StrangeDays said: Further, you’re waging a lost battle.
Yes, yes, we realize that those of us with good taste in UI and design have lost the battle, blah, blah, blah. Does that mean we have to stop complaining? Just give in and accept the new mediocracy?
No, the battle you've lost is believing your old stuff is boss and should never, ever change, and being afraid of it when it does. macOS has never been finer, I'd never want to go back to older versions, and I enjoy the design, UI, and UX of the new versions. If you want to go back to legacy platforms of yesteryear, go for it -- I'm sure you could even find System 9 somewhere (remember how people hated on OS X when it launched?)... But don't whine to use when nothing works on it anymore. Technology doesn't stop just because you want it to stay static on the system you learned and keep it there forever.
“Whenever Pixelmator Pro for iPad comes out, that's when this app will become a threat to Photoshop.” Whole heartedly agree! Adobe has not been putting enough thought or resources into the iPad. Their iPad apps are designed to solve limited scenarios, like painting while on the go.
Too late, Affinity Photo has been occupying this slot for most of this year. And it’s good.
StrangeDays said: [...] I enjoy the design, UI, and UX of the new versions.
I barely notice the "artistic" aspects of UI design changes. As long as it's easy to drive, that's all I care about. So, when Apple dropped colour from sidebar icons, i noticed because it made the system harder to drive. Definitely prettier, also definitely harder to use without thinking.
StrangeDays said: No, the battle you've lost is believing your old stuff is boss and should never, ever change, and being afraid of it when it does. macOS has never been finer, I'd never want to go back to older versions, and I enjoy the design, UI, and UX of the new versions. If you want to go back to legacy platforms of yesteryear, go for it -- I'm sure you could even find System 9 somewhere (remember how people hated on OS X when it launched?)... But don't whine to use when nothing works on it anymore. Technology doesn't stop just because you want it to stay static on the system you learned and keep it there forever.
You're (once again) missing the point. No one here (at least not me), is talking about going backwards in technology. Good design principals are good design principals, 50 years ago, now, and will be in another 100 years. Some things will have to change (i.e.: we didn't have touch interfaces, or even a mouse back when all interfaces were text based), but the changes should be purposeful and meaningful.
What you seem to be talking about is more style or fashion. Flat interfaces are stylish or fashionable right now. ***SOME*** of that is purposeful and meaningful, especially in web design. This has had an influence on app design, even though it doesn't really have to. I suppose there's something to be said for consistency (i.e.: I'd expect some influence), but a lot of what has happened has been rather arbitrary (UI wise, anyway).
BTW, I was a very early adopter of OS X, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there.
I don't advocate for sitting on Snow Leopard, as yes, you do have to move on. That doesn't mean all change is progress, though. And, today, it's probably even more important (if not impossible not to) keep up on OS versions and software 'updates.' But, that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing or should happen w/o complaint!
I'm also not the only one noticing this trend. Here's John Siracusa on the most recent ATP podcast talking about it (they are debating about the root cause of it): https://overcast.fm/+CdQP59ws/2:06:13
lorin schultz said: I barely notice the "artistic" aspects of UI design changes. As long as it's easy to drive, that's all I care about. So, when Apple dropped colour from sidebar icons, i noticed because it made the system harder to drive. Definitely prettier, also definitely harder to use without thinking.
Bingo! UI isn't necessarily about pretty. As tacky as the leather and felt might have been, it was often good/better UI because it was intuitive. Then, there is stuff like efficiency, such as color vs B&W icon rows. Apple (and other apps) have started to reverse-course on that and bring back color. And, then there is unintuitive stuff, like text you just have to realize is a button, or (especially on iOS) hidden stuff you just have to know is there (ex: if you go to the App Store, 'previous purchases' was moved from being a specific item, to a line of text at the top, to now hidden away behind your 'avatar' on iOS 11).
And, then there's just poor implementation and sloppy stuff, like the way Apple IDs were implemented in iOS and OS X/macOS with a bunch of separate locations and services/apps that wanted your ID/password (even with old emails baked into place, so it would ask for a non-existent account). Or, having delete your calendar/address book to fix it. Or, not being able to pull specific items back on a restore from iCloud. Or.... (if I'd tracked just the stuff from the last couple years, i could continue filling this whole web page).
