Even if you go back to using react it's still useful and fun to read about how people can implement things like virtual doms to get an idea about what's happening under the hood. From there it's easier to figure out if react is the best choice or other choices might be better.
From there one big question is if everything needs to be dynamic or not. You often have menus and navigation that you don't need a framework for and that even something like jQuery is well suited for. On the other hand a framework would probably slow things down for the writing experience in Obsidian, which is the main draw for me to use Obsidian. Once the writing module is written from scratch, it won't seem like such a big lift to also do all the navigation and controls by hand.
That doesn't mean this is the right way for everyone. A lot of times the speed to releasing new features is more important, while the handicraft of the UI/UX is less important and in those cases using a framework is absolutely the right choice.
There was also an article in Wired about this and I'll just say this: the fact the most discussed thing about the new iOS version is how to make their terrible new UI (that no one asked for) off is telling something about the state of innovation at Apple. It's annoying to see apps adapt to the new design, making a lot of the navigation in the top and the bottom worse (and great to see a couple of holdouts like Bluesky). A design philosophy where the full width of the screen is used is pretty good, not sure we needed Apple to prove it with a counter example.
Can't wait for them to release iOS 27 and announce they've made a useable UI again. "Hey friends, those accessibility settings you've used for a year? You don't need them anymore. Apple is where innovation happens!!"
> I'll just say this: the fact the most discussed thing about the new iOS version is how to make their terrible new UI (that no one asked for) off is telling something about the state of innovation at Apple.
I observed that too. Polled a few people I know who upgraded and they all have the same impression that they'd rather turn it off. I shared the accessibility settings with some to help them out. I haven't upgraded my main phone might have to wait a while longer.
This has to be resume driven. I presume designers at Apple have to end the year with a review to justify their salaries. "So Bob, what would you say you do here?". The answer "Well not much, we designed things nicely already, and now we're just chilling, listening to podcasts and having 2 hour lunches" is not going to fly. They want to say something like "That flashy glass thing, we did that!". Except, in this case I wish they'd all just be chilling and having 2 hour long lunches, instead of messing with the interface since they apparently managed to make things worse.
So basically it is to have shorter battery life despite advances in battery technology, and have planned obsolescence? This makes this even more compelling to leave their ecosystem.
This is just jumping the shark, as they need to push out something that can be talked about their products, and Apple Intelligence is a flop so far. As the saying goes: “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.”
I have an iphone 11 (non pro) I use as a GPS. The update works fine on it, I haven't noticed any unusual slowdown. If I'm not mistaken, that's a 6 year-old model, and I think it's the oldest one supported.
I can't comment on the battery life, since it's plugged in almost all the time. I haven't noticed any change on my regular phone (14 pro).
It’s shareholder driven. They have to act like they’re still innovative even though they have no idea where to actually innovate at this point. So they chose to change something very visible that they could point to as a big innovative change to keep share prices moving in the right direction. Ever heard of end-stage capitalism? Well, this is it - when every principle is sacrificed in the name of revenue.
Yeah I think both are in the same vein. At the corporate level it's shareholder driven and on the individual and team level it's resume driven. It boils down to "What cool thing have you done in the last 12 months?" kind of question.
When Windows XP was first released, one of the most requested things were to turn the new skin/theme off and make it look like Windows 98. Similar with all later versions of Windows. I don't like Liquid that much, but I wonder how much of this is actually just getting used to the old stuff.
This feels more like Windows Vista when everybody wanted to switch it off but ultimately switched back to Windows XP until Windows 7 was launched. The liquid glass confuses a lot of folks and it's good when done minimally and not all over the OS.
I think the difference with earlier UI redesigns is that the supposed benefit of liquid glass is the whole opacity thing, where several things are laid on top of each other while trying to show what's underneath. That just creates a much more messy interface, making it harder to see what's going on since they've dropped UI-classics like using contrast to make text readable. That's also why the setting to tune down liquid glass is found in accessibility and not, say, display preferences.
