miguel-muniz

For work I have a Windows laptop with a touch screen and these were the only times I have wanted to use it:

1. The trackpad on it is so god awful that using any sort of multi finger gesture is a non-starter. In this case the touch screen works significantly better.

2. I wanted to draw in a whiteboarding tool. Drawing with my finger is not ideal so I tried a passive stylus. Drawing with a passive rubber-tipped stylus leaves a lot to be desired. I would much rather use an active stylus or a pen display for artists if I could.

Apple is known for the best trackpads. They have set the bar high and they have consistently met that bar for over a decade. I don't need a touch screen for gestures when their trackpad feels just as good. To my next point, there is no pen support on this screen.

Given this, I feel the touch screen is going to be seen just like the touch bar, a pretty feature that receives some good niche support, but ultimately does not align with how the majority of users use a laptop. I just hope there's an option to turn off the touch screen when they inevitably start shifting this display down to the base model.

Unfortunately pretty much any surface to contact you will be abused to try to sell you something. It started with phone calls and text messages, but quickly in recent years it's been happening to smart phone notifications.

For example, for DoorDash, I should just receive order status notifications but they ping me every few days to try out a local restaurant. They want to remind me that their app exists on my phone and I can spend money with them.

Ideally I should be able to turn off these kind of marketing notifications separate from functional notifications, but not all apps are this kind.

It makes me realize that email is a much better system for this. You have an entire archive of every email you receive, with the ability to search, filter, forward, and even set up custom rules to delete items containing certain text, for example.

Yes it's a hassle to manage an email inbox, but this kind of flexibility gives users a lot of power that phone, sms, or native notifications lack.

> Apple knew this was bad 20 years ago. They just don't bother to read their own documentation

This isn't really a case of someone overlooking previous guidance, but a symptom of an org where platform consistency is being prioritized over tradition. This means changes now cater to the lowest common denominator (iOS). Lots of recent updates this, like the new app icons, the macOS 26 implementation of liquid glass, etc. The priority is making macOS easier to adopt for people who's first devices were iPads.

It's unfortunate. Although what I find strange are some of the very obtuse patterns they refuse to change. It took them forever to add window snapping to macOS and Finder still doesn't have a cut command.

Sometimes I use the wayback machine to visit marketing pages before the advent of AI, so I can get a better understanding of what they actually do instead of just a bunch of AI jargon.

Figma exists as an abstraction of code, which has always made it kind of difficult for them to implement code. For example, they have css snippets in dev mode when you have a frame selected, but those aren't really that useful since it doesn't know anything about your existing code base or frameworks.

Code connect was supposed to bridge this gap, allowing users to define how Figma components should generate relevant code snippets, but it only worked with React and they had some janky string based templating language for everything else. And of course, it meant someone would have to go through the effort of creating mappings for every component in your system. It's like writing a component twice, the same pitfall we were trying to avoid in the first place.

Now people will just ask their AI to pull the frames from Figma through the remote MCP and have the AI implement it that way. But to that end, why not just have designers make a branch in the codebase and have them implement the UI? This is the question many of us have been asking ourselves lately.

They continue to iterate though. They've introduced Code Layers so real codebases can render on the canvas, but in infamous Figma fashion it only works with a limited set of React codebases. Figma Make (their Lovable, Bolt.new, Claude Design like product) can also pull in existing codebases, but again it is very limited in the types of code bases it can work on.

These limitations are all so exhuasting. It's just so much easier to use Claude Code or Codex to do what I need. At this point Figma is more of a secondary tool for when I need to document a prototype or want a canvas for exploration purposes.

Figma does allow any agent to connect to their desktop MCP though, they just limit the desktop MCP to read only access. Not sure how that fits into his argument.

I imagine every CEO breaks out in night sweats thinking of the Chegg stock chart. I don't envy them, these are hard waters to navigate and many of us are still blind as to where we are going. Seems like the new moat is just the data each company holds, I guess they're holding onto it for dear life

I struggled with this myself, the reality is that AI can automate the work of everyone in the traditional product team trio (pm, design, dev).

The way I have made peace with it in my mind is at the end of the day, I am the expert in UI/UX. There are many product teams I've joined that have operated without a designer and you can tell (bless their souls). Component libraries, templates, articles, video courses, and etc. have all existed throughout this time so it's not like they've been operating completely blind to design and UX. I don't think AI would be different. Sure it may raise the floor a little, but in the end someone needs to evaluate the output and hold responsibility for the UI/UX.

It was an uncomfortable idea to come to terms with though, I like many other designers spent a decade getting good at Figma. Figma and design almost felt intertwined for a moment, but designers have a long history of having their craft disrupted by new technology. Decades ago designers were cutting and pasting paper, then moved to digital publishing; and in product design we've gone through software such as Photoshop, Fireworks, Sketch, and Figma, just to name a few. Design has survived all this and will continue to survive in the future.

I think the same applies to the other disciplines. Sure I could have AI spin up a backend, but I don't really have the expertise to understand whether what it is doing is good or full of security vulnerabilities.

I don't know in the future if we will create a new path for product builders, individuals who are knowledgeable in all aspects of product management, software engineering, and product design. I also don't know if teams will have as much need for individuals with the efficiency gains from AI.

They have their own agent built into Figma, which of course uses credits which you must pay Figma for.

Dev seats always felt like a ripoff IMO. They are just nickel and diming enterprise orgs for features that should just be free. Especially now when AI makes Figma's own code generation useless.

I couldn't believe it when file annotations are only visible to users with design and dev seats. Like my PMs will never be able to read the annotations. I stopped using that feature entirely after that, and just stuck to pasting in FigJam sticky notes instead.

To speak more broadly, Figma is in a really tough spot right now. I see more and more designers in my circle saying they are skipping design tools entirely to prototype in code or ship directly in their product's code base. Honestly I find myself doing the same.

Figma's main value used to be in providing designers a canvas to iterate and explore ideas since the majority of designers did not code, but AI has completely changed that.

I fear Figma's reluctance to integrate with all the popular AI tools might actually accelerate their decline. AI provides so much value, that I would rather base my software purchasing decisions around what is compatible with my AI of choice rather than pick an AI that is compatible with Figma.