
I tried iOS 26 as an Android user, and my biggest issue has nothing to do with Liquid Glass
I'm a Pixel guy, have been for years — everyone knows it. So, you can imagine I was pretty pleased when Google unveiled Material 3 Expressive, and it looked like a refinement of the Pixel UI design that I already loved.
And then came Apple with its new Liquid Glass interface as part of iOS 26. Simply put, I thought it looked awful. It was hard to read, and the original glass effects looked clunky.
Now, though, I've given iOS 26 a shot. I've loaded it onto my iPhone 16 for a quick trip around the block and realized I was wrong. My least favorite part about Apple's latest software isn't the look, but what it's done to the navigation buttons I spent years getting used to. I'm nearly ready to go back to iOS 18, and here's why.
Liquid Glass looks actually kinda cool… once you figure it out
Ryan Haines / Android Authority
At first, Liquid Glass threw me for a loop. It automatically applied itself, well, everywhere, and I wasn't sure how to navigate. My app icons suddenly looked like frosted glass pebbles, and most of my on-screen buttons were just a little harder to see. But after a few minutes, my eyes adjusted. I adapted to the new icons just like I had adapted when they were barely visible against dark gray backgrounds, and I quickly relearned my way around.
Once I did, I began to see how Liquid Glass is an improvement over whatever Apple called its iOS 18 design. Where that styling felt like a quick, dirty response to one of my favorite Android customizations, Liquid Glass feels considered. The app icons feel textured, and the slight difference in coloring makes it much easier to pick out which app I'm looking for — I no longer get mixed up between Spotify, Find My, and Apple Fitness.
Liquid Glass treats my app icons much, much better than iOS 18 ever did.
Of course, Liquid Glass isn't just about recoloring app icons; it's also about spicing up widgets and reworking the folders that adorn my home screen. On both fronts, I love what Apple is going for. I keep my home screen pretty lean, with two folders at the bottom and two widgets at the top, and Liquid Glass does just enough to minimize both of them while bringing out the details in my wallpaper.
I particularly like that my productivity folder — which houses Slack, Asana, and Google Authenticator — pulls from the golden evening glow of the iconic pagoda in Patterson Park and loops it around the edge of the folder as if I were looking through a slightly rounded window.
There are, however, times when I'm not sure the Liquid Glass treatment is necessary. One is when I drag down from the top edge to check my notifications. Sure, it's neat that you can see the glass texture take over, acting like a wave as it descends over your apps, but it's not the most noticeable. The part of Liquid Glass that's really gotten old is when I swipe into apps like Photos. Everything is fine at first, with easily visible buttons along the bottom of my library, but when I swipe up and the glass takes over, it becomes almost impossible to find everything from Select to Search.
And, now that I'm annoyed at that, let's talk about the buttons themselves.
Bubbles are no good for glass, Apple
Ryan Haines / Android Authority
As I saw it, Apple's existing controls were good enough — maybe even great for some people. I certainly had no problem with how the buttons looked in Photos on iOS 18, and I even asked Google to copy Apple's bottom-mounted search bar from Safari to Chrome (which it later did). I would have been content for them to stay the same from one version of iOS to the next and beyond, but Apple had something else in mind. It put everything in its little bubble, making it all hard to find.
Perhaps the worst example of this — and the one that inspired me — is what Apple did to its Safari controls. Previously, they were set up just right. The forward and backward arrows took up just enough space, and it was easy to read the address bar at a glance. I could jump from one tab to the next with a single button and access all other tab-related controls right from the same one. Now, though, I have to press a button to open the tab menu, then press a second button to view all of my tabs, taking a few unnecessary extra seconds to display those options.
Apple's search for bubbly goodness has also led it to ruin its camera app with one simple change. It decided that Google had the right idea a few years ago with its minimalist Pixel camera interface, and now the iPhone should have the same one. On one hand, Apple always kept one tab for video and one tab for photos, but this new interface just doesn't work for me.
I think my problem is that it's both bubbly and backwards. A swipe to the left makes the settings go left, while a swipe to the right makes them go right. It's exactly the opposite behavior of the previous camera interface, and now it's the opposite of how the Camera Control behaves, too. An easy fix for this is to make them swipe in the same direction, but I fear I'll be waiting impatiently until Apple realizes it.
Unfortunately, Apple's hard-to-see buttons are pretty much everywhere in iOS 26. Nothing shares a safe, reliable bar anymore, and pretty much everything has been moved from its original position. New messages now start from the bottom of the interface rather than the top, the Phone app now has one unified menu, and the button to start navigating in Apple Maps practically needs its own navigation feature. It's confusing, it's a mess, and I'm ready to pack up my things and go back to my Pixel 9 Pro.
