Apple may switch butterfly keyboard for scissor version in MacBook Air

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 113
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,911member
    MplsP said:
    And "A product being thin and being defective are two different things. Same thing with key travel. Lower key travel isn’t a defect, even if some people don’t prefer it."   is just nonsense.

    Sorry, that response is nonsense. The keyboards are designed to be thin and have low key travel and work perfectly out of the box. There is nothing defective about that. They have a propensity to stop working properly when debris makes its way into the mechanism; that makes it a poor design, but not a defective one. Some people may not like the feel. That doesn't make if defective, either.
    Anything is defective if it does a bad job at doing what it was supposed to do -- even if its due to a design flaw rather than a manufacturing flaw.  In this case, the butterfly keyboard did a bad job out of the box and then later some tmes failed completely.  
    So if I like the feel of the butterfly keyboard better than the old scissors keyboard, that would make the old keyboard defective by your logic. Sorry - you appear to be completely unable to distinguish between your personal preferences, manufacturing defects and poor design. There are plenty of people (just read the comments here) that like the keyboard. 
  • Reply 102 of 113
    henrybayhenrybay Posts: 144member

    The Butterfly Keyboard is a flawed design, and not just a matter of preference. Here’s why. 

    Keyboard travel is like cushioning in a sports shoe. If there is insufficient depth of cushioning, the shoes will feel harsh to run in. Similarly, a lack of key travel makes typing feel like pounding your fingers on concrete. 

    This harshness can’t be fixed a adding softer membranes under the keys, because the problem is one of physics, not materials. 

    By compressing the key travel distance, as Apple has done, they have also compressed the keystroke duration to about 40 milliseconds - which causes the keys to ‘bottom out’ too early. This lack of travel is insufficient to allow a soft landing of the fingertips on the aluminium frame.  

    Sure, you could argue that you can get used to shallow keyboard travel - like you can get used to running shoes with no cushioning. But after you’ve run a few miles (or pounded out a few thousands words), the lack of cushioning takes its toll. 

    This is why it is so critical that Apple increases the amount of travel in the next generation of MacBook keyboards. 

    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 103 of 113
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    MplsP said:
    MplsP said:
    And "A product being thin and being defective are two different things. Same thing with key travel. Lower key travel isn’t a defect, even if some people don’t prefer it."   is just nonsense.

    Sorry, that response is nonsense. The keyboards are designed to be thin and have low key travel and work perfectly out of the box. There is nothing defective about that. They have a propensity to stop working properly when debris makes its way into the mechanism; that makes it a poor design, but not a defective one. Some people may not like the feel. That doesn't make if defective, either.
    Anything is defective if it does a bad job at doing what it was supposed to do -- even if its due to a design flaw rather than a manufacturing flaw.  In this case, the butterfly keyboard did a bad job out of the box and then later some tmes failed completely.  
    So if I like the feel of the butterfly keyboard better than the old scissors keyboard, that would make the old keyboard defective by your logic. Sorry - you appear to be completely unable to distinguish between your personal preferences, manufacturing defects and poor design. There are plenty of people (just read the comments here) that like the keyboard. 
    LOL...  You are probably the only person in the world who prefers the feel of the butterfly keyboard!  It is you projecting your personal quirks off as logic.
  • Reply 104 of 113
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    henrybay said:

    The Butterfly Keyboard is a flawed design, and not just a matter of preference. Here’s why. 

    Keyboard travel is like cushioning in a sports shoe. If there is insufficient depth of cushioning, the shoes will feel harsh to run in. Similarly, a lack of key travel makes typing feel like pounding your fingers on concrete. 

    This harshness can’t be fixed a adding softer membranes under the keys, because the problem is one of physics, not materials. 

    By compressing the key travel distance, as Apple has done, they have also compressed the keystroke duration to about 40 milliseconds - which causes the keys to ‘bottom out’ too early. This lack of travel is insufficient to allow a soft landing of the fingertips on the aluminium frame.  

    Sure, you could argue that you can get used to shallow keyboard travel - like you can get used to running shoes with no cushioning. But after you’ve run a few miles (or pounded out a few thousands words), the lack of cushioning takes its toll. 

    This is why it is so critical that Apple increases the amount of travel in the next generation of MacBook keyboards. 