StrangeDays said: No, the battle you've lost is believing your old stuff is boss and should never, ever change, and being afraid of it when it does. macOS has never been finer, I'd never want to go back to older versions, and I enjoy the design, UI, and UX of the new versions. If you want to go back to legacy platforms of yesteryear, go for it -- I'm sure you could even find System 9 somewhere (remember how people hated on OS X when it launched?)... But don't whine to use when nothing works on it anymore. Technology doesn't stop just because you want it to stay static on the system you learned and keep it there forever.
You're (once again) missing the point. No one here (at least not me), is talking about going backwards in technology. Good design principals are good design principals, 50 years ago, now, and will be in another 100 years. Some things will have to change (i.e.: we didn't have touch interfaces, or even a mouse back when all interfaces were text based), but the changes should be purposeful and meaningful.
What you seem to be talking about is more style or fashion. Flat interfaces are stylish or fashionable right now. ***SOME*** of that is purposeful and meaningful, especially in web design. This has had an influence on app design, even though it doesn't really have to. I suppose there's something to be said for consistency (i.e.: I'd expect some influence), but a lot of what has happened has been rather arbitrary (UI wise, anyway).
Abstract UIs aren't meant to be a particular style or fashion but to be separate from that. The same happened with interior design. Go back a few decades and you can see very identifiable style choices with color palettes, materials and patterns. They are stuck in that era.
If you look at modern interior design, the garish low contrast patterns are gone. There are still variations, just as there are between different modern UIs but much less personal.
Maybe some people prefer the warmer, low contrast patterns to the cold, high contrast, sterile modern design but people move houses and don't want to have someone else's garish design choices imposed on them. The modern designs are more timeless and intended not to go out of style or fashion. There's not going to be a widespread movement back to the patterns from before so modern design isn't just another style choice.
Look at Jony Ive's external designs: Christmas tree, magazine cover. People were surprised that they were essentially left as blank canvases. That's the message that he has said explicitly, which is he doesn't impose his own style preferences on his products.
"the stuff that makes me crazy is just you see some things that seem to be a vehicle for self-expression — and I’m not interested in seeing a designer wagging their tail in my face. If it’s a table it needs to work as a table. Self-expression is fine art."
"Simplicity is not the absence of clutter, that’s a consequence of simplicity. Simplicity is somehow essentially describing the purpose and place of an object and product. The absence of clutter is just a clutter-free product. That’s not simple."
"Our products are often at those times and those places that are meaningful to us, aren’t they? They are there when we communicate. They’re there when we take photos. They’re there when we look at the photos. They’re there when we listen to music. These are sort of seminal points in our lives, aren’t they? I think we try to create objects and products that enable those and enhance those connections. But you can’t do that in a way where the object is wagging its tail in our face."
The modern UI is here to stay, it's minimalistic and refined on purpose to work across an audience of more than 1 billion people and to never go out of fashion.
Even if people don't like aspects of it (I preferred the thinner fonts), not updating the software because of this isn't practical. An upgrade will be inevitable at some point so people may as well do it now and get the use out of good software. People will get used to it very quickly.
On the subject of Pixelmator vs Affinity vs Adobe, it's good to keep in mind the teams behind them. Pixelmator is built by about 20 people in Lithuania:
Serif Europe who makes Affinity products is a team of roughly 80 in the UK making around ~$5-10m revenue, likely similar revenue for Pixelmator. Adobe is a team of 17,000 with $7b+ revenue per year. It's great to have powerful, inexpensive options for the Mac now and they are all affordable. For a creative business, Adobe is the most reliable, most agile and compatible and most likely to survive decades. When people stop paying for pay-once software, the same thing happens like what happened with Aperture. It becomes a loss-making product when the development and support costs exceed the revenue and it stops being developed.
Consider the scale of a creative product, say a few million lines of code, a small team can have less bureaucracy but much fewer man-hours. Photoshop has around 10 million lines of code. A productive developer would manage about 2000 lines of code a month. If there's 20 staff working at peak efficiency all the time, it would take 20 years to build Photoshop from scratch. If the aim is a smaller product, possibly with more developers e.g 2 million lines with 80 staff then that can be built in a year at peak efficiency.
Serif seems like they have a better chance at being competitive with Adobe products but even then just one or two of the main apps. Rivalling the entire suite would need a development team about 5-10x the size (or another decade of time) and the bigger the team the harder it will be to sustain long-term without recurring revenue. In the end it comes down to whatever gets the job done for the buyer. For the vast majority of users doing simple photo edits like cropping, color correction, exports, they are all suitable options.
