Yes, the esc key is quite important for a lot of things. It's the universal 'get me outta this' key, and many apps use it for that. I can't imagine having to deal with that on the Touch Bar. Besides what I've heard about accidentally brushing it while typing numbers, the 'esc' key thing is a big deal for me too.
Yes, Apple was always a work-flow secret weapon, but as it becomes less so, the other side of the fence becomes more attractive in terms of flexibility. I also used to do quite a bit of CAD work and 3D. Have you heard of Vellum Cobalt, Concepts Unlimited, or Shark CAD (same product, different names over the decades)? Or, Electric Image Animation System? I worked with a guy on some projects with AutoCAD/3DSMax though, and used to support AutoCAD users from an IT perspective. Love that industry!
Thanks I will take a look at the programme. AutoCAD is a funny programme. There are so many other programs which are faster to work with, the 3D is really awkward and complicated, but it is an engineer thing: you model as if you were transforming matter, which means that what you draw with AutoCAD can be build afterwards, whereas programs such as Rhino are easy in 3D but when you want to build, what you drew might not be that easy to build.
Hello everyone, I would like to let you know that the great Matthew Taylor started a change.org petition in order to put some pressure on Apple to do the right thing.
In case you agree please sign up + share the campaign through your network. Currently there are over 9000 participants after only 2 days.
Incase you did not encounter this problem yet, please keep in mind that this could happen to you just like to so many other people and you would face a repairbill of 700,- euro/$ + repair fee!
From my perspective it would be ok to - guaranty out of warranty repair for the keyboard to everyone, - lower the price for the repair to something more reasonable - come up with a revisited more reliable version of the keyboard to use in case a repair is needed or any combination thereof.
I also would like to thank Mike Wuerthele again for the article. That is called journalism, bravo!
In relation to the interesting discussion going on about the future of Apple laptop keyboards. I think that the future of apples laptops will be to have as few moving parts as possible and that is great for durability. I think Apple learned with the iPhone and iPad that with these products they face very few repair cases apart from broken screens and swollen batteries. And both problems would be less frequent on a laptop.
I do not know if all these different layouts you envision make sense, but the ability to have keyboards for different languages alone would be great to me.
They might even try already to train us all towards this direction. To me the butterfly keyboard is a step towards this direction.
Nevertheless would they have to invent a system to give proper haptic featback which is really important!!! And I don’t see it just jet.
tht said: Au contraire, it’s precisely the context it should be. Think of it as an input device on a flat surface controlling what’s going on in the vertical display.
As an input device, it can have keyboard, trackpad, stylus, and multitouch UI inputs in the right ergonomic orientation, a flat surface where the user can rest their arms. It can have infinitely variable and user customizable keyboard designs. A keyboard specialized for programming? Easy to do and easier for people to learn. Running MS Windows? A Windows keyboard is used. Running a game? A custom game control UI can be used.
With a Pencil, I can take notes on it without doing origami. It’s just a matter of picking up a Pencil and writing much like it is on an iPad. Want to have piano keys? Easy. Multitouch sliders and dials? Easy. Apple has definitely thought about doing this, but it’s a matter of costs, form factor and price. I don’t think Apple can do it for less than $2k. But if the CPU was cheaper, more power efficient like Apple’s ARM CPUs, and the displays more power efficient, it makes you think the timing for such a device is not far away. Two iPad Pros on top of each other is thinner than the 4th gen MBP, so I think the hardware for it is basically available.
It would be a great device for education, engineering and creative markets.
Except the actual efficiency of all that multi-varied input would be next to zero for the most meaningful stuff. There's a reason keyboard layout and even key-spacing and feel are so important to people.
Oh, I totally disagree with this sentiment. A software keyboard of the same size and spacing as a full size hardware keyboard will be 80% to 90% the efficiency of a hardware version, and for most people, it won’t be much different at all. In terms of typing efficiency that is.
I’ve been using my iPad Pro 10.5 flat on a table with the software keyboard ever since I got it. Doing it right now. It has full horizontal key spacing, and a touch shorter vertical spacing. It’s been perfectly fine. I’ve been pleasantly surprised how easy it is. Reminds me of the skepticism with the software keyboard when the iPhone came out. Today, more people use a software keyboard than a hardware one if you include phones.
Then, I would argue input efficiency would go up with a 13.4” touch input surface. Meta key sequences can be made more explicit, button functions can be made explicit, there is 2x more area for buttons, and you gain the usage of a stylus analog free form input. So learning curves will be shorter while users will become more efficient as input UI can be specifically designed for applications.
- More repairable and upgradeable (Where harddrives, memory and batteries can be EASILY swapped out)
- Have full function keyboards with better travel and feel (and number pads on the 15 & 17 inch models) - A full range of ports
- "Softer" screens better adapted to text than to pictures.
- Magsafe power
Just go buy a PC. They will never do this, ever. Why would you ever think the would?
I'm sure they won't do all that stuff, but some of it is valid.
I don't care so much about repairability (if they make good quality), or upgradability if their 'build levels' are reasonably priced (i.e.: adding more storage or RAM isn't exponentially more expensive). But, having ports that align with devices in-use, mag-safe, or even non-glare screens are reasonable to want, especially as options or for one model in a lineup.
SEJU said: Thanks I will take a look at the programme. AutoCAD is a funny programme. There are so many other programs which are faster to work with, the 3D is really awkward and complicated, but it is an engineer thing: you model as if you were transforming matter, which means that what you draw with AutoCAD can be build afterwards, whereas programs such as Rhino are easy in 3D but when you want to build, what you drew might not be that easy to build.