    You are right!   And that never occurred to me.
    I and most people criticized the shallow butterfly keyboard for the lack of feedback & feel its keys gave.   But, you are right.   In addition, it also gives a harsh, hard, unpleasant feel.   The 'hunt and peck' typists can use most anything -- even a virtual, on screen keyboard.   But touch typists demand multi-faceted quality.
    henrybay
  • Reply 105 of 113
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,624member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    matrix077 said:
    avon b7 said:
    matrix077 said:
    avon b7 said:
    matrix077 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    lkrupp said:
    wozwoz said:
    This article makes no sense. If the scissor keyboard is better, then Apple would adopt it on the MacBook Pro first - not as a minor change to only the Macbook Air. The article goes on to say that the scissor keyboard is much cheaper to produce, and since the MacBook Air is the cheapest notebook that Apple makes, if Apple is in fact intending such change ... that the change is entirely about saving some production costs on a low-cost machine, leaving the more expensive Butterfly design for the Pro models. 

    I quite like the new Butterfly design - it takes a little getting used to, my error rate is a little higher until I adapt from my desktop keyboard, but after a bit, it can be very fast and nice to use.
    Tech blog forums exist in their own little universes. What is declared useless and unusable by tech blog forums is often quite popular in the real world. For example, tech blog forums declared that a round face on a smartwatch was the ONLY proper design. Android watches had round faces so they were declared superior to the Watch. Only that didn’t happen in the real world did it. The Watch now completely dominates the smartwatch market. In tech blog forums all it takes is a single criticism to declare the entire design faulty, the “pile on” and “me too” paradigm.
    Don't round faces dominate the smartwatch segment?

    I thought Apple's rectangular offering had less than a third of the market. The biggest problem seems to be that people haven't come round to non-round faces just yet. So much so that there were even rumours here the other day about Apple Watch sales falling well below internal expectations.
    What’s your source for this? 

    Certainly not Apple.

    Why on earth would I turn to Apple for the answer? 

    Of course not! 

    What is strange is that I provided a link to where the information probably came from so you know it wasn't Apple.


    Because Apple is the only one who has the answer.


    Here is the original question again:

    "Don't round faces dominate the smartwatch segment?"

    To which Rogifan asked for a source.

    I gave one.

    The off topic point basically ended there, but...

    You chime in with the source certainly wasn't Apple.

    I asked why the source would be Apple.

    You reply with 'because Apple is the only one who has the answer'.

    I'm going to leave things as they are because there is no point taking things further and It is not butterfly keyboard related.




    I think @rogifan question for source is more likely from this sentence of yours
    So much so that there were even rumours here the other day about Apple Watch sales falling well below internal expectations.”

    No one will doubt that cheap smart watch could dominate market share :roll eyes:
    No. That is impossible.

    Rogifan read the article that contained the rumour and participated in the thread.

    https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/211809/jony-ives-departure-follows-years-of-dissatisfaction-and-absenteeism/p1

    From the article:

    "Reportedly, thousands of the $10,000 gold edition of the Apple Watch remained unsold. Overall, WSJ says that Apple sold around 10 million Apple Watches in the first year -- but that this was a quarter of what they'd expected. "

    No need then, to ask about the source of the rumour. Rogifan was well aware of that.

    Also, my comment on that rumour was simply a supporting reference. Not key to the issue I was speaking on which was purely simply round faces. And 'cheap vs expensive' wasn't key either.

    As I said, I didn't mention any rumours on Apple Watch and round faces (although they exist too).


    Oh, you’re talking about one edition of watch released 4 years ago that nobody thought would sell. Gotcha. 
    But takes it into context of what you wrote

    ”The biggest problem seems to be that people haven't come round to non-round faces just yet. So much so that there were even rumours here the other day about Apple Watch sales falling well below internal expectations.”

    ..that doesn’t make any sense. You’re saying people haven’t come around to non-watch faces and then quote the rumor of the original Apple Watch sold 4 years ago as evidence

    It doesn't matter which year or model was included in the rumour. The point was that sales supposedly fell well below what Apple expected, which makes your claim of 'nobody thought [Apple Watch] would sell well' nonsensical because you are arguing against the rumour with nothing to support it (not even a rumour). Or do you categorically know that subsequent sales met or exceeded expectations? 

    The takeaway from your affirmation, though,
    is that 'nobody' obviously didn't include Apple itself!

    But isn't it time to get back to butterfly keyboards?





    Well, it does because you said people haven’t come around to it, implying present term so quoting a rumor of sale of an original Apple Watch launched 4 years ago - of an Edition that no one predict will sell no less - is very weird logic to says the least. If you don’t understand why that is weird then you have more problem than I initially think. 

