Ummm, I have great respect for most Apple products and business practices, but the Butterfly Keyboard was an unmitigated disaster in design and durability. I understand they have to deny culpability, but they should send this bill to Jony Ive. Maybe this (along with the Apple Watch tree removal fiasco) were the real reasons they pushed him out, and cut ties to his new venture.
To be clear, there is no wrongdoing here. Wrongdoing in the legal sense means with nefarious intent. Clearly Apple did not intend to make everyone's life miserable with this terrible keyboard design.
And I suppose settling will have allowed them to avoid having to provide internal data on exactly how many machines were repaired due to keyboard issues.
The number $35 million ($50 million minus $15 million in legal fees) gives you a very rough idea of the total number of repairs in the five year period for those states. It has to be less than 700,000 (if all repairs were $50 variety) and more than 88,000 (if all repairs were $395 variety) since it's going to be a mix of $50, $125, and $395 payouts. Or from an annual perspective: less than 20,000 repairs on average per state and more than 2,500 repairs on average per state.
Surely your calculations are based on the claimant number or something similar?
That would not seem to have any correlation with actual repairs carried out, as I'm assuming only a fraction of those people affected even bothered to mske a claim and even then, those numbers would be limited to the US market.
Since the second thing I do when I buy a new Macbook of any kind is to buy a keyboard cover, I've never encountered this problem. I also don't eat or drink in their proximity. And when I sell or trade them in, the pristine case and keyboard underneath gives me a bit extra leverage on price, Try it, they're cheap, and taking care of your electronics properly costs nothing.
From other hand sex without condom brings more pleasure…
For such a legend, the man gets some major misdirected hate around here.
It is unfortunate that Apple thought Ive's services were not worth paying for. Hopefully the Samsung's, Microsoft's, Google's, etc. don't benefit too much now that Ive has been released from his agreement to withhold working with direct competition.
Menwhile, I wonder if the actual inventors of the butterfly keyboard are still at Apple...
Wouldn’t have gone into production without his OK. Would not have happened at all without his push for thinner at all costs.
Pushing the envelope is what Jony and Apple are famous for.
Making things thin isn’t a bad thing. And the industry has followed Ive’s lead there.
The keyboard was a fantastic idea that simply wasn’t sorted out properly by the hardware team and shouldn’t have been signed off on by The hardware lead at the time.
It was a rare failure for Apple, which has a history of pursuing the impossible - and usually grasping it.
But this wasn’t Jony’s failure, no matter how hard you push that narrative.
Since the second thing I do when I buy a new Macbook of any kind is to buy a keyboard cover, I've never encountered this problem. I also don't eat or drink in their proximity. And when I sell or trade them in, the pristine case and keyboard underneath gives me a bit extra leverage on price, Try it, they're cheap, and taking care of your electronics properly costs nothing.
I bought a silicone cover for my keyboard. The feel was awful, it was horrible to type on, it left grease smudges on the screen and it still didn't prevent stuff from getting into the keyboard. If you have to purchase a protector for the keyboard because it won't stand up to routine use then it's a design fail.
Ummm, I have great respect for most Apple products and business practices, but the Butterfly Keyboard was an unmitigated disaster in design and durability. I understand they have to deny culpability, but they should send this bill to Jony Ive. Maybe this (along with the Apple Watch tree removal fiasco) were the real reasons they pushed him out, and cut ties to his new venture.
To be clear, there is no wrongdoing here. Wrongdoing in the legal sense means with nefarious intent. Clearly Apple did not intend to make everyone's life miserable with this terrible keyboard design.
And I suppose settling will have allowed them to avoid having to provide internal data on exactly how many machines were repaired due to keyboard issues.
The number $35 million ($50 million minus $15 million in legal fees) gives you a very rough idea of the total number of repairs in the five year period for those states. It has to be less than 700,000 (if all repairs were $50 variety) and more than 88,000 (if all repairs were $395 variety) since it's going to be a mix of $50, $125, and $395 payouts. Or from an annual perspective: less than 20,000 repairs on average per state and more than 2,500 repairs on average per state.
FTA, the settlement only covered California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Washington. We have no idea about relative sales numbers but if you use your approach it's safe to say a large number of devices were affected.
Wouldn’t have gone into production without his OK. Would not have happened at all without his push for thinner at all costs.
Pushing the envelope is what Jony and Apple are famous for.
Making things thin isn’t a bad thing. And the industry has followed Ive’s lead there.
The keyboard was a fantastic idea that simply wasn’t sorted out properly by the hardware team and shouldn’t have been signed off on by The hardware lead at the time.