I'm a bit too old to have been privvy to any Win XP design backlash, but I think the more apt comparison is with Windows Vista, where transparency was also a major part of the design philosophy (usability be damned). We have pretty good ideas about what makes a good UI/UX and none of those ideas involve using transparency to make readability worse while also not really making what's under the half-transparent element visible or readable.
1. There's actual value in getting used to things. Part of the reason older people can't use computers well and get scammed is because trendy software companies constantly reshuffle the same stuff and they can't keep up.
2. A lot of UI progression is objectively worse, and I do mean objectively. Less legibility, more clicks to do the same actions, etc. We just get used to back software.
iOS 26 is bad software. We might get used to it being bad one day. It's still bad.
Similarly, Windows 8 was bad software. We actually undid that one.
We always get used to what you categorize as "bad" - it's just different. UX / UI people are not clueless, yes, they do some things because they are shiny and cool, but they constantly collect metrics and improve. People moaned all the same when iOS moved on from initial Skeuomorphic roots - now we can't even look at these screenshots without cringing.
Metrics are worse than useless because they don't tell you WHY something is the way it is.
For example, many websites optimize for engagment and in the processes make their website WORSE. Because people have high engagement with shitty things. Thats why humans can't look away from a car wreck.
UX designers are basically creating car wrecks so they can say "look at how many people are looking at us!"
>Similarly, Windows 8 was bad software. We actually undid that one.
Windows 8 was bad software for desktop and laptop computers. I will say though that it was great for hybrid tablet computers and they should have kept that interface for them. Using a Surface running Windows 8 is much nicer as a tablet than what Microsoft has done since. I have no idea why they thought a tablet interface was a good idea for desktops though.
> 1. There's actual value in getting used to things. Part of the reason older people can't use computers well and get scammed is because trendy software companies constantly reshuffle the same stuff and they can't keep up.
The first rule of UI design is don't change things. The second rule is to make it easy to revert exactly to the prior layout. For webpages and apps, it's not hard. Don't change things. Do not change things. Do. Not. Change. Things. But UI designers are too stupid to grasp the simple rules.
Every little change to Facebook was met with huge protests back in the day too (before they learned to do them gradually and also before they trashed it).
Isn't this the case for all UI redesigns? When youtube changed to their current design there were posts about browser extensions to restore the old interface. I remember hating it myself at the time yet now I don't have an issue with it and probably prefer it to the old design.
Yes, people are upset with every UI redesign that is not an incremental change.
So stop redesigning your damn UIs!
I know why they do it. That's because if you don't change the UI, it is like you didn't change anything, and people don't feel the need to upgrade. It is important for marketing and therefore I don't expect it to change.
But if you really care about usability, don't change your UIs without a good reason. Also, keep in mind that not every user is a young tech addict, it is hard enough to explain to my grandparents how to use a computer/smartphone without them being thrown off by UI changes. Ok, it may not be where your money is, but that's part of accessibility.
I don’t see how your argument applies to Apple‘s transition to Liquid Glass. Apple only did incremental design changes for years, IIRC this is only the third major UI/UX iteration since the early 00s.
UX is not timeless, features emerge or go out of fashion, user behavior and expectations change, the hardware on which the UI/UX is operated changes. You only can incrementally evolve your ui/UX so far, as you can’t know what the future will look like.
Liquid glass is objectively worse than what came before it. It's literally harder to see what the fuck is going on, and everything takes more time to do.
There are zero legitimate benefits to it. It's just neat and cool, which is a very poor reason to do something.
> Yes, people are upset with every UI redesign that is not an incremental change.
Speaking for myself, it's also annoying when the redesign is half assed. I think it's awfully embarrassing that you can still dig deeply enough into settings panels in Windows and get XP themed panels. Hell, dig deep enough and there's probably even older ones lurking still.
To me that is more a sign that I finally arrived at a dialog I can trust to do what it says and which actually achieves what I have been looking for the whole time. To me trying to change something in Windows seems to be a hunt for that old window first, before I can do anything useful.
You're not wrong, and I share the sentiment. "Modern" panels are near worthless, I have to dig down to something crusty to actually expose useful settings I can tweak.