There's not going to be a widespread movement back to the patterns from before so modern design isn't just another style choice.
... "the stuff that makes me crazy is just you see some things that seem to be a vehicle for self-expression — and I’m not interested in seeing a designer wagging their tail in my face. If it’s a table it needs to work as a table. Self-expression is fine art." ... "Simplicity is not the absence of clutter, that’s a consequence of simplicity. Simplicity is somehow essentially describing the purpose and place of an object and product. The absence of clutter is just a clutter-free product. That’s not simple." ... The modern UI is here to stay, it's minimalistic and refined on purpose to work across an audience of more than 1 billion people and to never go out of fashion.
...
On the subject of Pixelmator vs Affinity vs Adobe, ... Serif seems like they have a better chance at being competitive with Adobe products but even then just one or two of the main apps. Rivalling the entire suite would need a development team about 5-10x the size (or another decade of time) and the bigger the team the harder it will be to sustain long-term without recurring revenue. In the end it comes down to whatever gets the job done for the buyer. ...
I'm not sure I would agree that other fashions/styles won't come back to replace 'modern' design.... while while seemingly more neutral in certain disciplines, has it's own strengths/weaknesses. (As I noted earlier, it has strengths in web design, but that comes with UI costs when we're talking devices... or websites for that matter, but the tradeoff for speed/bandwidth is considered worth it.)
I'd have to agree with those statements by Ive, but I guess my impression is that this is more design philosophy marketing-speak than what Apple is actually doing, at least in terms of software.
For example, I think the App Store is horrific design on my iPhone. Half the app tiles are cutoff, for example so I can't tell the difference between apps of similar name without going into each one. Or, as with the earlier link I provided, the discussion over the new Photos app. Those aren't 'modern design' or 'minimalism' they are just bad UI design, no matter how pretty they look on some particular device loaded with the right content.
re: Pixelmator, etc.
Thanks for the feedback on that. Though, I'm not sure Serif, for example, has to compete with Adobe across the suite. If they can take on either PhotoShop or Illustrator, leave Premiere to Final Cut, or Audition to Logic, etc. I guess I'm debating (most with myself) - aside from compatibility and industry-knowledge (which are big things!) - if picking individual apps that use more cutting-edge software development, or maybe take advantage of core OS features better, might end up giving an edge. That kind of choice has served me well in the past (i.e.: my CAD and 3D choices). But, it's also a detriment if you're looking for a job and they all list AutoCAD experience, etc.
cgWerks said: [...] then there is unintuitive stuff, like text you just have to realize is a button, or (especially on iOS) hidden stuff you just have to know is there (ex: if you go to the App Store, 'previous purchases' was moved from being a specific item, to a line of text at the top, to now hidden away behind your 'avatar' on iOS 11).
I absolutely DESPISE the trend to "hiding" controls. For the longest time I couldn't figure out how the hell to go "back" in the AI forums on my iPhone. I discovered by accident that pressing on an EMPTY area at the top the screen reveals the back button! Who thought THAT was a good idea?
Like you say, there are myriad examples of how minimizing clutter has actually impeded intuitive use of Apple's devices. That doesn't mean Apple is "doomed" or I want to change platforms, but I do wish for this design style to end. I have hope that it will turn around. Pendulums swing for a while, but eventually settle somewhere in the middle.
Thanks for the feedback on that. Though, I'm not sure Serif, for example, has to compete with Adobe across the suite. If they can take on either PhotoShop or Illustrator, leave Premiere to Final Cut, or Audition to Logic, etc. I guess I'm debating (most with myself) - aside from compatibility and industry-knowledge (which are big things!) - if picking individual apps that use more cutting-edge software development, or maybe take advantage of core OS features better, might end up giving an edge. That kind of choice has served me well in the past (i.e.: my CAD and 3D choices). But, it's also a detriment if you're looking for a job and they all list AutoCAD experience, etc.
I struggle with that too, though lately I've become better at saying "screw it."
When I got tired of paying Adobe for a full suite when I only use two apps regularly and a third occasionally, I discovered Affinity Designer. I now can't just send a .ai file to a service bureau like I could with Illustrator, but I can export a pdf or eps. Not only has it freed me from the subscription leech, but it turns out I actually like it BETTER than Illustrator!
