Written by psd.bsky.social
So thanks to the forces of the market and of the capitalist death cult that demands infinite growth at the cost of our human psyche, Apple squeezed their designers’ brain out to release a look and aesthetic refresh.
Ok, one, sorry for that heavy-handed sentence. Two, you might be wondering if I meant that Apple didn’t do this out of love for design and human interfaces? I honestly think they did. But I also think that if Apple really gave a shit at leaving the world better than they found it, they would have used the glamouring power of technology and innovation to prioritize at least on cleaning up the mess they shat on Congo. They would have made their phones reparable instead of parading around some kind of pathetic greenwashing. They would have stopped hooking people into the ruthless abyss of constant data consumption that is fucking up with our mind and our imploding climate a long time ago. They never did that. Imagine they did that though: half of the Internet hell will say something along the line of fuck this shit apple, you could never be the gay anarchist woodworking store you wished you could be be.
I would like to redirect my designer friends’ attention to one way this skeuomorphism version 2.0 is fundamentally different from the one we remembered from decades ago.
Indeed, skeuomorphism says that digital world should look like the real world so tech companies can onboard people to their services and platforms more easily. And as you guys could have guessed, flat design came onto the scene as most of the immigrants onboarded several years ago are now native in digitalese. Twitter distributed them green cards in the form of “congrats on your 5th year anniversary here”. So why do they crave so bad for skeuomorphism elements again?
It’s a matter of taste yes. It’s a matter of nostalgia yes. Immigrants crave for the taste of their homelands, so some of them built Chinatown in Western countries, some of them brought kebab and burritos to every corner of this earth, some of them try their best hosting their digital nomads soirée in Bali without getting canceled, etc. Obviously, the authorities will make space for those growing demands.
So what happens when the countries they’re currently living in actually fucking sucks?
Skeuomorphism 2.0 is characterized by the intention to mimic the joy of the real world. To mimic its fluidity, its expressiveness, its aliveness. Notable examples include Apple’s freshly released « Liquid Glass » and Google’s « Material 3 Expressive ».
Their quirkyness is not at all about personalization, in the sense of configuring a tool so that it fits to my needs. This time, the quirkyness is just about an UI hyping up whatever content that is yearning for the user's attention. To keep the user there longer.
Skeuomorphism 2.0 is born as a response to the brutal struggle against our digital dependance and addiction. No one finds phones fun anymore because our dopamine receptors are squeezed out, horribly abused and numbed down to death.
Skeuomorphism 2.0 is born as a signal jammer to the brutal collective awareness of how technology is devastating our real world. « Oh you wanna go to the park to see some water reflection weirdo? Your iPhone is alive too, don’t forget it! »
Skeuomorphism 2.0 is born as a way to deflect our despair from how authentic communities on the Internet and its true expressiveness is reduced to their hollow shells, thanks to AI trash and walled gardens monetized to their ashes.
Why do big tech in 2025 needs to persuade users that their services are «alive» and «expressive» ?
« What happens when the countries they’re currently living in actually fucking sucks? »
… contrary to the real world, the digital world prefers to keep the immigrants hooked so as to exploit their free labor.
Most of people reading this might also know me thanks to my interface design concepts that aims to make Windows, the operating system, looks a bit prettier (find them at my archive: hunktwink123.github.io). As cynical as this essay is, I believe wholeheartedly that designers at these companies aren’t doing their work out of so so much malice. They are moved by the belief that our digital world shouldn’t feel so sterilized and boring, and I agree because I literally spent so much time on doing the exact same thing!
Listen, it’s never been about « oh this aesthetic informs something is going bad so the aesthetic is bad. » It’s about how good intentions are hijacked by profit motivations. There are so many ways of turning the digital world into a vibrant and healthy place. This skeuo 2.0 thing is one way, albeit not the most impactful one, but the most profitable one, especially in the context of companies greenwashing their tech and anthropomorphizing silly pattern-detecting systems.
This is why I couldn’t cheer for something I have actually dreamt of. And I’m glad I didn’t.
I’m well aware that my post is well far away from the mainstream discourse. I expect a lot of people to misunderstand my words, but I’m publishing this anyway in hope of bringing up a new area of debate around design. The kinds of debate not on how well Apple is keeping tab with their legacy, but on how big tech is actually manipulating our society through their politics and deceitful complice with designers.
Sorry for grammar and spelling mistakes, I haven’t had time proofread my essay as carefully as I’ve wanted.