That's true about the stuff you reach from Settings. But I also learned that Windows has a nice way to adjust the settings, every setting is described by a few paragraphs, it is structured in a tree and actually understandable. And you even can enumerate them and know you have considered all of them, there is nothing playing hide and seek with you. Really crazy that this is built in into MS Windows. It's called Group Policy Editor. Not sure why not everyone is using that instead of the crappy slow Settings app.
You may like or may not like the new settings panels, but making them incomplete and redirecting you to the old ones for the missing features is just wrong. Even worse, they have been gradually adding the missing features for more than 10 years, breaking all familiarity, and they still didn't manage to finish the job.
I don't know what happened internally but Microsoft went from being arguably the best in the world to something that is objectively terrible. You may not like liquid glass, but at least, there is intent behind it. With Microsoft today, it looks like a collection of internship projects.
Hah! I've seen the same TCP/IP Advanced Networking config ugly panel since Windows 95, up to Windows 10. It makes me feel at home, but it confirms your assessment.
You defended "change" in general, not in this particular case. "Change could be good so this change must be good" is a weak argument that can be used to defend any change. This is a shallow dismissal of the complaints instead of a solid defense of the change.
The poor contrast of the UI strains the eyesight, all the transparency and glass effects are distracting and tiring, so are many of the animations which just introduce a delay for no reason, and so on. I unlock my phone and the top row of icons is "thrown" on the screen with a big delay and a very ample motion to the point it was disturbing.
These aren't useful changes, they cause a loss of practical value to many users even if they bring esthetic value to others. The changes most brought up in complaints are objectively worse that what we had before. It's form over function and tells the world the designers had no ideas how to practically improve the UI so they added visual bells and whistles, flashes and sparkles.
> Isn't this the case for all UI redesigns? When youtube changed to their current design there were posts about browser extensions to restore the old interface.
Yes but UI redesigns usually involve UX redesign as well. It's not just visual so you actually gain something from it (even if at first it feels like a regression).
But liquid glass helps me do what... see my background?....!?
It helps Apple sell bigger phones: even wider margins and less readable text (it was already borderline unreadable because we had to showcase Retina hyper-resolution, now we can even do that without contrast!) When you buy a 10" phone maybe you'll be able to read an iMessage...
Seriously unsure who thought it might be a good idea and why. Possibly just a diversion from the AI development falling behind schedule and competitors. I really cannot imagine a user cohort falling for this gimmich in large enough percentage to push this, I'd rather think no serious UX A/B testing was done.
Modern design is already pretty bad and usability and readability being almost ignored aspects, but this is the most arrogant step I met recently, despite the ambitious attempt by Posthog website redesign to be the champion in user-hostile UX category.
True, and it's the same with any big redesign that it should tend to be the worst it will ever be at the start and then be gradually refined. I expect it will end up quite good by the time they want to start over again in 10 or so years, and people will complain about losing it and how bad the new interface is! At least there are a few good years in the middle to end of each cycle!
I'm not an apple user, have used neither the old or new design, and if I had to choose, I'd pick the old one any day of the week. Liquid Glass very much feels like Apple's Boeing 737 MAX moment.
The Liquid Glass design has awful contrast, and seems really amateurish with how stuff on the screen overlaps. Looks like the stuff you'd see in KDE 10-15 years ago[1], back when compositing window managers were kinda hot and new.
[1] This is from 2012, and arguably deals with the transparency-induced readability issues better than Liquid Glass seems to: https://imgur.com/a/x1LmBAQ
This one is particularly bad because it's shit. It makes the device harder to use for most users. It introduces a load of utterly pointless, and/or confusing, patterns/motifs... like:
- why do some navigation buttons hover about 3 meters above the panel they control (the enormous drop shadow around back/next/close buttons)
- why is the settings sidebar floating above the settings panel content, such that only the image carousels but not the text slide under it?
- why are the rounded corners of panels and windows so round that about 40px of every window's height and width becomes unusable?