I still use Photoshop because I'm too lazy to learn a new interface and the subscription rate for that is reasonable, but I'm no longer concerned that I'll be screwed if I switch to something else.
Speaking of that, when Apple announced that my old version of Final Cut Studio will not work with the current and future operating systems I started looking into replacements. Even though I only edit video for personal stuff, not work, I figured since my workplace was an Avid shop I'd learn Media Composer. I didn't like it. Then I tried Blackmagic Resolve. It was good, but it didn't feel "natural." Just for giggles I tried Final Cut X, thinking I would HATE it, and was pleasantly surprised to discover I really like it. I've since be "downsized" (replaced by automation) so it doesn't matter anyway, but I had already decided that working with tools I like mattered more than making sure I'm always using the "industry standard." Clients don't seem to care, as long as my choice doesn't affect the creation or delivery of their product. All that matters is the results.
lorin schultz said: I absolutely DESPISE the trend to "hiding" controls. For the longest time I couldn't figure out how the hell to go "back" in the AI forums on my iPhone. I discovered by accident that pressing on an EMPTY area at the top the screen reveals the back button! Who thought THAT was a good idea?
Like you say, there are myriad examples of how minimizing clutter has actually impeded intuitive use of Apple's devices. That doesn't mean Apple is "doomed" or I want to change platforms, but I do wish for this design style to end. I have hope that it will turn around. Pendulums swing for a while, but eventually settle somewhere in the middle.
To be fair, they have to hide some stuff on mobile, as they don't really have the space or tool-tips, etc. like they do on the desktop. I'm sure it's challenging especially on a phone. But, developers have brought some of this stuff over to macOS as well. In fact, it's probably going to get worse if they start moving the Mac more towards a parallel, then merged path with iOS development. A lot of 'new' people to the Apple platform don't even get what the big deal is, as they have no context for what a good UI used to be.
re: doomed - The problem is that if Apple's UX becomes too diluted, then much of what makes Apple special disappears. Maybe the hardware is still better, etc. but it's the overall UX that really matters. It will be much easier for a competitor, or less painful to leave.
lorin schultz said: I struggle with that too, though lately I've become better at saying "screw it."
... I still use Photoshop because I'm too lazy to learn a new interface and the subscription rate for that is reasonable, but I'm no longer concerned that I'll be screwed if I switch to something else.
... but I had already decided that working with tools I like mattered more than making sure I'm always using the "industry standard." Clients don't seem to care, as long as my choice doesn't affect the creation or delivery of their product. All that matters is the results.
Yea, back when I used to use PhotoShop, the UI didn't seem so bad (Mac OS days). Now, when I look at it, it's hard to believe it's a modern app. It brings back memories of Gimp or those Office clones in X11. Feature parity or not, Pixelmator seems like a modern app.
But, yes, there is a big investment in switching between apps of huge complexity... so that's a compelling reason to stay unless the grass is considerably greener.
Yes, for freelance work, it really doesn't matter much. But, for example, it would be really hard for me to get any CAD oriented job w/o strong AutoCAD knowledge, even though I can run circles around most of them with the 3D solids tools I know fairly well (while I had a bit of AutoCAD experience, in the 90s I switched to Ashlar's Vellum 3D, which became Cobalt, which split and I stayed with the developer and CSi's Concepts 3D package, which is now the guts of the SharkCAD/ViaCAD line).
I'm also a bit of a rebel in sticking with ElectricImage for 3D, though that was once ***THE*** package to use back in the early to maturing days of 3D animation. Everyone like John Knoll, ILM, Alex Lindsay, etc. used it, and most of the early 3D work you saw in movies was done with it.
Comments
What you seem to be talking about is more style or fashion. Flat interfaces are stylish or fashionable right now. ***SOME*** of that is purposeful and meaningful, especially in web design. This has had an influence on app design, even though it doesn't really have to. I suppose there's something to be said for consistency (i.e.: I'd expect some influence), but a lot of what has happened has been rather arbitrary (UI wise, anyway).
BTW, I was a very early adopter of OS X, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there.
I don't advocate for sitting on Snow Leopard, as yes, you do have to move on. That doesn't mean all change is progress, though. And, today, it's probably even more important (if not impossible not to) keep up on OS versions and software 'updates.' But, that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing or should happen w/o complaint!
