The uptake of iOS 26 has lagged compared to previous versions, raising concerns about user dissatisfaction with its new Liquid Glass interface. Statcounter's data suggests lower adoption rates than actually observed.
iOS 26 adoption at 16.6%
iOS 18 with 70% adoption
iOS 26 lacks support for older iPhones
User backlash linked to Liquid Glass design
Traffic data shows less severe drop
Comparisons with past adoption rates
This news details the mixed reception of Apple’s new iOS 26, particularly related to its controversial Liquid Glass interface. While reports claim fewer people are upgrading, the reality might be a bit more nuanced.
Adoption Rates Comparisons
Initial reports highlighted a troubling trend: only 16.6% of devices were using iOS 26, a stark contrast to the 70% usage of iOS 18. However, this data might not tell the whole story.
In fact, while Statcounter hints at a significant decline, deeper analysis from Condé Nast’s website traffic shows a less alarming picture: iOS 26 accounted for about 45% of iPhone pageviews by December 2025, down from 76% for iOS 18 in December 2024. That’s not as drastic as it first appeared.
User Interface Concerns and Technical Changes
Many users seem reluctant to upgrade due to the new Liquid Glass design. Some early impressions suggest it hasn’t resonated well with iPhone fans.
Moreover, iOS 26 dropped support for older devices like the iPhone XS and XR. This change likely contributed to lowering the overall adoption rate. By limiting device compatibility, Apple may have lost potential users.
Traffic from iOS 26 users at 45%
iOS 18 still widely used
Older devices excluded from update
Interpreting User Data and Numbers
This entire situation raises questions about how we interpret device adoption rates. While some reports suggest a massive user base rejecting iOS 26, the real numbers indicate a slower rollout due to a mix of design choices and device limitations.
Understanding these dynamics helps clarify user behavior, moving beyond first impressions to see what might actually be happening behind the numbers.
Luca Fischer is a senior technology journalist with more than twelve years of professional experience specializing in artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and consumer electronics. L. Fischer earned his M.S. in Computer Science from Columbia University in 2011, where he developed a strong foundation in data science and network security before transitioning into tech media.
Throughout his career, Luca has been recognized for his clear, analytical approach to explaining complex technologies. His in-depth articles explore how AI innovations, privacy frameworks, and next-generation devices impact both industry and society.
Luca’s work has appeared across leading digital publications, where he delivers detailed reviews, investigative reports, and feature analyses on major players such as Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, AMD, Intel, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Perplexity AI.
Beyond writing, he mentors young journalists entering the AI-tech field and advocates for transparent, ethical technology communication. His goal is to make the future of technology understandable and responsible for everyone.
Ars Technica was launched in 1998 by Ken Fisher and Jon Stokes as a space where engineers, coders, and hard-core enthusiasts could find news that respected their intelligence.
From the start it rejected shallow churn, instead publishing 5 000-word CPU micro-architecture briefs, line-by-line Linux kernel diffs, and forensic GPU teardowns that treat readers like fellow engineers rather than casual shoppers.
Condé Nast acquired the site in 2008, yet the newsroom retained its autonomy, keeping the beige-and-black design ethos and the Latin tagline “Art of Technology.”
Today its staff physicists, former network architects, and defunct-astronaut hopefuls explain quantum supremacy papers, dissect U.S. spectrum auctions, benchmark every new console, and still find time to live-blog Supreme Court tech policy arguments.
The result is a community whose comment threads read like peer-review sessions: voltage curves are debated, errata are crowdsourced overnight, and authors routinely append “Update” paragraphs that credit readers for spotting a mis-stated opcode.