It was a rare failure for Apple, which has a history of pursuing the impossible - and usually grasping it.
But this wasn’t Jony’s failure, no matter how hard you push that narrative.
“Cool story bruh”
I'm not sure how you call the butterfly keyboard a 'fantastic idea.' Making things thin is fine, as long as they work and any idea that fails is not fantastic. We'll never know for sure how much of this was Jonny but ultimately it was Apple's failure.
?? Typo? (I googled "Apple Watch" "tree removal" and the only relevant result was this post!)
I, too, have no idea what this means. The only thing I can think of was when they removed the glued shut service port that people had started to build business models around using for plug-in watch bands etc despite no indication ever from Apple that the port was even meant to be there. I just don't know what had to be typed in to auto-correct to "tree".
As for the Butterfly Keyboard, my 2016 MBP is still working fine. I never understood the hatred, or experienced the problems. I don't deny others did have problems, or didn't like it, just that I never had any problems.
Since the second thing I do when I buy a new Macbook of any kind is to buy a keyboard cover, I've never encountered this problem. I also don't eat or drink in their proximity. And when I sell or trade them in, the pristine case and keyboard underneath gives me a bit extra leverage on price, Try it, they're cheap, and taking care of your electronics properly costs nothing.
I bought a silicone cover for my keyboard. The feel was awful, it was horrible to type on, it left grease smudges on the screen and it still didn't prevent stuff from getting into the keyboard. If you have to purchase a protector for the keyboard because it won't stand up to routine use then it's a design fail.
Ummm, I have great respect for most Apple products and business practices, but the Butterfly Keyboard was an unmitigated disaster in design and durability. I understand they have to deny culpability, but they should send this bill to Jony Ive. Maybe this (along with the Apple Watch tree removal fiasco) were the real reasons they pushed him out, and cut ties to his new venture.
To be clear, there is no wrongdoing here. Wrongdoing in the legal sense means with nefarious intent. Clearly Apple did not intend to make everyone's life miserable with this terrible keyboard design.
And I suppose settling will have allowed them to avoid having to provide internal data on exactly how many machines were repaired due to keyboard issues.
The number $35 million ($50 million minus $15 million in legal fees) gives you a very rough idea of the total number of repairs in the five year period for those states. It has to be less than 700,000 (if all repairs were $50 variety) and more than 88,000 (if all repairs were $395 variety) since it's going to be a mix of $50, $125, and $395 payouts. Or from an annual perspective: less than 20,000 repairs on average per state and more than 2,500 repairs on average per state.
FTA, the settlement only covered California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Washington. We have no idea about relative sales numbers but if you use your approach it's safe to say a large number of devices were affected.
Wouldn’t have gone into production without his OK. Would not have happened at all without his push for thinner at all costs.
Pushing the envelope is what Jony and Apple are famous for.
Making things thin isn’t a bad thing. And the industry has followed Ive’s lead there.
The keyboard was a fantastic idea that simply wasn’t sorted out properly by the hardware team and shouldn’t have been signed off on by The hardware lead at the time.
It was a rare failure for Apple, which has a history of pursuing the impossible - and usually grasping it.
But this wasn’t Jony’s failure, no matter how hard you push that narrative.
“Cool story bruh”
I'm not sure how you call the butterfly keyboard a 'fantastic idea.' Making things thin is fine, as long as they work and any idea that fails is not fantastic. We'll never know for sure how much of this was Jonny but ultimately it was Apple's failure.
probably because the idea of a more stable keyboard with more uniform key presses and shorter travel is … a good idea.
Was it executed well? We all know the answer to that. But the idea - the concept - was fantastic
Idea is different from execution
Lots of great ideas that don’t pan out. Doesn’t detract that it was worth a shot. The hardware team has learned from it and will be more careful the next time an opportunity to invent comes around
I still remember the ridiculing I got in here at AI because I dared to mention this problem 4 years ago. Back then, I was just a whining troll …obviously 🙄
?? Typo? (I googled "Apple Watch" "tree removal" and the only relevant result was this post!)
I, too, have no idea what this means. The only thing I can think of was when they removed the glued shut service port that people had started to build business models around using for plug-in watch bands etc despite no indication ever from Apple that the port was even meant to be there. I just don't know what had to be typed in to auto-correct to "tree".
?? Typo? (I googled "Apple Watch" "tree removal" and the only relevant result was this post!)
I, too, have no idea what this means. The only thing I can think of was when they removed the glued shut service port that people had started to build business models around using for plug-in watch bands etc despite no indication ever from Apple that the port was even meant to be there. I just don't know what had to be typed in to auto-correct to "tree".
