Apple may have gone too far with skeuomorphism but what's with designers and being extreme? Why is the focus on the effect rather than the problem?

Every project has different problems and audiences so in some instances skeuomorphism might just be the better solution whereas in others it may not.

The reason jOBS loved it is because of the emotional connect it created. This, back then, was important because technology was cold, unfriendly and uninviting. Skeuomorphism solved that and possibly played a huge role for Apple's success.

Perhaps the better question we should be asking is if technology is at the point where it's no longer cold and uninviting? If it is, then maybe the age of skeuomorphism can disappear completely. Maybe!

I agree. Let's not forget the concept of affordance, that's key here: sometimes to promote affordance you can use skeuomorphism.

Then, there's the point you're making: emotional response. I sincerely don't understand why the animation in the podcast app is a problem. There are lots of apps that do nice animations when music plays, why is a more realistic one a problem?

Plus: even with all you can say against it, Apple solutions are indeed unique: nobody else is doing the same.

I don't think skeuomorphism should disappear completely: maybe Apple was a bit too extreme in pushing that (there's nothing physical about Find My Friends... what's the object it refers to?), I agree, but sometimes it makes sense.

Let's just not be extremists. ;)

Yes, they may have gone too far but that's how we see it, we know about it. Most of people using their iPad's and iPhones see it as "something cool". It's appealing to them, they don't have a second thought and think: "Hey, this is leather but there's space image in the background?" or "This thermometer is out of wood and should be glass!". I read this article from Sascha few days ago sachagreif.com and I completely agree with him. There should be skeumorphism but there shouldn't be mixing metaphors. It ain't tearing the industry apart because you cannot control what others will do. It was like HTML5 arrived and new semantics. The idea was great but who could tell that someone might misuse it? People did use it wrong... well not me :)

I came across yet another article claiming Ives will do away with skeuomorphism.

If we all agree in the use of it for emotional connect then let's not forget Ives is the guy who put a handle on the early Macintosh JUST because he wanted it to be friendly, inviting and connect with users emotionally. There was zero functionality behind the choice aside from that emotional connect.

I doubt he'll kill off skeuomorphism completely, not unless finding another way to connect with users emotionally is gradually established in Apple's design philosophy.

I think the discussion of affordance rings true. If the metaphors for interaction are based off familiar and real world applications ie paper / books it associates it self for the user on how to interact. How ever those interaction from real world application seem to force the hand of design aesthetic which creates a strange cognitive dissonance among designers and technologist. Is it necessary to have fake leather? Probably not. But we "the design community" end up asking the Skeumorph (If the word wasn't so fun to say I don't think it would get thrown around so liberally) question? Apple is catching the brunt of it because their technologies are looked as a replacement for older media
A blog post I wrote relating
chrisrbecker.com

John Gruber has a great discussion with MG Siegler about skeuomorphism in this week's episode of The Talk Show. I agree with their thoughts:
1. Nothing radical will change in iOS 7.
2. Skeuomorphism itself isn't a bad thing. It's just another design style. If it enhances the usability of an interface, then it works. However, Apple has gone overboard in a few apps like Contacts and Calendar in Mountain Lion. There are elements in the interface that just don't make sense.

Listen here starting at around 1 hour, 23 minutes:
muleradio.net