You can certainly build what you model with the apps I mentioned. They use the Spatial ACIS modeling engine that is also popular in high-end CAD/CAM applications. https://www.spatial.com/products/3d-acis-modeling
When I was doing my main work, I was doing pretty much exactly that. I was modeling a steel-based modular housing project where we modeled it in 3D, from which I then generated all the 2D shop drawings. I caught stuff the architects weren't able to, because in the 3D modeling world, it has to work, or it won't.
tht said: Oh, I totally disagree with this sentiment. A software keyboard of the same size and spacing as a full size hardware keyboard will be 80% to 90% the efficiency of a hardware version, and for most people, it won’t be much different at all. In terms of typing efficiency that is.
I’ve been using my iPad Pro 10.5 flat on a table with the software keyboard ever since I got it. Doing it right now. ... Reminds me of the skepticism with the software keyboard when the iPhone came out. Today, more people use a software keyboard than a hardware one if you include phones.
Yea, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Yes, for some it might approach their current keyboard efficiency, but I'm not sure that is saying a whole lot. I don't want every device to become lowest common denominator.
BTW, I've written and edited some pretty big articles while on flights with my iPad. But, that is because it was pretty much all I could do in such a small space to use the time. I'd never *want* to do that!
For the record, I wasn't skeptical about an on-screen keyboard, as the little keyboards on those phone pretty much sucked anyway. If it can't get much worse, may as well give it a shot and use software assistance (without which, you'd truly see how bad the software keyboards are). But, for people who actually have to type a good bit, this trend of keyboards getting worse and worse isn't a good one.
tht said: Oh, I totally disagree with this sentiment. A software keyboard of the same size and spacing as a full size hardware keyboard will be 80% to 90% the efficiency of a hardware version, and for most people, it won’t be much different at all. In terms of typing efficiency that is.
I’ve been using my iPad Pro 10.5 flat on a table with the software keyboard ever since I got it. Doing it right now. ... Reminds me of the skepticism with the software keyboard when the iPhone came out. Today, more people use a software keyboard than a hardware one if you include phones.
Yea, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Yes, for some it might approach their current keyboard efficiency, but I'm not sure that is saying a whole lot. I don't want every device to become lowest common denominator.
BTW, I've written and edited some pretty big articles while on flights with my iPad. But, that is because it was pretty much all I could do in such a small space to use the time. I'd never *want* to do that!
For the record, I wasn't skeptical about an on-screen keyboard, as the little keyboards on those phone pretty much sucked anyway. If it can't get much worse, may as well give it a shot and use software assistance (without which, you'd truly see how bad the software keyboards are). But, for people who actually have to type a good bit, this trend of keyboards getting worse and worse isn't a good one.
The iPad 9.7, 10.5 or the 12.9?
It’s only with the 10.5 or larger that the horizontal key spacing is the same as a hardware keyboard, with 0.75” spacing between keys. It is also true that less than 0.75” spacing on full size hardware hardware keyboards will not be as efficient. It’s really not software versus hardware that is the big differentiator. It’s the spacing and key size. The 9.7 is not big enough to have full sized key spacing for Apple’s preferred 11 keys on on the QWERTY row design. I don’t think I can name a successful hardware keyboard or device that has less than full size keys. Netbooks for a time had smaller than full sized keyboards, but they gradually grew to be full sized, including getting 12” displays.
That should tell you it’s a question of the ergomomics of human hands and spacing, not key switches that is the driver for efficiency.
The biggest issue with iPads remain Apple’s continued resistance to, or really slow walk to, having full PC features, overlapping windows, etc, and the text selection UI on iPads is buggy at times. Still mystified that Apple doesn’t take advantage of the larger width on the 12.9’s landscape keyboard, like having arrow keys. And, the iPad Pro displays need to get bigger still.
Re: efficiency hardware vs software keyboards. If you think of it as a software implementation of a hardware keyboard, you are limiting what can be done on a 13.4” display. It has enough room to put a 14 x 10 grid of full sized keys on it. 140 keys! And it can be anything you want since it is software. Want the escape key to be 4 keys big? That can be done. Want to move the keyboard closer to the bottom, that can be done. How about a button keyed to the weather widget? Want a keyboard that is split and angled. Well, the keys can be drawn that way too.
I’ve even thought about a software keyboard that slowly adjusts to your tics and shortcomings. Your right pinky does quite reach the delete key, you always hit the space bar in the same spot. The software keyboard will slowly move and morph keys to make you more productive. Or maybe the other way around. The software keyboard can slowly correct your typing tics and shortcomings. 😊
Yes, it was 9.7 and I get what you are saying about key-spacing. That has always been important to me, though I got really fast on my PB 100 back in the day (with it's smaller keyboard).
I do like the idea of the the flexibility of on on-screen keyboard, but I think in terms of efficiency, physical keys will always win out... at least for reasonably good typists.
- More repairable and upgradeable (Where harddrives, memory and batteries can be EASILY swapped out)
- Have full function keyboards with better travel and feel (and number pads on the 15 & 17 inch models) - A full range of ports
- "Softer" screens better adapted to text than to pictures.
- Magsafe power
Just go buy a PC. They will never do this, ever. Why would you ever think the would?
Never say never. They did it in the past. They could do it in the future. The only one that might not come back (on a laptop) is the 'full range of ports'. As time goes by, more and more USB-C ports should appear on devices and there will be a tipping point where they become more commonplace than devices with older ports and just as cheap. Although that moment hasn't arrived, Apple would rather its users work around those issues with cables, dongles and hubs in the meantime.
That is on laptops. On desktops, those ports never went away in the first place.