    Oh and I didn’t claim “nobody thought Apple Watch would sell well”. Please quote me directly where I said that. I think you’re talking way out of your league here. In simple English you’re talking about something you simply didn’t have a clue about. Maybe that’s why your logic here is very weird to me.
    I said “nobody thought that Apple Watch Edition would sell well”. Very big difference, like an Atlantic Ocean big. 
    You are correct on one thing: I have very little interest in Apple Watch but, ....
    ...
    You should!  The damn things are like potato chips -- once you start you can't stop (except they're a lot healthier!!!).
    And it might even get your butt outside to get some exercise!

    Years ago people had no interest in "car phones" and only bought and used them for emergencies.   Then they saw what they enabled...

    My latest little joy is opening my garage door from my watch.  (It doesn't have a keypad outside and so it saves me carrying keys or going around inside.)   Another is setting a timer while I'm cooking or need a reminder.

    It's the myriad little things that add up...
    Agreed. I like the advantages but I stopped wearing watches 30 years ago, so breaking the habit of not wearing anything is going to be very hard.

    For fitness, I can make do with a band of some sort and had one in the past.

    However, I think the big push for me could definitely be in the health area.

    If the rumoured constant glucose monitoring can be pulled off with sufficient accuracy I would get one on pre-order. That is one of the Holy Grails of non-invasive health wearables.

    I'm also interested in glasses wearables but for both watches and glasses I need things to slim down more, together with better battery technology before they all the dots can be joined in my particular case (unless they manage to crack the glucose monitoring first).
    type 2 Diabetes is 80-90% a lifestyle disease.   Losing fat (either worn or eaten) by eating healthy along with daily exercise make it unnecessary to monitor glucose because that fixes the cause rather than merely treating the symptoms.
    It can go undetected for years as many people are unaware of the symptoms but being able to check blood sugar levels non invasively would be a real breakthrough and beneficial to everyone. 

    In my particular case it would be for a case of severely unstable type 1 diabetes and especially for nocturnal hypoglycemia with insensitivity and diabetic neuropathy.

    The great thing about a watch solution is that it wouldn't be a simple measuring device but AI could be used to better analyse each wearer. 

    Matching AI with accurate, non invasive continuous glucose monitoring would be a game changer.

    I'm optimistic that we'll see it sooner rather than later


    All good points!    Please take good care -- real good care -- of that. 
    Thanks. The Type 1 case is not me personally but a family member. However, after having first hand indirect experience with the condition my awareness is high. My problem is triglycerides but more genetic than anything else. Not even the Mediterranean diet can help me with that so I have tablets. If they could detect that through a watch I'd be onboard in a flash but that seems to be science fiction. I have my annual checkup next week and that's on the list. Even so, an accurate glucometer in a watch would get a sale from me and probably two.

    It sounds almost a cliché these days but for a lot of people, good eating habits and exercise go a looong way to improving overall health.

    No wonder diets. No supplements. No miracle treatments. Just common sense and some exercise. If you can manage to get decent sleep patterns and avoid stress you have everything going for you.




    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 106 of 113
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,911member
    MplsP said:
    MplsP said:
    And "A product being thin and being defective are two different things. Same thing with key travel. Lower key travel isn’t a defect, even if some people don’t prefer it."   is just nonsense.

    Sorry, that response is nonsense. The keyboards are designed to be thin and have low key travel and work perfectly out of the box. There is nothing defective about that. They have a propensity to stop working properly when debris makes its way into the mechanism; that makes it a poor design, but not a defective one. Some people may not like the feel. That doesn't make if defective, either.
    Anything is defective if it does a bad job at doing what it was supposed to do -- even if its due to a design flaw rather than a manufacturing flaw.  In this case, the butterfly keyboard did a bad job out of the box and then later some tmes failed completely.  
    So if I like the feel of the butterfly keyboard better than the old scissors keyboard, that would make the old keyboard defective by your logic. Sorry - you appear to be completely unable to distinguish between your personal preferences, manufacturing defects and poor design. There are plenty of people (just read the comments here) that like the keyboard. 
    LOL...  You are probably the only person in the world who prefers the feel of the butterfly keyboard!  It is you projecting your personal quirks off as logic.
    I actually prefer the keyboard on my 2011 MBA (may it Rest In Peace,) I was just making an example. I’ve gotten used to the feel of the new keyboard and can type on it just fine. You do need to adjust your typing style, though. My point was there is a difference between user preference, a poor design and being defective. If The butterfly keyboard wasn’t prone to having problems, there may have been grumbling about the feel, but it would have stopped there. The issue is that the poor design means debris interferes with the function of the keyboard. That is entirely different from disliking the feel.

