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.
I always believed that he was alluding to the tendency of primitive cultures to assign magical, or even god-like explanations for technologies or events outside their realm of understanding. That is certainly a topic that a science fiction writer would address.
After all, (Apple) already has a Magic Keyboard, Magic Trackpad, and Magic Mouse.
As quoted above from the article you posted, there is the statement that Apple had a "Magic Keyboard". Then you stated that Apple had patented a fully programmable keyboard that you assumed would be the "Magic Keyboard", something that you admit doesn't even exist beyond the prototype stage. Sorry for my confusion over this point.
I disagree that such a keyboard was ever made a half-century ago.
I never said there was a keyboard of that type (you ASSUMED I meant a QWERTY device) at that time. I was talking about the CONCEPT of an entry device the appearance and function of which could be modified under software control. I am not aware of any QWERTY keyboard of that type, but arrays of entry devices (generally referred to as "multifunction switches") that consist of a number of tiny incandescent (T1 size) lamps projecting through pieces of film onto frosted glass screens which also serve as the operating surfaces (the buttons themselves), were widely used in military applications in the 60s and 70s. The software controlled which bulbs were illuminated and hence which legends were displayed to the operator.
I would refer you to this 1977 document which addresses this topic. Yes, that technology was primitive, expensive, and clumsy, but it existed and it worked. And knowing how slowly military technology evolves, I wouldn't doubt that it is still in use.
You were the one arguing that such a keyboard would not be such a huge advantage.
That is a FLAT OUT LIE no matter how you sugar coat it.
And finally, I didn't claim that Apple stole the "Magic Keyboard" name from another company that used it years ago, in this case referring to push-button tuning of a radio. I understand that copyrights expire if not periodically renewed and I checked the USPTO database. I was surprised to learn that Stewart-Warner never copyrighted that name anyway, and Apple is now the legitimate owner. I thought it was interesting that the same name resurfaced after 80 years, but you assumed that it was an attack, as is your wont.