Clarke’s point is that there is no such thing as “magic”, unless by that term one is referring to show business stage trickery, or advertising hype.
Personally, I dislike that term, but it works well to impress the ignorant.
And as for Apple’s so-called Magic Keyboard, the concept of entry devices modifiable under software control for function and appearance is a decades-old concept, though obviously it’s much more practical, effective, and cheaper to implement with current technology using electronics rather than optics (as was done half a century ago).
But I’m glad they are doing it, and you are dishonest in accusing me of not seeing the advantages of that approach.
Now if Apple would design and program their Magic Keyboard to be comfortable in an ergonomic sense for someone like myself who tends to type a lot, then they will really get my attention.
No, Fresh Wind, you misconstrue Clarke's point. Clarke's LAW is that any technology when it becomes advanced enough appears so smooth and seamless that to the layman using that technology, it appears to all extents and purposes that it IS magical and that it will seem to work without the trappings of technology. THAT is what Clarke meant, not that magic did not exist. He could have easily said that in his Three Laws, i.e. "Magic is just technology we do not yet understand." He did not couch his third law in that fashion. His Third Law assumes that magic exists.
And as for Apple’s so-called Magic Keyboard, the concept of entry devices modifiable under software control for function and appearance is a decades-old concept, though obviously it’s much more practical, effective, and cheaper to implement with current technology using electronics rather than optics (as was done half a century ago).
Please demonstrate for us any such existing keyboard that actually works. Even Apple has not yet released such a keyboard. I've seen prototypes that were not ready for prime time because they just did not work. The closest that works is the iPhone's virtual multitouch keyboard/screens which revolutionized the mobile phone input systems. . . But still do not approach the fully realized concept possibilities.
I disagree that such a keyboard was ever made a half-century ago.
You were the one arguing that such a keyboard would not be such a huge advantage. I debated your point, perhaps a bit too strongly, in rebutting your claims. There is no dishonesty in rebuttal.
I, too, would wish that Apple would take on ergonomic keyboards. I think they could do it right where others have not, if they would put their research department on it.