    I’d also disagree somewhat with Henrybay’s analysis and comparison to running. If you pound the keys, you will feel the difference, but you can alter your typing style more than you can alter your running style. Look at the evolution of typing - it started on the old manual typewriters with about an inch of key travel. Then electric typewriters came that still had close to ½” of travel. Now the average Mac keyboard has something like 1.5mm of key travel. If you put a secretary from the 50’s used to a manual typewriter on a modern keyboard, she’d bang away and say it felt horrible. Are they ‘defective?’ Clearly not - people have adjusted their typing styles. Force to depress the keys and tactile feedback also play a role, and there may be a point where lower key travel becomes too low, but I dont’ think you can categorically state that lower key travel is worse.

    For comparison, the keyboard on my iMac has a key travel of 2.5 mm. My MBA about 1.4mm and my MBP 0.5mm. The difference between the iMac and MBA is actually greater than the difference between the MBA and the MBP, but no one complained about the MBA’s keyboard - because it worked. (8 years with exactly 0 failures in my case.)

  • Reply 107 of 113
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    matrix077 said:
    avon b7 said:
    matrix077 said:
    avon b7 said:
    matrix077 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    lkrupp said:
    wozwoz said:
    This article makes no sense. If the scissor keyboard is better, then Apple would adopt it on the MacBook Pro first - not as a minor change to only the Macbook Air. The article goes on to say that the scissor keyboard is much cheaper to produce, and since the MacBook Air is the cheapest notebook that Apple makes, if Apple is in fact intending such change ... that the change is entirely about saving some production costs on a low-cost machine, leaving the more expensive Butterfly design for the Pro models. 

    I quite like the new Butterfly design - it takes a little getting used to, my error rate is a little higher until I adapt from my desktop keyboard, but after a bit, it can be very fast and nice to use.
    Tech blog forums exist in their own little universes. What is declared useless and unusable by tech blog forums is often quite popular in the real world. For example, tech blog forums declared that a round face on a smartwatch was the ONLY proper design. Android watches had round faces so they were declared superior to the Watch. Only that didn’t happen in the real world did it. The Watch now completely dominates the smartwatch market. In tech blog forums all it takes is a single criticism to declare the entire design faulty, the “pile on” and “me too” paradigm.
    Don't round faces dominate the smartwatch segment?

    I thought Apple's rectangular offering had less than a third of the market. The biggest problem seems to be that people haven't come round to non-round faces just yet. So much so that there were even rumours here the other day about Apple Watch sales falling well below internal expectations.
    What’s your source for this? 

    Certainly not Apple.

    Why on earth would I turn to Apple for the answer? 

    Of course not! 

    What is strange is that I provided a link to where the information probably came from so you know it wasn't Apple.


    Because Apple is the only one who has the answer.


    Here is the original question again:

    "Don't round faces dominate the smartwatch segment?"

    To which Rogifan asked for a source.

    I gave one.

    The off topic point basically ended there, but...

    You chime in with the source certainly wasn't Apple.

    I asked why the source would be Apple.

    You reply with 'because Apple is the only one who has the answer'.

    I'm going to leave things as they are because there is no point taking things further and It is not butterfly keyboard related.




    I think @rogifan question for source is more likely from this sentence of yours
    So much so that there were even rumours here the other day about Apple Watch sales falling well below internal expectations.”

    No one will doubt that cheap smart watch could dominate market share :roll eyes:
    No. That is impossible.

    Rogifan read the article that contained the rumour and participated in the thread.

    https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/211809/jony-ives-departure-follows-years-of-dissatisfaction-and-absenteeism/p1

    From the article:

    "Reportedly, thousands of the $10,000 gold edition of the Apple Watch remained unsold. Overall, WSJ says that Apple sold around 10 million Apple Watches in the first year -- but that this was a quarter of what they'd expected. "

    No need then, to ask about the source of the rumour. Rogifan was well aware of that.

    Also, my comment on that rumour was simply a supporting reference. Not key to the issue I was speaking on which was purely simply round faces. And 'cheap vs expensive' wasn't key either.

    As I said, I didn't mention any rumours on Apple Watch and round faces (although they exist too).


    Oh, you’re talking about one edition of watch released 4 years ago that nobody thought would sell. Gotcha. 
    But takes it into context of what you wrote

    ”The biggest problem seems to be that people haven't come round to non-round faces just yet. So much so that there were even rumours here the other day about Apple Watch sales falling well below internal expectations.”