I'm sorry, Apple. Maybe I'll try a future version of iOS 26 — one where I can actually find my way around.
Follow

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Apple might be building its own AI ‘answer engine'
Apple has formed a new team to build a ChatGPT-like app, according to according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. This team — reportedly called Answers, Knowledge, and Information — is working to build an 'answer engine' that can respond to questions using information from across the web. This could be a standalone app or provide search capabilities in Siri, Safari, and other Apple products. Gurman also notes that Apple is advertising for jobs with this team, specifically looking for applicants who have experience with search algorithms and engine development. While Apple has already integrated ChatGPT into Siri, a more personalized, AI-powered update to the voice assistant has been repeatedly delayed. Apple might also have to alter its search deal with Google as a result of the latter company's antitrust defeat. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bitcoin vs Stocks: Which $15,000 Investment Would Make You a Billionaire?
Imagine it's mid-2010, and you have $15,000 to invest. You're considering a new digital currency called bitcoin, trading at just 10 cents per coin, or putting your money into promising stocks like Nvidia, Tesla or Netflix. Read More: Discover Next: I asked ChatGPT to run the numbers on what might be the most expensive investment decision in modern history. The artificial intelligence's analysis reveals just how dramatically different asset classes can perform (and why timing really is everything when it comes to investing). The $15,000 Investment Scenario: Mid-2010 To make this comparison fair, ChatGPT set the investment date at mid-2010, when both bitcoin and several now-famous stocks were available. This timing is important because it represents a moment when ordinary investors could realistically have made any of these choices. The AI selected five investments that seemed promising in 2010: Bitcoin, trading at around $0.10 per coin Nvidia stock at about $2.50 (split-adjusted) Tesla, which had just gone public at $1.17 (split-adjusted) Broadcom at approximately $7.30 (adjusted for splits and mergers) Netflix at around $8.80 (adjusted for splits) Each represents $15,000 invested at that moment in time. Here's what ChatGPT discovered about where that money would be today. Find Out: Bitcoin: The $17.7 Billion Winner According to ChatGPT's calculations, bitcoin's results are nearly unbelievable. At $0.10 per bitcoin in mid-2010, your $15,000 would have purchased 150,000 coins. With bitcoin trading at approximately $117,700 today, those 150,000 coins would be worth $17.655 billion. 'Yes, this investment would have made you a multibillionaire,' ChatGPT confirmed, adding that bitcoin is the only asset in this comparison that achieved billionaire status. This represents a return of over 1,000,000% — turning every dollar invested into more than $1 million. Nvidia: The Stock Market's Best Performer Still Falls Short Nvidia has been the poster child for stock market success in recent years, especially with the AI boom. ChatGPT's analysis shows it was indeed the best-performing stock in our comparison. Your $15,000 would have bought 6,000 shares at $2.50 each in 2010. With Nvidia currently trading around $175.50, those shares would be worth $1.053 million today. 'Even accounting for stock splits and exact timing, Nvidia grows to around $5-6.7 million at best,' ChatGPT wrote, acknowledging that different timing within 2010 could have yielded slightly better results. Still, even the most optimistic Nvidia scenario falls dramatically short of billionaire status. Tesla: From IPO to Millions, Not Billions Tesla's initial public offering in June 2010 created early investor opportunities that ChatGPT calculated would have been impressive — just not billionaire-level impressive. At Tesla's split-adjusted IPO price of $1.17, your $15,000 would have purchased approximately 12,820 shares. With Tesla trading around $328 today, that position would be worth about $4.2 million. 'Best estimates suggest Tesla would yield around $3.6-4.2 million on $15,000,' ChatGPT concluded, noting that Tesla's volatility could have affected results depending on exact purchase timing. Netflix: The Streaming Pioneer's Solid but Not Spectacular Returns Netflix represented the streaming revolution that was just beginning in 2010. ChatGPT's analysis shows it would have been a good investment — but nowhere near life-changing money. Your $15,000 would have bought roughly 1,705 shares at $8.80 each. With Netflix currently around $1,176 per share, those shares would be worth approximately $2 million today. 'Best case scenario: around $1.3-2 million,' ChatGPT estimated, accounting for Netflix's various ups and downs over the past 15 years. Not chump change, but not billions. Broadcom: The Forgotten Semiconductor Play Broadcom, while less famous than Nvidia, was another semiconductor stock available in 2010. ChatGPT calculated it would have been the worst performer in this group. At $7.30 per share, your $15,000 would have purchased about 2,055 shares. With Broadcom trading around $293.36 today, that investment would be worth roughly $603,000. 