- why do I have to see my wallpaper, blurry, under every fucking control, icon, component, list and panel? It started with Lion where the wallpaper would bleed through the sidebars of windows, even when they had other windows beneath them
Someone at Apple decided the "desktop" paradigm that made their computers usable has become redundant, but they're taking it apart in tiny steps, drawn out over years and multiple releases. The desktop paradigm was really good: you could have multiple apps open side by side and drag & drop content between them, just like you could if you were assembling physical things on a physical desktop. With Liquid Glass, you wouldn't imagine that was possible, because parts of the apps hover 3m off the surface, making it visually unsettling to navigate your windows. And your windows are made of various grades of glass which is brittle, and smooth, and you can't stick anything to it. Glass isn't a work surface unless you're doing stained glass windows. To do work, you need the confidence the surface will hold up beneath your actions, and a little bit of friction so your materials and targets don't slide all over the place. Why on earth are Apple creating the illusion of an unworkable work surface?
I'm convinced they're trying to deprecate the menu bar entirely by making it less and less usable (thinner text, transparency), but they're not willing to move it to the tops of windows like on Windows. Are they hoping we'll all give up using (because they've made it shit) it so they can just let it go? (like iOS?).
Yeah I stopped using Spotify because of their constant UI churn. This was around back when they subtly changed the hue of the Spotify logo for no clear reason.
Went to Youtube Music instead, which doesn't seem to ever get updates and likely has been relegated to Google's project limbo.
It's fantastic. It's arguably a worse service, but I'll take that over the frustration of having to figure out yet another new and improved music listening experience every other time I open the Spotify app.
Ultimately, good design stays out of the way. Design changes is design getting in your face, ... which is the diametric opposite of staying out of the way.
Sort of. The difference is this one has real, objective UX issues with hit areas, inconsistent icon use, making every website with position fixed elements broken, and constantly drawing attention to itself.
All of these are fixable without backing away from the big idea. But it’s pretty rough so far.
I thought the hit area issues was just a Safari thing after moving over from Android to the iPhone 17 Pro. Idk how it’s selecting things so far from my finger and the actual links I’m clicking on. Interesting you’re saying it wasn’t an issue until iOS 26?
Yes, but that doesn't contradict the comment about innovation at Apple. They are now at a similar stage to Osprey backpacks. They release a new look every year but with all the same features and functionality that we had a decade ago.
For what it’s worth, I’m definitely leaning “Apple fanboy” and have been amenable to their past UI redesigns. This is the first that I truly think is a regression, and I immediately turned on Reduce Transparency after updating.
I've only just started developing in SwiftUI, but I do know that some of these changes are automatic based on the components you use not necessarily a specific choice by the app developer. I started developing my app with the prior iOS version, but using standard components. After updating to iOS 26, the glass-effects were automatically added.
There are a lot of Apple employees here that are going to downvote this but I cannot turn a blind eye to this abomination.
I’ve been an early adapter since my first iPhone in 2009. But the new UI is plain ugly, lacking general accessibility, and full of bugs to the point that it’s just user hostile at this point.
They broke almost all of their design guidelines and make everything useless bubbles, I just cannot believe that Apple released this ugly thing to billions of devices.
A lot of these UI bugs are also of the kind where once I notice them, I can no longer un-notice them. The border around the Home Screen icons being one. When you swipe up from bottom to go back to Home Screen, the app icon doesn't initially have border while the animation is ongoing. Once the animation finishes, the border suddenly shows up. Once I noticed this, it's been annoying me everytime I swipe to go back.
I thought the latest dev beta of iOS would fix this but it's still here.
Exactly. It’s especially bothering because the previous version had a lot of thought put into it, macOS specifically would allow you to drag a file onto terminal to get its path etc. such small but incredibly powerful things all around. It’s the thought behind the design and its consistency that matters.
Instead now we have a phone operating system UI posing as macOS. There’s no proper text alignment, padding, or good margins. It’s just not elegant at all, it feels like a knockoff.
The other day, the keyboard stopped showing up in Safari, I was getting an empty keyboard tray when I click into a text input. How in the frozen hell are they able to achieve this level of incompetence. What’s the goal of this, just extract money from people and enshitify everything. I’m just so tied of macOS at this point that I started enjoying my work computer which is Windows 11.
