impressions by journalists or content creators playing with the first beta versions of iOS, macOS and iPadOS – Apple’s own keynote or its official YouTube video are expertly directed but not really representative of what Liquid Glass looks like most of the time – indicate that feelings are mixed at the moment. The new GUI looks nice overall, yes, but there are currently several obvious usability issues, a lot of readability problems, various UX inconsistencies as well as a number of odd choices on Apple’s part when it comes to how certain options are available or how they are revealed.

All of that, this being the first beta version of these new operating systems, may not sound unusual or even alarming but – in this particular case – it is. See, Apple had a lot of time at its disposal to make sure that a whole new graphics user interface for so many different types of devices would work with no major issues… and this does not. Social media are already flooded with example videos of the new iOS or macOS glitching in a number of embarrassing ways that will make anyone cringe at the prospect of using them day in, day out.

Simply put: this software is supposed to be in people’s hands at some point over the next few months and it almost seems as if Apple has still not made up its mind about how Liquid Glass behaves in different use cases, how certain elements are supposed to interact with one another in various scenarios or even through which action paths certain things are supposed to be done.

Now this is highly concerning for a beta version of a new user interface. It’s not the same thing as e.g. some options being temporarily inactive or a couple of apps not being ready for launch. Stuff like that can always come later. It’s OK for the first beta version of any OS to be in a rough state in pure functionality terms. The first publicly released version of an upcoming unified user interface, though? Not so much. The way that works should have been set in stone long ago.

There are other aspects of Liquid Glass that may prove problematic in real-world use, of course. One is the potential performance hit the operating systems employing it might take (especially on older devices). Another is how this rich visual system will affect all compatible iPhones, iPads and MacBooks in terms of battery life.

Most importantly, though: what is the actual purpose of Liquid Glass is not exactly clear. Does it make it easier for people to use their devices? Does it get the same things done faster? Does it solve everyday problems, does it address long-standing issues, does it offer additional options or better structure or some kind of new functionality? If Liquid Glass does none of the above, then it really is just a fancy, shiny coat of paint. Which is not unwelcome, but it’s not all that exciting either.

Is Liquid Glass just all flash, then?

There’s no point denying that Apple is currently in an unenviable position. As it’s been increasingly obvious for a while, the company’s operating systems were in desperate need of a refresh. Yours truly is still of the opinion that it was the lack of new functionality and added value that made them seem stale and boring, not their user interfaces per se, but some or quite a few things had to change. That much was clear.

The problem is that the balance Apple had to strike with this visual refresh was almost unreasonably delicate. If the company had not gone far enough with its redesign, it would have been accused of being lazy and cowardly. If it had gone too far, then it would have risked alienating and displeasing its loyal customer base. What Apple seems to have gone for, then, is this: something that looks different enough to appease its critics, but does not work differently enough as many had hoped (or feared).

Whether the visual style of Liquid Glass will stand the test of time is obviously impossible to say, since nobody has used it on several different devices for long enough yet. But if Apple plans to push the reset button on the graphics user interface of its operating systems once every decade… then it’s hard to imagine this one looking quite as fresh as it does now for that long. On the contrary, it may very well look too busy, superfluous and overdone as time goes by – a trap which the current “flat” Apple user interface ultimately avoided.

All in all? Yes, Liquid Glass does bring the visual change Apple needed on a PR level. It’s flashier, sure, and it does look modern compared to its predecessor. But – despite being the work of a company that had ample time in its hands and vast resources to tap into – it does not seem necessarily better than what came before. For some, in Apple terms, that is the very definition of failure.