That’s a feature added in Android 12 that changes the apps themes based on the wallpaper. While other OS’es like Windows 10 and 11 have a similar feature, on Android it’s more complete and app backgrounds etc. are also tinted based on the wallpaper’s colors as well. Why they haven’t implemented a similar feature in their OS?
Linux more or less has theming controls broken out that make this normal, plus everything in Linux can be changed. My vanilla GNOME makes all of my theming the same. I tweak a few aspects, but I prefer extremely clean setups with no clutter whatsoever.
In Android, the user interface is like a single Linux application running on top of an immutable kernel. That gives a lot more control over how applications appear.
M$ is a scheme to enable monopolies. The OS is more like a set of API standards for companies to write software that is compatible. W_ is mostly static and outdated with old dependencies maintained so that proprietary software can run long term without the company hiring developers to continuously maintain the code and maximizing profit. This model has proven to be garbage and so the same proprietary companies have attempted to shift the burden of paying devs/innovation/viable existence of a business onto the end user by stealing ownership with subscription software. Every product these companies offer is available as free software now. They only continue to exist because of market share familiarity and extortion based business models. Expecting these companies to follow a unified theming further diminishes their reason for existence. The primary way most proprietary software stays around is because of how they do not follow standards and conventions for layout, nomenclature, and interfaces; trying to prevent users from migrating to free software that follows published standards. If you migrate to free and open source software, aspects like UI/UX are much more user centric.
Except this is nonsense. Full on dumpster fire UX is the biggest liability most OSS has. It is not user friendly, and assumes way more user knowledge to do the basics.
If FOSS actually was competitive on UX, let alone better, it would be far more popular.
I feel like this is claiming that Windows has better UI/UX which I always find hilarious.
Which 20 versions of UI are you talking about? Is it Ribbon, Metro, 9x, XP, or half of the non-native JS apps that Microsoft pushes on its own platform (especially funny to me considering they ditch their own UI API)?
Linux can be a very crummy UX too, but using Windows as some sort of standard for comparison is a joke.
Windows UX sucks. But that has nothing to do with what he’s talking about, which is the programs running on Windows.
100% of the reason Photoshop dominates GIMP for market share is because GIMP is the worst designed pile of shit anyone has ever made. It doesn’t matter that it’s theoretically as capable, because the UX is a crime against humanity and makes the barrier to entry insurmountable. Blender is extremely powerful, and finally with 4.0 made a dent in how bad the UX is. But it’s still far, far worse than the competition.
I want FOSS to be an actual choice people actually use, but it cannot possibly happen if the UX isn’t actually designed for normal people to be able to figure it out. That’s why proprietary software wins. They lower the mental barrier to entry to use their software, and FOSS doesn’t even try to. I can’t tell people “just use GIMP”, or libreoffice, or whatever, because they’ll open it up, realize that there hasn’t even been 5 minutes of UX design cumulatively in its entire lifespan, and tell me to fuck myself for suggesting trash to them.
If FOSS doesn’t actually pay attention to UX, there’s no possible path to mass adoption. People want shit to make sense.