I'm also not the only one noticing this trend. Here's John Siracusa on the most recent ATP podcast talking about it (they are debating about the root cause of it):
https://overcast.fm/+CdQP59ws/2:06:13
Bingo! UI isn't necessarily about pretty. As tacky as the leather and felt might have been, it was often good/better UI because it was intuitive.
Then, there is stuff like efficiency, such as color vs B&W icon rows. Apple (and other apps) have started to reverse-course on that and bring back color.
And, then there is unintuitive stuff, like text you just have to realize is a button, or (especially on iOS) hidden stuff you just have to know is there (ex: if you go to the App Store, 'previous purchases' was moved from being a specific item, to a line of text at the top, to now hidden away behind your 'avatar' on iOS 11).
And, then there's just poor implementation and sloppy stuff, like the way Apple IDs were implemented in iOS and OS X/macOS with a bunch of separate locations and services/apps that wanted your ID/password (even with old emails baked into place, so it would ask for a non-existent account). Or, having delete your calendar/address book to fix it. Or, not being able to pull specific items back on a restore from iCloud. Or.... (if I'd tracked just the stuff from the last couple years, i could continue filling this whole web page).
If you look at modern interior design, the garish low contrast patterns are gone. There are still variations, just as there are between different modern UIs but much less personal.
Maybe some people prefer the warmer, low contrast patterns to the cold, high contrast, sterile modern design but people move houses and don't want to have someone else's garish design choices imposed on them. The modern designs are more timeless and intended not to go out of style or fashion. There's not going to be a widespread movement back to the patterns from before so modern design isn't just another style choice.
Look at Jony Ive's external designs: Christmas tree, magazine cover. People were surprised that they were essentially left as blank canvases. That's the message that he has said explicitly, which is he doesn't impose his own style preferences on his products.
"the stuff that makes me crazy is just you see some things that seem to be a vehicle for self-expression — and I’m not interested in seeing a designer wagging their tail in my face. If it’s a table it needs to work as a table. Self-expression is fine art."
https://www.inquisitr.com/583446/jony-ive-wants-ios-software-to-be-flatter/
"Simplicity is not the absence of clutter, that’s a consequence of simplicity. Simplicity is somehow essentially describing the purpose and place of an object and product. The absence of clutter is just a clutter-free product. That’s not simple."
"Our products are often at those times and those places that are meaningful to us, aren’t they? They are there when we communicate. They’re there when we take photos. They’re there when we look at the photos. They’re there when we listen to music. These are sort of seminal points in our lives, aren’t they? I think we try to create objects and products that enable those and enhance those connections. But you can’t do that in a way where the object is wagging its tail in our face."
The modern UI is here to stay, it's minimalistic and refined on purpose to work across an audience of more than 1 billion people and to never go out of fashion.
Even if people don't like aspects of it (I preferred the thinner fonts), not updating the software because of this isn't practical. An upgrade will be inevitable at some point so people may as well do it now and get the use out of good software. People will get used to it very quickly.
On the subject of Pixelmator vs Affinity vs Adobe, it's good to keep in mind the teams behind them. Pixelmator is built by about 20 people in Lithuania:
http://www.pixelmator.com/team/
Serif Europe who makes Affinity products is a team of roughly 80 in the UK making around ~$5-10m revenue, likely similar revenue for Pixelmator. Adobe is a team of 17,000 with $7b+ revenue per year. It's great to have powerful, inexpensive options for the Mac now and they are all affordable. For a creative business, Adobe is the most reliable, most agile and compatible and most likely to survive decades. When people stop paying for pay-once software, the same thing happens like what happened with Aperture. It becomes a loss-making product when the development and support costs exceed the revenue and it stops being developed.
Consider the scale of a creative product, say a few million lines of code, a small team can have less bureaucracy but much fewer man-hours. Photoshop has around 10 million lines of code. A productive developer would manage about 2000 lines of code a month. If there's 20 staff working at peak efficiency all the time, it would take 20 years to build Photoshop from scratch. If the aim is a smaller product, possibly with more developers e.g 2 million lines with 80 staff then that can be built in a year at peak efficiency.
Serif seems like they have a better chance at being competitive with Adobe products but even then just one or two of the main apps. Rivalling the entire suite would need a development team about 5-10x the size (or another decade of time) and the bigger the team the harder it will be to sustain long-term without recurring revenue. In the end it comes down to whatever gets the job done for the buyer. For the vast majority of users doing simple photo edits like cropping, color correction, exports, they are all suitable options.