    ..that doesn’t make any sense. You’re saying people haven’t come around to non-watch faces and then quote the rumor of the original Apple Watch sold 4 years ago as evidence

    It doesn't matter which year or model was included in the rumour. The point was that sales supposedly fell well below what Apple expected, which makes your claim of 'nobody thought [Apple Watch] would sell well' nonsensical because you are arguing against the rumour with nothing to support it (not even a rumour). Or do you categorically know that subsequent sales met or exceeded expectations? 

    The takeaway from your affirmation, though,
    is that 'nobody' obviously didn't include Apple itself!

    But isn't it time to get back to butterfly keyboards?





    Well, it does because you said people haven’t come around to it, implying present term so quoting a rumor of sale of an original Apple Watch launched 4 years ago - of an Edition that no one predict will sell no less - is very weird logic to says the least. If you don’t understand why that is weird then you have more problem than I initially think. 

    Oh and I didn’t claim “nobody thought Apple Watch would sell well”. Please quote me directly where I said that. I think you’re talking way out of your league here. In simple English you’re talking about something you simply didn’t have a clue about. Maybe that’s why your logic here is very weird to me.
    I said “nobody thought that Apple Watch Edition would sell well”. Very big difference, like an Atlantic Ocean big. 
    You are correct on one thing: I have very little interest in Apple Watch but, ....
    ...
    You should!  The damn things are like potato chips -- once you start you can't stop (except they're a lot healthier!!!).
    And it might even get your butt outside to get some exercise!

    Years ago people had no interest in "car phones" and only bought and used them for emergencies.   Then they saw what they enabled...

    My latest little joy is opening my garage door from my watch.  (It doesn't have a keypad outside and so it saves me carrying keys or going around inside.)   Another is setting a timer while I'm cooking or need a reminder.

    It's the myriad little things that add up...
    Agreed. I like the advantages but I stopped wearing watches 30 years ago, so breaking the habit of not wearing anything is going to be very hard.

    For fitness, I can make do with a band of some sort and had one in the past.

    However, I think the big push for me could definitely be in the health area.

    If the rumoured constant glucose monitoring can be pulled off with sufficient accuracy I would get one on pre-order. That is one of the Holy Grails of non-invasive health wearables.

    I'm also interested in glasses wearables but for both watches and glasses I need things to slim down more, together with better battery technology before they all the dots can be joined in my particular case (unless they manage to crack the glucose monitoring first).
    type 2 Diabetes is 80-90% a lifestyle disease.   Losing fat (either worn or eaten) by eating healthy along with daily exercise make it unnecessary to monitor glucose because that fixes the cause rather than merely treating the symptoms.
    It can go undetected for years as many people are unaware of the symptoms but being able to check blood sugar levels non invasively would be a real breakthrough and beneficial to everyone. 

    In my particular case it would be for a case of severely unstable type 1 diabetes and especially for nocturnal hypoglycemia with insensitivity and diabetic neuropathy.

    The great thing about a watch solution is that it wouldn't be a simple measuring device but AI could be used to better analyse each wearer. 

    Matching AI with accurate, non invasive continuous glucose monitoring would be a game changer.

    I'm optimistic that we'll see it sooner rather than later


    All good points!    Please take good care -- real good care -- of that. 
    Thanks. The Type 1 case is not me personally but a family member. However, after having first hand indirect experience with the condition my awareness is high. My problem is triglycerides but more genetic than anything else. Not even the Mediterranean diet can help me with that so I have tablets. If they could detect that through a watch I'd be onboard in a flash but that seems to be science fiction. I have my annual checkup next week and that's on the list. Even so, an accurate glucometer in a watch would get a sale from me and probably two.

    It sounds almost a cliché these days but for a lot of people, good eating habits and exercise go a looong way to improving overall health.

    No wonder diets. No supplements. No miracle treatments. Just common sense and some exercise. If you can manage to get decent sleep patterns and avoid stress you have everything going for you.




    Well, not EVERYTHING.   But 80% or so.   And I'll take that!
  • Reply 108 of 113
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    MplsP said:
    MplsP said:
    MplsP said:
    And "A product being thin and being defective are two different things. Same thing with key travel. Lower key travel isn’t a defect, even if some people don’t prefer it."   is just nonsense.