Manufacturers are playing with fire on the repairability front. If someone were to take the issue to the EU with a formal complaint, something any EU citizen can do, there is a possibility that it will be picked up for investigation. If consumers were seen to be getting the wrong end of the stick, things could get tricky. Look at what happened when phone manufacturers tried to force users into using their own chargers, with the subsequent negative effect on users and the environment.
I dont have the patience for that sort of pathetic c**p which is why I’m still rocking a last gen top spec MacBook Pro 15 inch.
Though with Apple’s stubbornness I can’t see them changing it.
I’ve personally had four friends have theirs fail. Two within a week of purchasing. One had it happen twice and ditched the model to buy a refurb.
SPECTACULAR own goal Apple
Don’t let your hate blinds you.
Oh I won’t. This is a rational response to an unnecessary situation, a pathetic totally avoidable situation. People can make excuses all they want and no doubt will.
It’s simply ridiculous. It would be laughable if it wasn’t such an inconvenience.
Im the first to jump to Apple’s defence for things when justified. But this isn’t.
Hurry up and bin these pieces of s**t so you can release a laptop we can upgrade our 2015 machines too.
Yes, it was 9.7 and I get what you are saying about key-spacing. That has always been important to me, though I got really fast on my PB 100 back in the day (with it's smaller keyboard).
I do like the idea of the the flexibility of on on-screen keyboard, but I think in terms of efficiency, physical keys will always win out... at least for reasonably good typists.
I know I’m pushing you on this, but you should try to challenge this idea. Why?
There’s nothing inherent with hardware keyboards in of itself that would drive higher typing efficiency. Latencies have been driven low enough on software keyboards to make them comparable to hardware keyboards, or not matter to our slow wetware hands. Spacing is a display size issue, ie, a cost problem. Viewable area on tablets for app displays is a display size and system software issue. Resting your fingers on keys is an interesting issue regarding fatigue and inadvertent key touching on software keyboards could be difficult to solve, but I do think they are solveable.
Interesting. I repeated a post here that I originally wrote on a follow-up thread on this same subject. That post appears to have been deleted, and not by me. Perhaps the act of verbatim repetition was somehow disfavored. Surely it wasn’t the fact that I pointed out that the use of data in the article at the top of this thread is erroneous and invalid.
We’ll see. I’ll make the abbreviated argument here, using verbiage written just for this thread.
In order to report valid data on a the failure rate of a component of the MacBook Pro, you must relate the total number of failures reported (the numerator) to the actual number of machines made and sold (the denominator).
For this article, AppleInsider used repair tickets from a sample of Genius Bars and independent shops. They then compared samples from first year’s repair tickets that had ‘service events’ for different models of MacBooks and compared them for different models. Although the overall number of ‘service events’ at these shops went down (significantly) for the 2016 MBPs with butterfly keyboards, the number of keyboard-related service events increased somewhat. AI used total first-model-year service events from their samples as a denominator, with the keyboard-related items as the numerator. With a smaller denominator, and a larger numerator, AI called this a “doubling” of the keyboard failure rate. This is a bad use of statistical data.
First, the lower overall number of service events for the 2016 machines is probably the closest thing to valid statistical information they have, but that’s not even noted. (2016 service events in their sample were a third lower than 2014.) Next, use of that lower number of service events as the denominator in their samples for comparison has as much or more to do with their “higher” failure rate calculation as does the increase in keyboard issues reported in their sample.
The real truth is that without the total manufaturing, sales and service events data that Apple is not going to provide, these samples and statistics reported by AI in this article are not much more than anecdotal information. Of course, anecdotal information is fine, but not when it’s reported as a serious statistical analysis. I think the AppleInsider staff are smart people, which is why they should know better.
sedicivalvole said: Hurry up and bin these pieces of s**t so you can release a laptop we can upgrade our 2015 machines too.
Well said! I actually hope something does come of this and has a reasonably big financial impact on Apple. They need to be punished for being so arrogant and stupid. It might bring them back to reality, and that might be the only way to really get their attention.
tht said: I know I’m pushing you on this, but you should try to challenge this idea. Why?
There’s nothing inherent with hardware keyboards in of itself that would drive higher typing efficiency. Latencies have been driven low enough on software keyboards to make them comparable to hardware keyboards, or not matter to our slow wetware hands. Spacing is a display size issue, ie, a cost problem. Viewable area on tablets for app displays is a display size and system software issue. Resting your fingers on keys is an interesting issue regarding fatigue and inadvertent key touching on software keyboards could be difficult to solve, but I do think they are solveable.
It's feedback.
Here's an analogy. I've heard that driving simulators like iRacing or even Gran Turismo can be good practice and actually improve real-world lap times. But, this still isn't anything like actually getting out on the track with a real car.
To me, the argument you're making is akin to saying that once VR gets good enough, and the wheel-pedals get advance enough (which they are pretty close to being there), then that simulation will be as good as the real car. I'm just not buying that. There is always a gap in the simulation.
Again, I'm pretty sure I can't type as fast on my Apple Magic Keyboard as I could type on an Apple Extended II. And, I'm pretty sure even with lots of practice, I wouldn't type as fast on a 2017 MBP keyboard as I would on my Apple Magic Keyboard. And, I'm pretty sure I'd never type as fast on your hypothetical virtual keyboard, too.
The question is whether the tradeoffs are worth it or not. Going to the Magic Keyboard, I think (I've been questioning this!), was worth it in terms of size and noise. But, there is a point where the advantages won't outweigh the efficiency loss. For someone who wants no keys (durability, flexibility of layout, etc.), it might be a good tradeoff. But, I don't think that will be the case for people like writers, for example. I do a LOT of typing, and foresee myself doing even more in the future.