I'm not sure I would agree that other fashions/styles won't come back to replace 'modern' design.... while while seemingly more neutral in certain disciplines, has it's own strengths/weaknesses. (As I noted earlier, it has strengths in web design, but that comes with UI costs when we're talking devices... or websites for that matter, but the tradeoff for speed/bandwidth is considered worth it.)
I'd have to agree with those statements by Ive, but I guess my impression is that this is more design philosophy marketing-speak than what Apple is actually doing, at least in terms of software.
For example, I think the App Store is horrific design on my iPhone. Half the app tiles are cutoff, for example so I can't tell the difference between apps of similar name without going into each one. Or, as with the earlier link I provided, the discussion over the new Photos app. Those aren't 'modern design' or 'minimalism' they are just bad UI design, no matter how pretty they look on some particular device loaded with the right content.
re: Pixelmator, etc.
Thanks for the feedback on that. Though, I'm not sure Serif, for example, has to compete with Adobe across the suite. If they can take on either PhotoShop or Illustrator, leave Premiere to Final Cut, or Audition to Logic, etc. I guess I'm debating (most with myself) - aside from compatibility and industry-knowledge (which are big things!) - if picking individual apps that use more cutting-edge software development, or maybe take advantage of core OS features better, might end up giving an edge. That kind of choice has served me well in the past (i.e.: my CAD and 3D choices). But, it's also a detriment if you're looking for a job and they all list AutoCAD experience, etc.
Like you say, there are myriad examples of how minimizing clutter has actually impeded intuitive use of Apple's devices. That doesn't mean Apple is "doomed" or I want to change platforms, but I do wish for this design style to end. I have hope that it will turn around. Pendulums swing for a while, but eventually settle somewhere in the middle.
I struggle with that too, though lately I've become better at saying "screw it."
When I got tired of paying Adobe for a full suite when I only use two apps regularly and a third occasionally, I discovered Affinity Designer. I now can't just send a .ai file to a service bureau like I could with Illustrator, but I can export a pdf or eps. Not only has it freed me from the subscription leech, but it turns out I actually like it BETTER than Illustrator!
I still use Photoshop because I'm too lazy to learn a new interface and the subscription rate for that is reasonable, but I'm no longer concerned that I'll be screwed if I switch to something else.
Speaking of that, when Apple announced that my old version of Final Cut Studio will not work with the current and future operating systems I started looking into replacements. Even though I only edit video for personal stuff, not work, I figured since my workplace was an Avid shop I'd learn Media Composer. I didn't like it. Then I tried Blackmagic Resolve. It was good, but it didn't feel "natural." Just for giggles I tried Final Cut X, thinking I would HATE it, and was pleasantly surprised to discover I really like it. I've since be "downsized" (replaced by automation) so it doesn't matter anyway, but I had already decided that working with tools I like mattered more than making sure I'm always using the "industry standard." Clients don't seem to care, as long as my choice doesn't affect the creation or delivery of their product. All that matters is the results.
re: doomed - The problem is that if Apple's UX becomes too diluted, then much of what makes Apple special disappears. Maybe the hardware is still better, etc. but it's the overall UX that really matters. It will be much easier for a competitor, or less painful to leave.
Yea, back when I used to use PhotoShop, the UI didn't seem so bad (Mac OS days). Now, when I look at it, it's hard to believe it's a modern app. It brings back memories of Gimp or those Office clones in X11. Feature parity or not, Pixelmator seems like a modern app.
But, yes, there is a big investment in switching between apps of huge complexity... so that's a compelling reason to stay unless the grass is considerably greener.
Yes, for freelance work, it really doesn't matter much. But, for example, it would be really hard for me to get any CAD oriented job w/o strong AutoCAD knowledge, even though I can run circles around most of them with the 3D solids tools I know fairly well (while I had a bit of AutoCAD experience, in the 90s I switched to Ashlar's Vellum 3D, which became Cobalt, which split and I stayed with the developer and CSi's Concepts 3D package, which is now the guts of the SharkCAD/ViaCAD line).
I'm also a bit of a rebel in sticking with ElectricImage for 3D, though that was once ***THE*** package to use back in the early to maturing days of 3D animation. Everyone like John Knoll, ILM, Alex Lindsay, etc. used it, and most of the early 3D work you saw in movies was done with it.