Why? If a UI works for people, why does it have to be changed? That seems to me to be at least part of the problem: software designers think things have to be changed, when it's really just that they want to change them, for whatever reason, and don't stop to think about the impact.

a lot people just don't like change

A lot of people have things that work perfectly well for them and don't like having to re-learn their workflow whenever some software designer has a bright idea. I'm one of them: I still run a KDE 3 desktop on Linux because it works for me and I don't like having my UI messed with just because somebody designed some new eye candy.

I think the newest version of Skype does let you break things into new windows, but to me it seems that it should be the default.

My main point is: the UI was already great, it didn't need any changes.

Finding examples of cases where this did not work are no argument against all changes.

And as far as people not liking change. This is not only about re-learning. Change on itself is often met with tough resistance. And this resistance is often rationally hard to justify. Your example may or may not be like that (I don't have enough perspective to tell), but perhaps re-learning would have been more than compensated by the amount of time saved due to new features.

Of course this is always possible in general terms. But I was talking about a specific set of cases: redesigns of UIs that already work and that already have a huge base of existing users who will have to relearn what they know. In my experience, it's extremely rare for that kind of change to be "for the better".

you'll need to move away from the sweet spot the majority settled with to get to another (hopefully better adjusted) local optimum.

And in the process, you will have to move through a "pit" of UI suck where lots of people have significantly worse productivity for a significant period of time. And for what?

Finding examples of cases where this did not work are no argument against all changes.

I didn't argue against all changes; as noted above, I was talking specifically about software UI changes that force existing users to re-learn things for no good reason.

perhaps re-learning would have been more than compensated by the amount of time saved due to new features.

How much time saved? And how long before that savings pays back the huge cost of the switch, per the above?

And can these numbers even be measured anyway? Sure, Google can measure to the millisecond how long it takes for you to move the mouse from one place to another, and no doubt they have numbers to show that the new GMail UI shaves critical milliseconds off certain common operations. But can they measure the frustration caused by changes like this? Can they measure the emails that don't even get written because people get fed up with their new UI? Can they measure the cost of keeping people within their walled garden?

This problem is not limited to Google, of course; I think it's endemic in the software UI world. I think software UIs are like fashions: changes are largely driven not by functionality but by an arms race for users' attention.

UI changes, no matter how great, are always going to piss off someone. A lot of the time that someone probably has a very good reason to be pissed off. BUT the changes might also benefit a lot of people who aren't as vocal. We shouldn't hold back innovation because we're scared of pissing people off. Of course we also shouldn't change just for the sake of it.

[This isn't directed specifically at the parent but at the issue in general].

The root cause is the traditional old style vs substance. This fits your observation that its harder to use, both to read and to keyboard. But its not marketed / designed as a tool to do anything, its a fashion accessory, so its irrelevant if its usable. What matters is if its shiny. That led you astray into the whole ageism anti-hipster thing. I also laugh at hipster kids, but the problem in this individual scenario has nothing to do with age.

Imagine if a hardware store released the iHammer and it was just like a conventional hammer, but cost much more so you could show off how rich you must be, and was painted blue, they made the hammer head pointy to be edgy and cool, had lace tied around the handle, and shipped it in a really cool origami clear plastic box. Anyone in search of a productive carpenters tool is going to be horribly disappointed and make fun of the iHammer, but thats not the point, the correct reason to buy a iHammer is to show off to their peers.

iDevices are no longer useful. That's OK. They're supposed to be fashion accessories, not useful devices.

For analogy I have nothing against women who wear wedding dresses to a wedding instead of sweatpants and tee shirt, or people who market wedding dresses to women who want to wear them while getting married, it certainly fills a need for them very well, and profitably. The point I'm making is its pointless for a gang of construction workers to complain about women's wedding dresses, all "LOL they're selling wedding dresses how useless because the train will get stuck in the bulldozer hydraulics" and the other construction dude all "LOL yeah and how does she intend to get the cement stains out of that fabric anyway".

If your particular situation values style over usefulness more than any other device on the market, and some device fits your needs better than other devices on the market, hey, have fun with it.

Or maybe rephrased a basic product design goal is a fairly objective observation (although I may be wrong, but I don't think so). However, a (subjective) discussion about some users desires being trivial or non-trivial is way far away from that discussion.

I am making the claim that iDevices are not just a fashion accessory and in fact are a highly productive, useful mobile device for what people do with mobile devices. The success in the iPhone has been in large part due to its utility - the entire phone industry basically works like an iPhone does now.

Competing for customers remains a balancing act between increasing usability and the aesthetics/fashion of the device - clearly a gold iPhone has little to do with usability, but will sell heavily because it has a fashion edge in some quarters. But none of this would matter if the device wasn't still useful. My construction site superintendent step dad moves to an iPhone because it worked better than his BlackBerry. Rail yard workers I worked with are moving to rugged-case iPads over ruggedized PCs because the latter are difficult to use. Airline mechanics use them to log their daily activities and order parts. These folks don't necessarily move the needle of sales the way fashion does, but they wouldn't use an iPhone if it didn't help their job.

Unfortunately the issue is the lack of a quality alternative. My best friend was an iPhone user, then switched to a Samsung Galaxy S2 because he wanted to be able to use is phone as a mass storage device, among other things. Eventually he switched back to the iPhone because the Galaxy was so unreliable. After less than a year, his phone would just silently shut off a couple times throughout the day. And he's far from the only person I know who's had Android reliability problems. My old HTC Incredible would stop responding to input a couple times a week until I yanked the battery.

All that said, I'm sticking with Android because I have a high tolerance for pain. iDevices may no longer be useful, but at least they work.

I don't understand what light colours have to do with hipsters though, most UIs tend towards lighter colours, it's the old school unix coonsoles that preferred dark.

The new GMail UI is most emphatically not good design.

This was a real concern for me. I made sure my children (19 months, 4 years old) could unlock my iPhone with iOS 7, before upgrading their iPad Mini.

Unfortunately I forgot about Spotlight Search, and the older one was complaining about it being missing after the upgrade (he knows he can find apps by typing in the first letter).

I showed him how to activate it but I can imagine many people never (re)discovering the feature, and possibly limiting the number of apps they install because they can't search for them easily.

I can't imagine wanting to be the teacher or classmate of said 11 year old if he/she is always "bitching" about stuff. And if that behavior continues into adulthood, I can't imagine being the boss or coworker of him/her. Such negative social qualities might be detrimental to his/her professional success and social well-being.

I wouldn't be able to say for certain until I have kids, but it might be beneficial to teach your 11 year old how to tactfully and constructively discuss the negative aspects of something rather than just "bitching" about it.

Having been an initial iPhone Luddite, I remember the posts I'd read discussing the detractors of various models. The criticism of this update, and a number of others since Jobs died, have an incredibly similar tenor.

What I find inspirational is that by force of personality alone, Steve Jobs convinced so many customers that the products' let-downs were much less meaningful than those customers and proponents would have normally felt.

That is a truly remarkable skill.

IOS now looks like it was slapped together in a hurry. I can't believe that this is the culmination of Jonny Ive's vision. He can do better. He has done better.

http://www.ibtimes.com/steve-jobs-dies-leaves-plans-4-years-...

http://www.forevermac.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/picture...