AppleZulu said: The real truth is that without the total manufaturing, sales and service events data that Apple is not going to provide, these samples and statistics reported by AI in this article are not much more than anecdotal information. Of course, anecdotal information is fine, but not when it’s reported as a serious statistical analysis. I think the AppleInsider staff are smart people, which is why they should know better.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, this is how most statistical projection works. You sample some percentage of the total and extrapolate. Very seldom do we have statistics based on the whole, except for maybe getting close in some data from the census, or something like that. Yes, to get completely accurate data, Apple would have to reveal their service records.
Latencies have been driven low enough on software keyboards to make them comparable to hardware keyboards, or not matter to our slow wetware hands.
Are you saying recently? I seem to recall this being one fo the tent pole reasons the iPhone was going to suck donkey balls, and I also seem to recall that when it launched it shown that typing with your thumbs on an iPhone was faster than other hardware keyboards of other phone vendors. I also seem to recall that at least one of Blackberry nee RIM's co-CEOs thought the demo was rigged because there was no way to make the UI reposes that quickly, but that's another discussion.
I do like the idea of the the flexibility of on on-screen keyboard, but I think in terms of efficiency, physical keys will always win out... at least for reasonably good typists.
For me, I think they'll always win out for a desktop/notebook. While ideal for a smartphone, given the limited real estate of the display, the distance your finger have to travel to type a key, and that it's easier to look at what you're typing and the rest of the display compared to a desktop or notebook, I can't see many current Mac users adopting to keyboard screen with no physical buttons or tactile feedback for the user.
AppleZulu said: The real truth is that without the total manufaturing, sales and service events data that Apple is not going to provide, these samples and statistics reported by AI in this article are not much more than anecdotal information. Of course, anecdotal information is fine, but not when it’s reported as a serious statistical analysis. I think the AppleInsider staff are smart people, which is why they should know better.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, this is how most statistical projection works. You sample some percentage of the total and extrapolate. Very seldom do we have statistics based on the whole, except for maybe getting close in some data from the census, or something like that. Yes, to get completely accurate data, Apple would have to reveal their service records.
My assumption is he meant that the sample size probably wasn't large enough. Even if it was sufficient, there could also be other factors that could make their data gathering flawed (see Dewey Beats Truman).
AppleZulu said: The real truth is that without the total manufaturing, sales and service events data that Apple is not going to provide, these samples and statistics reported by AI in this article are not much more than anecdotal information. Of course, anecdotal information is fine, but not when it’s reported as a serious statistical analysis. I think the AppleInsider staff are smart people, which is why they should know better.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, this is how most statistical projection works. You sample some percentage of the total and extrapolate. Very seldom do we have statistics based on the whole, except for maybe getting close in some data from the census, or something like that. Yes, to get completely accurate data, Apple would have to reveal their service records.
A sample has to have a valid relationship to the whole, and you can’t ignore a decrease in your sample denominator when comparing one sample to another, and then claim that a portion of that sample has thus ‘doubled.’ That’s a huge, glaring math error. AI made some very broad and dubious assumptions about how their samples relate to the whole, and then made comparatively fine detail year-to-year comparisons of data in their samples, while ignoring important aspects of the required math. They then created a headline out of their bottom line calculation, that keyboard failures have ‘doubled,’ and others pick up that headline as though it’s the gospel truth. It’s not. It’s just not.
The keyboard issue could be a big deal, or it could be another case of a problem amplified by the fact that the people who don’t experience the problem don’t bother to post their nominal experience online, or bring their perfectly functional machine to the shop for repairs. AI has essentially taken that scenario and wrapped it in a pretend statistical analysis and presented it as though it’s scientifically proven to be a big deal. The truth is, we don’t know. We just have anecdotal complaints.
AppleZulu said: A sample has to have a valid relationship to the whole, and you can’t ignore a decrease in your sample denominator when comparing one sample to another, and then claim that a portion of that sample has thus ‘doubled.’ That’s a huge, glaring math error. AI made some very broad and dubious assumptions about how their samples relate to the whole, and then made comparatively fine detail year-to-year comparisons of data in their samples, while ignoring important aspects of the required math. They then created a headline out of their bottom line calculation, that keyboard failures have ‘doubled,’ and others pick up that headline as though it’s the gospel truth. It’s not. It’s just not.
The keyboard issue could be a big deal, or it could be another case of a problem amplified by the fact that the people who don’t experience the problem don’t bother to post their nominal experience online, or bring their perfectly functional machine to the shop for repairs. AI has essentially taken that scenario and wrapped it in a pretend statistical analysis and presented it as though it’s scientifically proven to be a big deal. The truth is, we don’t know. We just have anecdotal complaints.
Maybe the problem is that I'm not a statistician, but I'm not understanding the problem. If you take a sampling of repair centers and compare the number of repairs for one series vs another series of product, I'd think that's fine... as far as it goes. Or, are you saying there is a problem in how they calculated the 'double' aspect based on that data?
Anyway, the actual failure rate is fairly irrelevant to me, aside from this possibly backing up everything I'm hearing anecdotally. IMO, there are way more 'failed' keyboards for this series, even if they never made it to the repair center. Only once have I had to take a can of compressed air to my MacBook Pro keyboard in decades of using them... and then it was my fault for too much snacking over my laptop. If dust-specks are causing it to 'fail' then it's a problem even if they are fully breaking.
But, sure, I'd like such evidence to be as accurate as possible, so your remarks make me curious.
AppleZulu said: A sample has to have a valid relationship to the whole, and you can’t ignore a decrease in your sample denominator when comparing one sample to another, and then claim that a portion of that sample has thus ‘doubled.’ That’s a huge, glaring math error. AI made some very broad and dubious assumptions about how their samples relate to the whole, and then made comparatively fine detail year-to-year comparisons of data in their samples, while ignoring important aspects of the required math. They then created a headline out of their bottom line calculation, that keyboard failures have ‘doubled,’ and others pick up that headline as though it’s the gospel truth. It’s not. It’s just not.