'Realistic return: around $1.7 million max (including reinvestment/dividends),' ChatGPT wrote, suggesting that dividend reinvestment could have improved results somewhat. The Reality Check: Why Almost Nobody Became a Bitcoin Billionaire While ChatGPT confirmed that bitcoin was the only path to billionaire status, the AI also provided crucial context about why so few people actually achieved these returns. 'Bitcoin's rise was incredibly volatile, and few investors held on through multiple 80%+ crashes,' ChatGPT warned. 'Stocks, while slower, offered more stable growth.' The psychological challenge of holding bitcoin through its numerous boom-bust cycles cannot be overstated. Bitcoin crashed over 80% at least three times during this 15-year period. Most investors who bought at $0.10 probably sold long before bitcoin reached $117,700. What This Means for Today's Investors ChatGPT's analysis reveals several important lessons for modern investors: Hindsight is not an investment strategy: While bitcoin clearly won this historical comparison, trying to find the 'next bitcoin' is essentially gambling, not investing. Diversification matters: Even the best-performing traditional stocks 'only' returned millions rather than billions. But millions in returns from a $15,000 investment represents life-changing money for most people. Volatility is the price of potential: bitcoin's path to billions involved gut-wrenching volatility that would have tested any investor's resolve. Traditional investments still work: While stocks didn't create billionaires, turning $15,000 into several million dollars over 15 years represents excellent investment performance by any reasonable standard. The Broader Investment Implications ChatGPT's comparison illustrates why investment advisors typically recommend diversified portfolios rather than betting everything on single assets, even promising ones. Let's break it down. If you had split your $15,000 five ways in 2010, putting $3,000 into each investment, you'd have: $3.531 billion from Bitcoin $200,000-1.3 million from Nvidia $720,000-840,000 from Tesla $120,000-340,000 from Broadcom $260,000-400,000 from Netflix Even with 80% of your portfolio in stocks that 'underperformed,' you'd still be a billionaire thanks to that small bitcoin allocation. It (quite literally) pays to diversify. Why Timing Really Is Everything ChatGPT's analysis used mid-2010 as the investment date, but small timing differences could have dramatically affected results. Bitcoin was virtually worthless in early 2010 but had already begun rising by year-end. Similarly, Tesla's IPO timing, Nvidia's various product cycles and Netflix's streaming transition all created windows where earlier or later investments could have yielded different results. The Bottom Line on Billionaire-Making Investments According to ChatGPT's analysis, if your goal was becoming a billionaire from a $15,000 investment in 2010, bitcoin was the only known path to that outcome. Even the decade's best-performing stocks delivered 'only' multi-million dollar returns. But the AI's analysis also reveals why chasing these extreme outcomes is probably the wrong approach for most investors. The stocks in this comparison all delivered life-changing returns while offering more stability and predictability than bitcoin's wild ride. As ChatGPT wrote, bitcoin's success required not just picking the right asset, but having the psychological fortitude to hold through multiple crashes that would have tested any investor's resolve. For today's investors, the lesson isn't to search for the next bitcoin — it's to build diversified portfolios that can capture strong returns while managing the very real risks that come with chasing billionaire-level gains. Not as fun as making millions — or billions — but a worthy goal, nonetheless. More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 10 Used Cars That Will Last Longer Than the Average New Vehicle 10 Cars That Outlast the Average Vehicle This article originally appeared on Bitcoin vs Stocks: Which $15,000 Investment Would Make You a Billionaire? Sign in to access your portfolio


TechCrunch
an hour ago
- TechCrunch
Apple might be building its own AI ‘answer engine'
In Brief Apple has formed a new team to build a ChatGPT-like app, according to according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. This team — reportedly called Answers, Knowledge, and Information — is working to build an 'answer engine' that can respond to questions using information from across the web. This could be a standalone app or provide search capabilities in Siri, Safari, and other Apple products. Gurman also notes that Apple is advertising for jobs with this team, specifically looking for applicants who have experience with search algorithms and engine development. While Apple has already integrated ChatGPT into Siri, a more personalized, AI-powered update to the voice assistant has been repeatedly delayed. Apple might also have to alter its search deal with Google as a result of the latter company's antitrust defeat.