It's trash and is what happens on a yearly release cadence when you need to have a driver for the release. Sometimes you need to do something. Anything. That's why they have this monstrosity of a UI. Total garbage.
> Can't wait for them to release iOS 27 and announce they've made a useable UI again. "Hey friends, those accessibility settings you've used for a year? You don't need them anymore. Apple is where innovation happens!!"
I'd actually be impressed if they were that responsive. Fixing a problem is the second best thing after not creating it in the first place.
Doubling down and not acknowledging a poor choice would be so much worse.
“We’ve heard a lot of feedback about the incredible design changes we made in iOS 27. In order to meet the challenges set out by our users, we invented a new type of glass that is both transparent and opaque… at the same time! Physically impossible, you say? Not at Apple.”
There is switchable glass that can change between transparent and opaque. It’s used for some car sunroofs and various other applications. While it’s not “at the same time”, as a theme idea for the OS that has analogs in the physical world, it could be done.
I've seen this used for the restroom doors at trendy bars. The glass is clear until you lock the door. It then turns opaque while you do your business.
Apparently, solid doors made of steel or wood are too last century.
The next UI direction for iOS should be coloured or textured glass (with bubbles or glass block refraction) with dark mode options that mimic uranium- or cerium-doped glass.
It looks like there are adhesive films to add the feature to existing windows, if you don’t want to go all-in on entire windows (which is also an option).
There are people who use pyrolysis to turn left over biomass to biochar which can then be added to the soil and, depending on your energy use for other things, can turn the process carbon net negative. It is a roundabout way to sequester carbon though as you need to consider the opportunity cost of doing other things with the land (like leaving it for nature to take over and sequester carbon that way).
It's always worth being sceptical about some of these claims about processes magically being carbon net negative since cleaning up the atmosphere might not actually be what's paying the bills leading to inherent conflicts between selling a product (ethanol) and doing an environmental service. Switching to EVs will allow you to use much less land to fuel the cars with wind or solar energy and then the leftover land can be used for carbon sequestration and rewilding/biodiversity projects where that's the sole focus of the operation.
The problem with counterfeiting dollars is that it only works until the design is changed and it's hard to transfer your capabilities. On the other hand hacking is convenient since it can be use for political leverage, espionage and similar.
The problem with hacking is that it's far easier to patch a vulnerability than it is to redesign a currency note and reissue new batches of them across an entire printing press while removing the old ones (some real, some fake) from circulation very slowly.
Also, Bitcoin has never had the counterfeiting problem of currency notes, largely because there's no such capacity for bad actors to create or issue counterfeit Bitcoin, as Bitcoin backed by mathematical work that must be performed to in order to mine/"mint" new Bitcoin, unlike US Federal Reserve Notes, which are backed by nothing more than an Intaglio printing press, some engraving plates with publicly-available designs, and 3D security ribbons, ribbons featuring ink that is visible under a blacklight (you can find which chemicals exhibit this property on Wikipedia), some paper, and some linen. Oh, and every single one of those ingredients are are produced by a third party (NOT the US Bureau of Printing and Engraving), who all solemnly pinky promise they don't secretly keep and distribute any extras :)
America doesn't rescind or invalidate old money from circulation when a new design comes out though. No one is going to bat an eye at a 10 year old $100 bill coming through.
Well then I guess it's settled - the US Federal Reserve notes are truly inferior to Bitcoin in terms of counterfeit resistance!
Humor aside, "When currency is deposited with a Federal Reserve Bank, the quality of each note is evaluated by sophisticated processing equipment. Notes that meet our strict quality criteria--that is, that are still in good condition--continue to circulate, while those that do not are taken out of circulation and destroyed. This process determines the lifespan of a Federal Reserve note."
Not only does the Federal Reserve routinely remove counterfeit notes from circulation, they even routinely remove non-counterfeit notes that are older or have physical damage from circulation!