The keyboard issue could be a big deal, or it could be another case of a problem amplified by the fact that the people who don’t experience the problem don’t bother to post their nominal experience online, or bring their perfectly functional machine to the shop for repairs. AI has essentially taken that scenario and wrapped it in a pretend statistical analysis and presented it as though it’s scientifically proven to be a big deal. The truth is, we don’t know. We just have anecdotal complaints.
Maybe the problem is that I'm not a statistician, but I'm not understanding the problem. If you take a sampling of repair centers and compare the number of repairs for one series vs another series of product, I'd think that's fine... as far as it goes. Or, are you saying there is a problem in how they calculated the 'double' aspect based on that data?
Anyway, the actual failure rate is fairly irrelevant to me, aside from this possibly backing up everything I'm hearing anecdotally. IMO, there are way more 'failed' keyboards for this series, even if they never made it to the repair center. Only once have I had to take a can of compressed air to my MacBook Pro keyboard in decades of using them... and then it was my fault for too much snacking over my laptop. If dust-specks are causing it to 'fail' then it's a problem even if they are fully breaking.
But, sure, I'd like such evidence to be as accurate as possible, so your remarks make me curious.
Let’s back into the question. What would a failure rate for keyboards on MacBooks mean? Ultimately, it would be a percentage of the machines made that have keyboards that go bad. So that would be a scalable number, right? The AI article talks about a keyboard failure rate of 11.8 (almost 12!) percent for 2016 machines, nearly doubled from 6.0 percent in 2014.
Does that mean that of every 100 MacBooks sold, nearly 12 of them had bad keyboards? For every thousand machines, nearly 120 had bad keyboards? That would be catastrophic! But see, that’s not what their number actually says. They’re saying that 12% of the reported service tickets at the shops they surveyed were for keyboard issues. That’s an entirely different thing, and it doesn’t say anything predictive about the failure rate for a given number of machines sold. It’s not scalable. It doesn’t actually tell you anything.
If you were going to take a sample to determine the failure rate for keyboards on MacBooks, you would need a randomized sample of machines out there being used, and the sample would have to be large enough to statistically represent the whole population. So it would be something like, of 1,000 MacBooks in use during the first year of a given model, how many required keyboard repairs? Then you could compare that rate from one year to the next. But you have to include in that sample all the machines, including those that needed no repairs at all. That’s not what AI did here. They just looked at numbers for machines that showed up at repair shops, and calculated how many of those that required repair, required specifically keyboard repairs. Without knowing anything about how many didn’t show up at the repair shop at all, you can’t then extrapolate anything back out to the total population. It’s essentially a self-selection bias.
Second, the number of repair tickets in their sample was different for each year, from 2014, ‘15, and ‘16. The 11.8 percent ‘keyboard failure rate’ they reported for ‘16 was from a one-third smaller pool of repair tickets in 2016, as compared to 2014. So, a third fewer 2016 MacBooks came in for repairs, but a larger percentage of those repairs were for keyboards. If that information conveys anything that you could extrapolate back out to the total population, it’s that, when comparing 2016 MacBooks to 2014, slightly more appeared to have keyboard issues (but nowhere near double), but that 2016 models were actually a third less likely to need any sort of repair at all. There are enough questions about their sampling methodology that I wouldn’t actually assert that, either, but a better case could be made for that than for the sensationalized but unsubstantiated assertion that keyboard failures ‘doubled.’
AppleZulu said: Let’s back into the question. What would a failure rate for keyboards on MacBooks mean? Ultimately, it would be a percentage of the machines made that have keyboards that go bad. So that would be a scalable number, right? The AI article talks about a keyboard failure rate of 11.8 (almost 12!) percent for 2016 machines, nearly doubled from 6.0 percent in 2014.
Does that mean that of every 100 MacBooks sold, nearly 12 of them had bad keyboards? For every thousand machines, nearly 120 had bad keyboards? That would be catastrophic! But see, that’s not what their number actually says. They’re saying that 12% of the reported service tickets at the shops they surveyed were for keyboard issues. That’s an entirely different thing, and it doesn’t say anything predictive about the failure rate for a given number of machines sold. It’s not scalable. It doesn’t actually tell you anything.
If you were going to take a sample to determine the failure rate for keyboards on MacBooks, you would need a randomized sample of machines out there being used, and the sample would have to be large enough to statistically represent the whole population. So it would be something like, of 1,000 MacBooks in use during the first year of a given model, how many required keyboard repairs? Then you could compare that rate from one year to the next. But you have to include in that sample all the machines, including those that needed no repairs at all. That’s not what AI did here. They just looked at numbers for machines that showed up at repair shops, and calculated how many of those that required repair, required specifically keyboard repairs. Without knowing anything about how many didn’t show up at the repair shop at all, you can’t then extrapolate anything back out to the total population. It’s essentially a self-selection bias.
Second, the number of repair tickets in their sample was different for each year, from 2014, ‘15, and ‘16. The 11.8 percent ‘keyboard failure rate’ they reported for ‘16 was from a one-third smaller pool of repair tickets in 2016, as compared to 2014. So, a third fewer 2016 MacBooks came in for repairs, but a larger percentage of those repairs were for keyboards. If that information conveys anything that you could extrapolate back out to the total population, it’s that, when comparing 2016 MacBooks to 2014, slightly more appeared to have keyboard issues (but nowhere near double), but that 2016 models were actually a third less likely to need any sort of repair at all. There are enough questions about their sampling methodology that I wouldn’t actually assert that, either, but a better case could be made for that than for the sensationalized but unsubstantiated assertion that keyboard failures ‘doubled.’