    Sorry, that response is nonsense. The keyboards are designed to be thin and have low key travel and work perfectly out of the box. There is nothing defective about that. They have a propensity to stop working properly when debris makes its way into the mechanism; that makes it a poor design, but not a defective one. Some people may not like the feel. That doesn't make if defective, either.
    Anything is defective if it does a bad job at doing what it was supposed to do -- even if its due to a design flaw rather than a manufacturing flaw.  In this case, the butterfly keyboard did a bad job out of the box and then later some tmes failed completely.  
    So if I like the feel of the butterfly keyboard better than the old scissors keyboard, that would make the old keyboard defective by your logic. Sorry - you appear to be completely unable to distinguish between your personal preferences, manufacturing defects and poor design. There are plenty of people (just read the comments here) that like the keyboard. 
    LOL...  You are probably the only person in the world who prefers the feel of the butterfly keyboard!  It is you projecting your personal quirks off as logic.
    I actually prefer the keyboard on my 2011 MBA (may it Rest In Peace,) I was just making an example. I’ve gotten used to the feel of the new keyboard and can type on it just fine. You do need to adjust your typing style, though. My point was there is a difference between user preference, a poor design and being defective. If The butterfly keyboard wasn’t prone to having problems, there may have been grumbling about the feel, but it would have stopped there. The issue is that the poor design means debris interferes with the function of the keyboard. That is entirely different from disliking the feel.

    I’d also disagree somewhat with Henrybay’s analysis and comparison to running. If you pound the keys, you will feel the difference, but you can alter your typing style more than you can alter your running style. Look at the evolution of typing - it started on the old manual typewriters with about an inch of key travel. Then electric typewriters came that still had close to ½” of travel. Now the average Mac keyboard has something like 1.5mm of key travel. If you put a secretary from the 50’s used to a manual typewriter on a modern keyboard, she’d bang away and say it felt horrible. Are they ‘defective?’ Clearly not - people have adjusted their typing styles. Force to depress the keys and tactile feedback also play a role, and there may be a point where lower key travel becomes too low, but I dont’ think you can categorically state that lower key travel is worse.

    For comparison, the keyboard on my iMac has a key travel of 2.5 mm. My MBA about 1.4mm and my MBP 0.5mm. The difference between the iMac and MBA is actually greater than the difference between the MBA and the MBP, but no one complained about the MBA’s keyboard - because it worked. (8 years with exactly 0 failures in my case.)

    I'm glad that you got used to it...   For myself,  don't really want to get used to it...
    I don't mind the keyboard on my 2014 MBA -- but that's as far as I want to go.   I kinda draw my line there.
    But even the MBA isn't the best.   For real typing I go to my Lenovo Thinkpad with its pre-chicklet style keyboard.   It's about perfect.   (And, part of its attraction is that it's a full function keyboard & trackpad where the keyboard has Esc, pg up, pg down, delete, backspace, etc... and the trackpad has both a touchpoint and left, center and right mouse buttons.)
    henrybay
  • Reply 109 of 113
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,771member
    MplsP said:
    MplsP said:
    MplsP said:
    And "A product being thin and being defective are two different things. Same thing with key travel. Lower key travel isn’t a defect, even if some people don’t prefer it."   is just nonsense.

    Sorry, that response is nonsense. The keyboards are designed to be thin and have low key travel and work perfectly out of the box. There is nothing defective about that. They have a propensity to stop working properly when debris makes its way into the mechanism; that makes it a poor design, but not a defective one. Some people may not like the feel. That doesn't make if defective, either.
    Anything is defective if it does a bad job at doing what it was supposed to do -- even if its due to a design flaw rather than a manufacturing flaw.  In this case, the butterfly keyboard did a bad job out of the box and then later some tmes failed completely.  
    So if I like the feel of the butterfly keyboard better than the old scissors keyboard, that would make the old keyboard defective by your logic. Sorry - you appear to be completely unable to distinguish between your personal preferences, manufacturing defects and poor design. There are plenty of people (just read the comments here) that like the keyboard. 
    LOL...  You are probably the only person in the world who prefers the feel of the butterfly keyboard!  It is you projecting your personal quirks off as logic.
    I actually prefer the keyboard on my 2011 MBA (may it Rest In Peace,) I was just making an example. I’ve gotten used to the feel of the new keyboard and can type on it just fine. You do need to adjust your typing style, though. My point was there is a difference between user preference, a poor design and being defective. If The butterfly keyboard wasn’t prone to having problems, there may have been grumbling about the feel, but it would have stopped there. The issue is that the poor design means debris interferes with the function of the keyboard. That is entirely different from disliking the feel.