You'll also find on the source link below, typical lifespans of circulation for various notes, as follows:
Denomination - Estimated Lifespan
$1 - 6.6 years
$5 - 4.7 years
$10 - 5.3 years
$20 - 7.8 years
$50 - 12.2 years
$100 - 22.9 years
So no, nobody is going to bat an eye at a 10-year-old 100-dollar federal reserve note, but by 25 years old, it would be likely to have already been removed from circulation. The 10-year timeframe you mention is more appropriate for $20 and below, but those notes tend to be counterfeited less than larger notes.
In Denmark the electricity price is calculated per hour for consumers, allowing us to move tumble drying, dishwashing and laundry to times, when it's cheaper to use power (= more renewable energy in the grid). This obviously requires some digital solutions to work and I think it's a great example where digitalization drives value in other sectors (in this case the power sector).
I actually don't know too much about what power traders do in the various EU nations. The majority of our plants tend to shut down production once the grid is too full since that is what many countries require. Hopefully we'll see storage get to a point where we can keep the power for later, but that's not where we're at right now. A solar panel and it's inverter and datalogger don't work without software though, and it can be quite fun to work with that tech. At least in my opinion.
The food is still microwaved on the ICE and presumably in other countries too, but the presentation is fantastic. The experience of eating in a proper restaurant while seeing the landscape roll by is amazing and while not all services need a restaurant or can support one I don't expect restaurants to go away. More automation might mean more people can work on the presentation of the food while the kitchen can take up less space which should overall improve the economics of the onboard eating experience.
Railroads have nearly universally lost money on the dining car. In the 1880s they did it because it was a loss leader - people choose the train (vs carriage) for the nice meals - something they could do that the other travel options could not (it isn't clear if this made a difference but they thought it did).
Station meals make far more sense in general - there is a lot more space to work with. You can also put multiple options (rent space to different restaurants) in a station. The only downside of this is you need enough flex so that people can get off when hungry eat and get on a different train (meaning both empty seats for them and multiple train options). Still trains have different economics from airplanes and should attempt to run no more than 70% full.
I think hardly anyone would get off a train in order to eat, then get on a following train. At least in places like Japan and Europe, where a typical long journey is just a few hours.
It would mean arriving an hour (or more) later at the destination. It's usually preferable to eat at the destination, or make do with eating on the train (in a dining car, snacks sold on-board, or something purchased at the station or brought from home).
japan is small and europe doesn't do cross border rail well. I could see doing it onia boston to chicago trip (you have to get off in ny anyway) though really it only makes sense for trips where flying makes sense.
Exactly. It costs a lot of money to run a bullet train, and every seat is very valuable. They don't have space to waste on a kitchen or restaurant. They do sometimes have little food carts they'll push up and down the aisles that you can purchase meals from, though this depends on the route and time.
Riding a shinkansen isn't like riding some old-time long-distance train in Europe or North America; it's basically just like riding in an airliner, but on the ground and without TSA and the seats have more legroom. It's all about speed and convenience, not luxury.
There are, however, some luxury trains in Japan on some routes. They're not bullet trains though, and usually meant more for sightseeing travel.
Maybe not so relevant to the economics of a dining car, but I have to take issue with “just as much of a bullet train”. Shinkansen are proper high speed rail with dedicated tracks, top speeds of 320km/h, and high speeds (260km/h or higher) across basically the entire network.
ICE trains run on the same lines used by slower services, and no train in Germany exceeds 300 km/h, with even that speed being attained only on quite small upgraded parts of the network.
The European rail network most similar to Shinkansen would be TGV.
That has very little to do with the ICE train itself though, which can do above 320 km/h just fine in regular service (on international connections though, since in Germany the global train speed limit is 300 km/h I believe).
While the high-speed tracks in Germany are indeed quite a bit of a patch-work, there are over 1000 km of track certified for >= 250 km/h (as of 2015; quite a number of more lines got finished since then, but I could not find the updated number that included them) and by now really rather long corridors are very high-speed.
The route from Munich (south of Germany) to Berlin is now mostly covered with upgraded routes for example.
I think the 4 hours for that route are quite competitive to Shinkansen times.
The fastest Shinkansen route (from the listed operating speed the only one that actually operates at 320 km/h; all others only operate at 260-300 km/h) is the Tōhoku Shinkansen line, which takes 3 hours and 20 minutes for the same distance traveled.