Ahh, OK, I see what you're saying (partly). I think the assumption is that a somewhat similar number of MBPs sold back in the 2015 style as the 2016+ style, as there hasn't been huge growth in MBP sales (nor huge decline). So, if you knew about how many came back for repair of each style, you could kind of extrapolate that.
But, yea, 12% of the issues being keyboard related vs 12% of units having keyboard issues are quite different things. I'll have to go back and re-read the original article again.
Anyway, based on my limited experience using the keyboard, reports from enough trusted people about their issues with it, and the cost to repair... it's a no-go for me. I'd be quite shocked, actually, if the repair rates weren't more than double. But, as I said before, I don't want to see inaccurate data, of course.
At least the 2017 seems to have been improved (both from the numbers here, but also anecdotal reports), so if my son gets one, hopefully it will be OK. And, hopefully, they'll introduce some new laptops in a month that will address this.
AppleZulu said: Let’s back into the question. What would a failure rate for keyboards on MacBooks mean? Ultimately, it would be a percentage of the machines made that have keyboards that go bad. So that would be a scalable number, right? The AI article talks about a keyboard failure rate of 11.8 (almost 12!) percent for 2016 machines, nearly doubled from 6.0 percent in 2014.
Does that mean that of every 100 MacBooks sold, nearly 12 of them had bad keyboards? For every thousand machines, nearly 120 had bad keyboards? That would be catastrophic! But see, that’s not what their number actually says. They’re saying that 12% of the reported service tickets at the shops they surveyed were for keyboard issues. That’s an entirely different thing, and it doesn’t say anything predictive about the failure rate for a given number of machines sold. It’s not scalable. It doesn’t actually tell you anything.
If you were going to take a sample to determine the failure rate for keyboards on MacBooks, you would need a randomized sample of machines out there being used, and the sample would have to be large enough to statistically represent the whole population. So it would be something like, of 1,000 MacBooks in use during the first year of a given model, how many required keyboard repairs? Then you could compare that rate from one year to the next. But you have to include in that sample all the machines, including those that needed no repairs at all. That’s not what AI did here. They just looked at numbers for machines that showed up at repair shops, and calculated how many of those that required repair, required specifically keyboard repairs. Without knowing anything about how many didn’t show up at the repair shop at all, you can’t then extrapolate anything back out to the total population. It’s essentially a self-selection bias.
Second, the number of repair tickets in their sample was different for each year, from 2014, ‘15, and ‘16. The 11.8 percent ‘keyboard failure rate’ they reported for ‘16 was from a one-third smaller pool of repair tickets in 2016, as compared to 2014. So, a third fewer 2016 MacBooks came in for repairs, but a larger percentage of those repairs were for keyboards. If that information conveys anything that you could extrapolate back out to the total population, it’s that, when comparing 2016 MacBooks to 2014, slightly more appeared to have keyboard issues (but nowhere near double), but that 2016 models were actually a third less likely to need any sort of repair at all. There are enough questions about their sampling methodology that I wouldn’t actually assert that, either, but a better case could be made for that than for the sensationalized but unsubstantiated assertion that keyboard failures ‘doubled.’
Ahh, OK, I see what you're saying (partly). I think the assumption is that a somewhat similar number of MBPs sold back in the 2015 style as the 2016+ style, as there hasn't been huge growth in MBP sales (nor huge decline). So, if you knew about how many came back for repair of each style, you could kind of extrapolate that.
But, yea, 12% of the issues being keyboard related vs 12% of units having keyboard issues are quite different things. I'll have to go back and re-read the original article again.
Anyway, based on my limited experience using the keyboard, reports from enough trusted people about their issues with it, and the cost to repair... it's a no-go for me. I'd be quite shocked, actually, if the repair rates weren't more than double. But, as I said before, I don't want to see inaccurate data, of course.
At least the 2017 seems to have been improved (both from the numbers here, but also anecdotal reports), so if my son gets one, hopefully it will be OK. And, hopefully, they'll introduce some new laptops in a month that will address this.
That gets to the crux of it, though. You wrote, “I'd be quite shocked, actually, if the repair rates weren't more than double.” Double of what? That’s the thing that this report sensationalized but didn’t really tell you.
Comments
https://www.change.org/p/apple-apple-recall-macbook-pro-w-defective-keyboard-replace-with-different-working-keyboard
In case you agree please sign up + share the campaign through your network. Currently there are over 9000 participants after only 2 days.
Incase you did not encounter this problem yet, please keep in mind that this could happen to you just like to so many other people and you would face a repairbill of 700,- euro/$ + repair fee!
From my perspective it would be ok to
- guaranty out of warranty repair for the keyboard to everyone,
- lower the price for the repair to something more reasonable
- come up with a revisited more reliable version of the keyboard to use in case a repair is needed
or any combination thereof.
I also would like to thank Mike Wuerthele again for the article. That is called journalism, bravo!
I do not know if all these different layouts you envision make sense, but the ability to have keyboards for different languages alone would be great to me.
They might even try already to train us all towards this direction. To me the butterfly keyboard is a step towards this direction.
Nevertheless would they have to invent a system to give proper haptic featback which is really important!!! And I don’t see it just jet.
I’ve been using my iPad Pro 10.5 flat on a table with the software keyboard ever since I got it. Doing it right now. It has full horizontal key spacing, and a touch shorter vertical spacing. It’s been perfectly fine. I’ve been pleasantly surprised how easy it is. Reminds me of the skepticism with the software keyboard when the iPhone came out. Today, more people use a software keyboard than a hardware one if you include phones.