    I’d also disagree somewhat with Henrybay’s analysis and comparison to running. If you pound the keys, you will feel the difference, but you can alter your typing style more than you can alter your running style. Look at the evolution of typing - it started on the old manual typewriters with about an inch of key travel. Then electric typewriters came that still had close to ½” of travel. Now the average Mac keyboard has something like 1.5mm of key travel. If you put a secretary from the 50’s used to a manual typewriter on a modern keyboard, she’d bang away and say it felt horrible. Are they ‘defective?’ Clearly not - people have adjusted their typing styles. Force to depress the keys and tactile feedback also play a role, and there may be a point where lower key travel becomes too low, but I dont’ think you can categorically state that lower key travel is worse.

    For comparison, the keyboard on my iMac has a key travel of 2.5 mm. My MBA about 1.4mm and my MBP 0.5mm. The difference between the iMac and MBA is actually greater than the difference between the MBA and the MBP, but no one complained about the MBA’s keyboard - because it worked. (8 years with exactly 0 failures in my case.)

    I'm glad that you got used to it...   For myself,  don't really want to get used to it...
    I don't mind the keyboard on my 2014 MBA -- but that's as far as I want to go.   I kinda draw my line there.
    But even the MBA isn't the best.   For real typing I go to my Lenovo Thinkpad with its pre-chicklet style keyboard.   It's about perfect.   (And, part of its attraction is that it's a full function keyboard & trackpad where the keyboard has Esc, pg up, pg down, delete, backspace, etc... and the trackpad has both a touchpoint and left, center and right mouse buttons.)
    The software I use to make money requires a full keyboard to work productively. I used to carry a wired keyboard, but now that Apple FINALLY offers a wireless keyboard with number pad again, I carry that instead.

    I was surprised to discover the keys are not the same as the wired keyboard it so closely resembles. They feel more like the butterfly keys on the MacBook Pro than the wired keyboard — short travel with less positive haptic feedback.

    It seems a keyboard that appeals to those who prefer a more traditional feel is not something Apple wants to offer, even in the form of an add-on accessory.
  • Reply 110 of 113
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    MplsP said:
    MplsP said:
    MplsP said:
    And "A product being thin and being defective are two different things. Same thing with key travel. Lower key travel isn’t a defect, even if some people don’t prefer it."   is just nonsense.

    Sorry, that response is nonsense. The keyboards are designed to be thin and have low key travel and work perfectly out of the box. There is nothing defective about that. They have a propensity to stop working properly when debris makes its way into the mechanism; that makes it a poor design, but not a defective one. Some people may not like the feel. That doesn't make if defective, either.
    Anything is defective if it does a bad job at doing what it was supposed to do -- even if its due to a design flaw rather than a manufacturing flaw.  In this case, the butterfly keyboard did a bad job out of the box and then later some tmes failed completely.  
    So if I like the feel of the butterfly keyboard better than the old scissors keyboard, that would make the old keyboard defective by your logic. Sorry - you appear to be completely unable to distinguish between your personal preferences, manufacturing defects and poor design. There are plenty of people (just read the comments here) that like the keyboard. 
    LOL...  You are probably the only person in the world who prefers the feel of the butterfly keyboard!  It is you projecting your personal quirks off as logic.
    I actually prefer the keyboard on my 2011 MBA (may it Rest In Peace,) I was just making an example. I’ve gotten used to the feel of the new keyboard and can type on it just fine. You do need to adjust your typing style, though. My point was there is a difference between user preference, a poor design and being defective. If The butterfly keyboard wasn’t prone to having problems, there may have been grumbling about the feel, but it would have stopped there. The issue is that the poor design means debris interferes with the function of the keyboard. That is entirely different from disliking the feel.

    I’d also disagree somewhat with Henrybay’s analysis and comparison to running. If you pound the keys, you will feel the difference, but you can alter your typing style more than you can alter your running style. Look at the evolution of typing - it started on the old manual typewriters with about an inch of key travel. Then electric typewriters came that still had close to ½” of travel. Now the average Mac keyboard has something like 1.5mm of key travel. If you put a secretary from the 50’s used to a manual typewriter on a modern keyboard, she’d bang away and say it felt horrible. Are they ‘defective?’ Clearly not - people have adjusted their typing styles. Force to depress the keys and tactile feedback also play a role, and there may be a point where lower key travel becomes too low, but I dont’ think you can categorically state that lower key travel is worse.

    For comparison, the keyboard on my iMac has a key travel of 2.5 mm. My MBA about 1.4mm and my MBP 0.5mm. The difference between the iMac and MBA is actually greater than the difference between the MBA and the MBP, but no one complained about the MBA’s keyboard - because it worked. (8 years with exactly 0 failures in my case.)

