> I think Apple went overboard with minimalism.

I’ll agree with you there. They went to every possible length to completely remove anything skeuomorphic, which made it much more difficult to determine the function of UI elements. There were very few relatable curs from the real world and everyday experience to help.

I believe that Google’s Material Design is the best at balancing “digital authenticity” with physical cues. And the chief insight is that lighting and surfaces are really important in everyday human experience for determining what things are and what they do. (And we determine what is a surface primarily based on lighting. It’s really all about lighting.) Material buttons, for example, look pressable, because they are raised, which you can infer based on the shadow they cast. But! They don’t look like a picture of a button from reality. That’s the difference. It’s not trying to perfectly emulate a button - it’s just trying to draw on subtle cues that humans use to identify buttons.

> But “fun”? No thank you.

That’s subjective. But in some cases I think you’re confusing fun with extreme skeuomorphism. The lined paper, for example, is so skeuomorphic, that it relies on making the entire application looking almost like a picture of a real pad of paper on your desk instead of using subtle cues to indicate the purpose of the application. The photorealistic objects in the new app icons, however, are not necessary for indicating the purpose of the app. They’re there because they’re rich, complex, and easy on the eyes - AKA “fun” - in the way that a painting is fun. You could easily draw stick figures to show what you mean, but a painting is rich with detail, color, and emotion. If you don’t want a sense of artistry in your desktop environment, you could use Linux with a lightweight desktop. Many of them are perfectly dry, sterile, and utilitarian. Most people, however, do have an aesthetic sense, and enjoy some kind of artistic touch. That’s why car sales are predominantly based on design aesthetic.

> Apple finally dropped their misguided cuteness in hardware design and ditched all the rounded corners and pastel colors. Are they going to undo that too?

I doubt it. There’s a difference between “fun” and “toyish” - what you call “cuteness.” I would argue that the physical aspects of Apple products are fun today without looking like toys. They used to look like toys. The bubbly appearance with pastel colors gave them a childish quality. New Apple hardware is a pleasure to behold, but not childish. I think that same intention is clear with the high-fidelity pen rendering in the new icon shown in the article. It’s not a crayon or a calligraphy pen. It looks like a Bauhaus design. It’s a utilitarian pen that an adult would use. It enriches and beautifies the icon without being toyish. The messages icon, on the other hand, was less expertly executed, I think. How do you add a sense of beauty and richness to a chat bubble? I would argue that you don’t. It’s too simple of a shape/object to try to do that with. It ends up looking like a balloon. They should rethink it. And the battery icon that everyone hates is obviously a mess. That needs to be rethought for sure.

Everyone is too concerned with the pendulum swing. When a pendulum swings, it never moves all the way back to its starting point. In this case, Apple started with full-on skeuomorphism and swung completely in the opposite direction - completely devoid of any kind of physicality to their design. And now the pendulum is swinging back, but will not go back to total skeuomorphism. What we’re seeing now is a refinement. A better balance between the two philosophies. An understanding that physical cues are helpful without needing to make the whole UI look photorealistic. And and acknowledgment that playing with light and photorealism with restraint can be pleasing.

I like this direction, even if there are a handful of missteps.