Except that obsessing over aesthetics is a key part of the iPhone's history (and Apple's history overall). The iPhone's history is one filled with "function fol

Except that obsessing over aesthetics is a key part of the iPhone's history (and Apple's history overall). The iPhone's history is one filled with "function follows form" (or, sometimes, does not follow at all), so an article that points out some of the more glaring aesthetic flaws of the newer iPhones is more than appropriate for this specific device. I agree with the author that the iPhone is "ugly." Rather, I think that the iPhone's aesthetic solutions for its technical challenges are inelegant. In particular, the notch is so big it may as well function as a thick bezel and the square camera arrangement and placement seems like it was dictated by a specific technical solution without any influence from the design team. In the past, I feel like Apple would have argued that their elegant solutions were "better" and thus commanded a premium for it. Now they are happy to compromise their aesthetics for technical capabilities. I cannot think of a product released during the second coming of Jobs that made that compromise so obviously. Still, Apple commands the same premium, so that leads people to obsess over the aesthetics.