Very interesting food for thought here. Plus I’d never think of comparing Google’s homepage with the 911 through this lens, so thanks for the fresh perspective! As both a web developer and a classic car enthusiast, I can understand both POVs quite well :)

I still feel like something has to be said about two things, the first of which is simplicity. Arguably, a very simple design (in this case, relating more with the Google digital homepage) that’s only slightly updated in aesthetics will always age well and be “timeless”. Even Google’s 2013 version would feel pretty outdated by now if the material design principles hadn’t been applied to it. And the only reason it can still get away with just cosmetic tweaks, is because well, there’s really nothing else to remove to begin with.

The 911 perspective is also interesting to consider for all other material objects which keep being updated for modern trends. Look at other revamps of classic cars, like the MINI and even all the VW Beettle versions so far. My point is: most designs, which aren’t over the top to begin with, can feel “timeless” if they’re given the chance to be revamped to a modern look and feel. Does this make sense?

Most “modern takes on ____ <fill in the blank>” work from a timeless design perspective if the <blank> is a non-complex design, which truly makes the case for simplicity. The lesson I’ve learned over the years is precisely this one: non-complex design is different than simple design.

Now I’m just rambling, but I hope I made some sense :) thanks for your piece, Adam!