Then, I would argue input efficiency would go up with a 13.4” touch input surface. Meta key sequences can be made more explicit, button functions can be made explicit, there is 2x more area for buttons, and you gain the usage of a stylus analog free form input. So learning curves will be shorter while users will become more efficient as input UI can be specifically designed for applications.
I don't care so much about repairability (if they make good quality), or upgradability if their 'build levels' are reasonably priced (i.e.: adding more storage or RAM isn't exponentially more expensive). But, having ports that align with devices in-use, mag-safe, or even non-glare screens are reasonable to want, especially as options or for one model in a lineup.
You can certainly build what you model with the apps I mentioned. They use the Spatial ACIS modeling engine that is also popular in high-end CAD/CAM applications.
https://www.spatial.com/products/3d-acis-modeling
When I was doing my main work, I was doing pretty much exactly that. I was modeling a steel-based modular housing project where we modeled it in 3D, from which I then generated all the 2D shop drawings. I caught stuff the architects weren't able to, because in the 3D modeling world, it has to work, or it won't.
Yea, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
BTW, I've written and edited some pretty big articles while on flights with my iPad. But, that is because it was pretty much all I could do in such a small space to use the time. I'd never *want* to do that!
For the record, I wasn't skeptical about an on-screen keyboard, as the little keyboards on those phone pretty much sucked anyway. If it can't get much worse, may as well give it a shot and use software assistance (without which, you'd truly see how bad the software keyboards are). But, for people who actually have to type a good bit, this trend of keyboards getting worse and worse isn't a good one.
It’s only with the 10.5 or larger that the horizontal key spacing is the same as a hardware keyboard, with 0.75” spacing between keys. It is also true that less than 0.75” spacing on full size hardware hardware keyboards will not be as efficient. It’s really not software versus hardware that is the big differentiator. It’s the spacing and key size. The 9.7 is not big enough to have full sized key spacing for Apple’s preferred 11 keys on on the QWERTY row design. I don’t think I can name a successful hardware keyboard or device that has less than full size keys. Netbooks for a time had smaller than full sized keyboards, but they gradually grew to be full sized, including getting 12” displays.
That should tell you it’s a question of the ergomomics of human hands and spacing, not key switches that is the driver for efficiency.
The biggest issue with iPads remain Apple’s continued resistance to, or really slow walk to, having full PC features, overlapping windows, etc, and the text selection UI on iPads is buggy at times. Still mystified that Apple doesn’t take advantage of the larger width on the 12.9’s landscape keyboard, like having arrow keys. And, the iPad Pro displays need to get bigger still.
Re: efficiency hardware vs software keyboards. If you think of it as a software implementation of a hardware keyboard, you are limiting what can be done on a 13.4” display. It has enough room to put a 14 x 10 grid of full sized keys on it. 140 keys! And it can be anything you want since it is software. Want the escape key to be 4 keys big? That can be done. Want to move the keyboard closer to the bottom, that can be done. How about a button keyed to the weather widget? Want a keyboard that is split and angled. Well, the keys can be drawn that way too.
I’ve even thought about a software keyboard that slowly adjusts to your tics and shortcomings. Your right pinky does quite reach the delete key, you always hit the space bar in the same spot. The software keyboard will slowly move and morph keys to make you more productive. Or maybe the other way around. The software keyboard can slowly correct your typing tics and shortcomings. 😊
I do like the idea of the the flexibility of on on-screen keyboard, but I think in terms of efficiency, physical keys will always win out... at least for reasonably good typists.
That is on laptops. On desktops, those ports never went away in the first place.
Manufacturers are playing with fire on the repairability front. If someone were to take the issue to the EU with a formal complaint, something any EU citizen can do, there is a possibility that it will be picked up for investigation. If consumers were seen to be getting the wrong end of the stick, things could get tricky. Look at what happened when phone manufacturers tried to force users into using their own chargers, with the subsequent negative effect on users and the environment.
Oh I won’t. This is a rational response to an unnecessary situation, a pathetic totally avoidable situation. People can make excuses all they want and no doubt will.
It’s simply ridiculous. It would be laughable if it wasn’t such an inconvenience.
Im the first to jump to Apple’s defence for things when justified. But this isn’t.
Hurry up and bin these pieces of s**t so you can release a laptop we can upgrade our 2015 machines too.
There’s nothing inherent with hardware keyboards in of itself that would drive higher typing efficiency. Latencies have been driven low enough on software keyboards to make them comparable to hardware keyboards, or not matter to our slow wetware hands. Spacing is a display size issue, ie, a cost problem. Viewable area on tablets for app displays is a display size and system software issue. Resting your fingers on keys is an interesting issue regarding fatigue and inadvertent key touching on software keyboards could be difficult to solve, but I do think they are solveable.
We’ll see. I’ll make the abbreviated argument here, using verbiage written just for this thread.
In order to report valid data on a the failure rate of a component of the MacBook Pro, you must relate the total number of failures reported (the numerator) to the actual number of machines made and sold (the denominator).
For this article, AppleInsider used repair tickets from a sample of Genius Bars and independent shops. They then compared samples from first year’s repair tickets that had ‘service events’ for different models of MacBooks and compared them for different models. Although the overall number of ‘service events’ at these shops went down (significantly) for the 2016 MBPs with butterfly keyboards, the number of keyboard-related service events increased somewhat. AI used total first-model-year service events from their samples as a denominator, with the keyboard-related items as the numerator. With a smaller denominator, and a larger numerator, AI called this a “doubling” of the keyboard failure rate. This is a bad use of statistical data.