    I'm glad that you got used to it...   For myself,  don't really want to get used to it...
    I don't mind the keyboard on my 2014 MBA -- but that's as far as I want to go.   I kinda draw my line there.
    But even the MBA isn't the best.   For real typing I go to my Lenovo Thinkpad with its pre-chicklet style keyboard.   It's about perfect.   (And, part of its attraction is that it's a full function keyboard & trackpad where the keyboard has Esc, pg up, pg down, delete, backspace, etc... and the trackpad has both a touchpoint and left, center and right mouse buttons.)
    The software I use to make money requires a full keyboard to work productively. I used to carry a wired keyboard, but now that Apple FINALLY offers a wireless keyboard with number pad again, I carry that instead.

    I was surprised to discover the keys are not the same as the wired keyboard it so closely resembles. They feel more like the butterfly keys on the MacBook Pro than the wired keyboard — short travel with less positive haptic feedback.

    It seems a keyboard that appeals to those who prefer a more traditional feel is not something Apple wants to offer, even in the form of an add-on accessory.
    That is perplexing and troublesome.   While some can be happy with a short travel keyboard, all would be happy with one with more traditional feel.  So, why would Apple resist offering such a product?   I can come up with only two possibilities, and both are troublesome:   Either they are out of touch, or hubris tells them that users will have to learn to deal with whatever they choose to offer.

    I do though see a reset coming with a renewed emphasis on functionality and practicality.  I am hopeful.
    henrybay
  • Reply 111 of 113
    sreesree Posts: 152member
    Can't happen too soon.

    Butterfly is a disaster that should never have passed testing phases.
    jgojcajhenrybay
  • Reply 112 of 113
    jgojcajjgojcaj Posts: 48member
    THIS MADE MY DAY!
    I will be THE FIRST in line to get a new Gold MB Air as soon as this is announced and ready to buy!
    henrybay
  • Reply 113 of 113
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,278member
    razorpit said:
    DuhSesame said:
    majorsl said:
    Hopefully they also put back in MagSafe and an escape key 
    Agreed, I miss the MagSafe but am now liking the additional(?) TB3/USB-C port.  I think Apple did the right thing by going to that standard.  There are USB-C "MagSafe" adapters that have pretty good reviews.  I waffle between buying one and then deciding I don't need it.  If Apple did something like a recessed USB-C/MageSafe adapter so it would be flush, that would be interesting, but I doubt that'll happen.

    https://snapnator.com/products/snapcable-magnetic-charging-cable-for-apple-macbook-ipad-pro-google-pixelbook-and-huawei-matebook

    What’s the problem for that?  It’s small, reversible and don’t take the bandwidth.  MagSafe is proprietary, clunky in comparison, and isn’t that reliable too.
    Am I missing something? This may be the best alternative to the current situation but come on. You’re saying MagSafe was proprietary, clunky, and isn’t reliable, yet you suggest a clunky replacement with a proprietary cable that no one will have in stock if something should happen to it, and is utterly useless if the adapter breaks or falls out? Worse yet it could possibly damage your laptop if it takes an awkward bounce or hit when it’s in your bag. Not to mention there is practically no record of reliability. The lack of logic is outstanding in this suggestion. Do you have an affiliation with SnapCable? 

    Here’s a simple solution. Remove one USB-C and replace it with a MagSafe port. How hard is that? Best of both worlds.
    "This may be the best alternative to the current situation."

    Yes.

    "You’re saying MagSafe was proprietary, clunky, and isn’t reliable."

    Yes.

    Clunky?  Is it any clunkier than the Magsafe?  Will you need to replace the entire adapter when your cable breaks?  How in the world that a cable would break your laptop in your bag?  Do you charge the thing inside a bag?  You know that Magsafe was nothing other than 5 pins and a magnet, right?  Or you believed it has some kind of magic? 

    "Remove one USB-C and replace it with a MagSafe port. How hard is that?"

    Tell me one thing that the Magsafe can do while this Type-C cable can't, other than the bad faith some of you "professional" have, now think what this cable can do that a MagSafe can't.  Going full proprietary charging solution against the open standard sure sounds like consumerism to you.

    Sure, wasting that board space for something can be 100% replaced, you have no logic to even begin with.

    Oh, just add to the insult, no MagSafe charger can deliver 100W while the Type-C can!  Good luck with 85W then.
    edited August 2019
Sign In or Register to comment.