Thanks. That seems reasonable.
Apple Watch three removal fiasco, perhaps? As in, it's a fiasco that they haven't removed it and are still selling it? Weird that they'd spell out three, instead of 3, but it's the only thing remotely approaching a "fiasco" I can think of.
?? Typo? (I googled "Apple Watch" "tree removal" and the only relevant result was this post!)
I, too, have no idea what this means. The only thing I can think of was when they removed the glued shut service port that people had started to build business models around using for plug-in watch bands etc despite no indication ever from Apple that the port was even meant to be there. I just don't know what had to be typed in to auto-correct to "tree".
Thanks. That seems reasonable.
Apple Watch three removal fiasco, perhaps? As in, it's a fiasco that they haven't removed it and are still selling it? Weird that they'd spell out three, instead of 3, but it's the only thing remotely approaching a "fiasco" I can think of.
Yes, another reasonable guess, thanks. I wonder if it was just a drive-by comment or if AniMill will come back to clarify.
I think the keyboard was the engineering answer to the pursuit of thinness under Ive. Scissor mechanisms at the time couldn't be made thin enough, and so the butterfly keyboard was invented. I don't believe there was nefarious intent by Apple... I don't think they knew in advance that it was problematic and released it anyway. But once widespread problems surfaced, the response was typically Apple, which was to wait far too long to do the right thing and offer free keyboard replacements. (Which, of course, didn't really "fix" the issue, since the replacement was another butterfly mechanism.)
Pretty small payout relative to the hysteria in the tech press about this issue.
The ONLY people who make out in a class action lawsuit are the law firms / lawyers.
I had a MacBook Pro w/the butterfly keyboard, It was fine. Just different.
True. I have a 2016 MBP. While I was never a fan of the shallow key travel, I never had any reliability problems with it. I should note that this machine was used by the entire family, including teenagers who don't exactly take care of the products they use. I suspect the hysteria over such issues were massively overblown, but all the same, I'm glad Apple moved on to a keyboard with greater travel for the keys.
Since the second thing I do when I buy a new Macbook of any kind is to buy a keyboard cover, I've never encountered this problem. I also don't eat or drink in their proximity. And when I sell or trade them in, the pristine case and keyboard underneath gives me a bit extra leverage on price, Try it, they're cheap, and taking care of your electronics properly costs nothing.
I bought a silicone cover for my keyboard. The feel was awful, it was horrible to type on, it left grease smudges on the screen and it still didn't prevent stuff from getting into the keyboard. If you have to purchase a protector for the keyboard because it won't stand up to routine use then it's a design fail.
Ummm, I have great respect for most Apple products and business practices, but the Butterfly Keyboard was an unmitigated disaster in design and durability. I understand they have to deny culpability, but they should send this bill to Jony Ive. Maybe this (along with the Apple Watch tree removal fiasco) were the real reasons they pushed him out, and cut ties to his new venture.
To be clear, there is no wrongdoing here. Wrongdoing in the legal sense means with nefarious intent. Clearly Apple did not intend to make everyone's life miserable with this terrible keyboard design.
And I suppose settling will have allowed them to avoid having to provide internal data on exactly how many machines were repaired due to keyboard issues.
The number $35 million ($50 million minus $15 million in legal fees) gives you a very rough idea of the total number of repairs in the five year period for those states. It has to be less than 700,000 (if all repairs were $50 variety) and more than 88,000 (if all repairs were $395 variety) since it's going to be a mix of $50, $125, and $395 payouts. Or from an annual perspective: less than 20,000 repairs on average per state and more than 2,500 repairs on average per state.
FTA, the settlement only covered California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Washington. We have no idea about relative sales numbers but if you use your approach it's safe to say a large number of devices were affected.
Wouldn’t have gone into production without his OK. Would not have happened at all without his push for thinner at all costs.
Pushing the envelope is what Jony and Apple are famous for.
Making things thin isn’t a bad thing. And the industry has followed Ive’s lead there.
The keyboard was a fantastic idea that simply wasn’t sorted out properly by the hardware team and shouldn’t have been signed off on by The hardware lead at the time.
It was a rare failure for Apple, which has a history of pursuing the impossible - and usually grasping it.
But this wasn’t Jony’s failure, no matter how hard you push that narrative.
“Cool story bruh”
I'm not sure how you call the butterfly keyboard a 'fantastic idea.' Making things thin is fine, as long as they work and any idea that fails is not fantastic. We'll never know for sure how much of this was Jonny but ultimately it was Apple's failure.
probably because the idea of a more stable keyboard with more uniform key presses and shorter travel is … a good idea.