First, the lower overall number of service events for the 2016 machines is probably the closest thing to valid statistical information they have, but that’s not even noted. (2016 service events in their sample were a third lower than 2014.) Next, use of that lower number of service events as the denominator in their samples for comparison has as much or more to do with their “higher” failure rate calculation as does the increase in keyboard issues reported in their sample.
The real truth is that without the total manufaturing, sales and service events data that Apple is not going to provide, these samples and statistics reported by AI in this article are not much more than anecdotal information. Of course, anecdotal information is fine, but not when it’s reported as a serious statistical analysis. I think the AppleInsider staff are smart people, which is why they should know better.
I actually hope something does come of this and has a reasonably big financial impact on Apple. They need to be punished for being so arrogant and stupid. It might bring them back to reality, and that might be the only way to really get their attention.
It's feedback.
Here's an analogy. I've heard that driving simulators like iRacing or even Gran Turismo can be good practice and actually improve real-world lap times. But, this still isn't anything like actually getting out on the track with a real car.
To me, the argument you're making is akin to saying that once VR gets good enough, and the wheel-pedals get advance enough (which they are pretty close to being there), then that simulation will be as good as the real car. I'm just not buying that. There is always a gap in the simulation.
Again, I'm pretty sure I can't type as fast on my Apple Magic Keyboard as I could type on an Apple Extended II. And, I'm pretty sure even with lots of practice, I wouldn't type as fast on a 2017 MBP keyboard as I would on my Apple Magic Keyboard. And, I'm pretty sure I'd never type as fast on your hypothetical virtual keyboard, too.
The question is whether the tradeoffs are worth it or not. Going to the Magic Keyboard, I think (I've been questioning this!), was worth it in terms of size and noise. But, there is a point where the advantages won't outweigh the efficiency loss. For someone who wants no keys (durability, flexibility of layout, etc.), it might be a good tradeoff. But, I don't think that will be the case for people like writers, for example. I do a LOT of typing, and foresee myself doing even more in the future.
For me, I think they'll always win out for a desktop/notebook. While ideal for a smartphone, given the limited real estate of the display, the distance your finger have to travel to type a key, and that it's easier to look at what you're typing and the rest of the display compared to a desktop or notebook, I can't see many current Mac users adopting to keyboard screen with no physical buttons or tactile feedback for the user.
The keyboard issue could be a big deal, or it could be another case of a problem amplified by the fact that the people who don’t experience the problem don’t bother to post their nominal experience online, or bring their perfectly functional machine to the shop for repairs. AI has essentially taken that scenario and wrapped it in a pretend statistical analysis and presented it as though it’s scientifically proven to be a big deal. The truth is, we don’t know. We just have anecdotal complaints.
Anyway, the actual failure rate is fairly irrelevant to me, aside from this possibly backing up everything I'm hearing anecdotally. IMO, there are way more 'failed' keyboards for this series, even if they never made it to the repair center. Only once have I had to take a can of compressed air to my MacBook Pro keyboard in decades of using them... and then it was my fault for too much snacking over my laptop. If dust-specks are causing it to 'fail' then it's a problem even if they are fully breaking.
But, sure, I'd like such evidence to be as accurate as possible, so your remarks make me curious.
Does that mean that of every 100 MacBooks sold, nearly 12 of them had bad keyboards? For every thousand machines, nearly 120 had bad keyboards? That would be catastrophic! But see, that’s not what their number actually says. They’re saying that 12% of the reported service tickets at the shops they surveyed were for keyboard issues. That’s an entirely different thing, and it doesn’t say anything predictive about the failure rate for a given number of machines sold. It’s not scalable. It doesn’t actually tell you anything.
If you were going to take a sample to determine the failure rate for keyboards on MacBooks, you would need a randomized sample of machines out there being used, and the sample would have to be large enough to statistically represent the whole population. So it would be something like, of 1,000 MacBooks in use during the first year of a given model, how many required keyboard repairs? Then you could compare that rate from one year to the next. But you have to include in that sample all the machines, including those that needed no repairs at all. That’s not what AI did here. They just looked at numbers for machines that showed up at repair shops, and calculated how many of those that required repair, required specifically keyboard repairs. Without knowing anything about how many didn’t show up at the repair shop at all, you can’t then extrapolate anything back out to the total population. It’s essentially a self-selection bias.
Second, the number of repair tickets in their sample was different for each year, from 2014, ‘15, and ‘16. The 11.8 percent ‘keyboard failure rate’ they reported for ‘16 was from a one-third smaller pool of repair tickets in 2016, as compared to 2014. So, a third fewer 2016 MacBooks came in for repairs, but a larger percentage of those repairs were for keyboards. If that information conveys anything that you could extrapolate back out to the total population, it’s that, when comparing 2016 MacBooks to 2014, slightly more appeared to have keyboard issues (but nowhere near double), but that 2016 models were actually a third less likely to need any sort of repair at all. There are enough questions about their sampling methodology that I wouldn’t actually assert that, either, but a better case could be made for that than for the sensationalized but unsubstantiated assertion that keyboard failures ‘doubled.’
But, yea, 12% of the issues being keyboard related vs 12% of units having keyboard issues are quite different things. I'll have to go back and re-read the original article again.
Anyway, based on my limited experience using the keyboard, reports from enough trusted people about their issues with it, and the cost to repair... it's a no-go for me. I'd be quite shocked, actually, if the repair rates weren't more than double. But, as I said before, I don't want to see inaccurate data, of course.
At least the 2017 seems to have been improved (both from the numbers here, but also anecdotal reports), so if my son gets one, hopefully it will be OK. And, hopefully, they'll introduce some new laptops in a month that will address this.