The lack of dedicated tracks for high-speed passenger service matters a lot though. It’s part of the reason why those (very impressive) scheduled Munich-Berlin times are so often not achieved. The “slot” for the service is relatively small because slower trains (in particular freight) must be scheduled as well, so if the slot is missed for any reason, delays can compound very badly. I take the train between Munich and Berlin reasonably often and it’s usually running late, and sometimes by an hour or more.
Reliability is certainly one aspect where dedicated tracks helps a lot, but is not the only solution (see for example Switzerland).
For Germany the issue is the overall too large utilization of the network and the large backlog of required maintenance of the rail infrastructure (in my opinion).
> It's all about speed and convenience, not luxury.
I don’t think this is necessarily true. Gran class seats on a shinkansen are some of the fanciest I’ve seen. It’s not quite like a first class airliner, but I think that’s more related to the shorter journeys.
A lie flat like an airliner has limited value on a train that is at most five hours between Tokyo and Fukuoka.
It would probably be more luxurious to put in private train compartments, which already exist on Japanese trains, but not on Shinkansen due to a capacity crunch.
The German Railway company DB often works with well known chefs who have also worked for aviation, often for Lufthansa, so they can benefit a bit from their experience.
I think this is right. I don't have a car but I rent cars periodically and pick based on the UX more than the "tech" features. Most EVs are fast enough and have enough range that it doesn't really make a difference to the driving experience but the UX and all the screens do make a difference.
I like the Audi E-tron because I can mostly ignore or turn off the center screen and have everything important in front of me behind the wheel. The center screen on the Polestar 2 is a bit more pronounced but can be muted when switching to the music screen. Teslas and VW EVs have way to much happening in the center screen so I avoid those. It's sad to see Volvo go down the same path but a correction should be in order.
Anyways, all the tech is commoditised so you need something else to differentiate yourself. For me that's not a big center display to show how "tech forward" you are, as it ends up suggesting you're anything but.
It might have helped that the Nordics were pretty advanced with developing mobile networks and mobile network technology. There was also SonyEricson in the region and it kind of makes sense that companies making network technology would also make handsets in the early innings and only later would people realise those are actually two different skillsets and market and need different companies.
You mean Ericsson. It only became SonyEricsson after the Ericsson management fucked up handling a fire at their supplier Philips.
The story I heard was that Ericsson had a culture of not handing bad news up the management change unless it was a real problem. Senior management didn't want to be bothered by small details.
By the time they realised it was a massive problem it was too late to buy on the open market and they were forced to spin out the mobile business into a join venture with Sony.
I don't think that was down to "differences in skillsets". It was generic short sighted management that killed Ericsson's handset business and it could just as easily have killed the network infrastructure side of the company if the problem had it happened there first.
If management don't won't accept hearing bad news from their subordinates they won't be told it.
The beautiful thing with the iPhone was that it wasn't a "smartphone" per se, but rather just a beautiful new kind of device and then people would get used to the smart features later. I had a PDA a couple of years before the iPhone and while it was certainly novel to have a digital planner as a teenager the "electronic calendar" or "email on the go" use cases just weren't really big. Listening to music and reading news on the go were great use cases though
Not really, there's a real cost of ownership for real estate that is more expensive than for owning stock in a company for instance. You still need a place to live and owning can be great for that – as to being a landlord there might still be better ways to make a return.
But the real problem with real estate "investment" is that the return doesn't come from doing something productive but rather is predicated on preventing someone else from doing something productive, namely making more buildings.
From there one big question is if everything needs to be dynamic or not. You often have menus and navigation that you don't need a framework for and that even something like jQuery is well suited for. On the other hand a framework would probably slow things down for the writing experience in Obsidian, which is the main draw for me to use Obsidian. Once the writing module is written from scratch, it won't seem like such a big lift to also do all the navigation and controls by hand.
That doesn't mean this is the right way for everyone. A lot of times the speed to releasing new features is more important, while the handicraft of the UI/UX is less important and in those cases using a framework is absolutely the right choice.