Was it executed well? We all know the answer to that. But the idea - the concept - was fantastic
Idea is different from execution
Lots of great ideas that don’t pan out. Doesn’t detract that it was worth a shot. The hardware team has learned from it and will be more careful the next time an opportunity to invent comes around
A ‘good’ keyboard is a good idea. The definition of a good keyboard is up for debate. I would dispute that shorter travel is always a good thing. Take it to the extreme - when I was a kid a friend had an Atari 400 computer that had a membrane keyboard. It had no travel so that must be better, right? Or how about the iPad screen keyboard? Solid, stable, very short travel. It’s perfect!
These sort of “in-service failures” are not actually unusual. All product designs, hardware, software, and system, are vulnerable to failures that are not uncovered during prerelease testing. Even accelerated lifetime testing that tries to simulate how a product will react to wear-out and environmentally induced types of failures isn’t perfect regardless of how close the testing comes to what the product maker believes are conditions the product will encounter while in service. In fact, most products are designed and modified iteratively only after having gained insight from in-service use in their operational environment with real end-users rather than the proxies used during in-house testing.
The real issue isn’t whether the product experienced unforeseen failures in the field, it’s really all about how the product owner reacted to those failures. It is unfair and unrealistic to expect that any new product is perfect at release. It’s also unfair and shortsighted to react to a product failure as a moral failure on the part of its designer. Neither of those reactions should be the first public reaction to a product failure, but too often and especially with Apple, that is the unfortunate case. On the other hand, if the product owner tries to deflect responsibility or not take ownership of the failure, yeah, that’s when any notion of tolerance for imperfection and recognition that all designs are iterative fly out the window.
The history of the butterfly keyboard failure, which based on failure rates was not universal, seems to indicate that the needle for seeing it as a moral failure versus an unexpected product deficiency discovered after the fact based on in-service use vacillated quite a bit. Apple didn’t always help its own case on the matter. At some level they owned it and tried to iterate on the design to mitigate the issue but they should have reacted sooner. I have not doubt that they could have completely resolved the issue with additional redesign but ultimately decided to punt on the matter and fall back to the previous design.
The thing that makes these issues so difficult in all cases is having people and their emotions tied up in the whole process. From a product perspective most everything can be fixed, e.g., the original M16 rifle design versus the later iterations, but getting through the messiness of the people process makes it all the more painful. Apple may not be guilty of intentionally designing a sub-par product, but they are guilty of not handing the reaction to the in-service failures very well. That’s what they are paying for in this settlement.
Comments
That would not seem to have any correlation with actual repairs carried out, as I'm assuming only a fraction of those people affected even bothered to mske a claim and even then, those numbers would be limited to the US market.
For such a legend, the man gets some major misdirected hate around here.
It is unfortunate that Apple thought Ive's services were not worth paying for. Hopefully the Samsung's, Microsoft's, Google's, etc. don't benefit too much now that Ive has been released from his agreement to withhold working with direct competition.
Menwhile, I wonder if the actual inventors of the butterfly keyboard are still at Apple...
FTA, the settlement only covered California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Washington. We have no idea about relative sales numbers but if you use your approach it's safe to say a large number of devices were affected.
I'm not sure how you call the butterfly keyboard a 'fantastic idea.' Making things thin is fine, as long as they work and any idea that fails is not fantastic. We'll never know for sure how much of this was Jonny but ultimately it was Apple's failure.
As for the Butterfly Keyboard, my 2016 MBP is still working fine. I never understood the hatred, or experienced the problems. I don't deny others did have problems, or didn't like it, just that I never had any problems.
probably because the idea of a more stable keyboard with more uniform key presses and shorter travel is … a good idea.
Was it executed well? We all know the answer to that. But the idea - the concept - was fantastic
Idea is different from execution
Lots of great ideas that don’t pan out. Doesn’t detract that it was worth a shot. The hardware team has learned from it and will be more careful the next time an opportunity to invent comes around
As an aside, why does this website not return you to the correct place if you have to re-sign in as seems to happen a lot these days?
The history of the butterfly keyboard failure, which based on failure rates was not universal, seems to indicate that the needle for seeing it as a moral failure versus an unexpected product deficiency discovered after the fact based on in-service use vacillated quite a bit. Apple didn’t always help its own case on the matter. At some level they owned it and tried to iterate on the design to mitigate the issue but they should have reacted sooner. I have not doubt that they could have completely resolved the issue with additional redesign but ultimately decided to punt on the matter and fall back to the previous design.