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.
Did I claim you said Apple stole it? I thought we were having a discussion. I made no accusation against you. Not one. In fact, it turns out that Apple is not even using the name Magic Tool Bar. As announced today, it's just "Touch Bar."
You seem to be the one who is assuming things here, not me.
What Clarke said wasn't a "LAW" in the same sense as something like Ohm's law, or the laws of thermodynamics. If anything, it would be closer to Murphy's pseudo-law. It was a clever, amusing remark to be sure, but to claim, as you did, that Clarke believed that magic existed is pure baloney. To believe that magic exists is in the same realm as believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Again, I don't mean stage magic, or use of the word "magic" in advertising.
Arthur C. Clarke wrote the three adages as "LAWS" and they have been referred to as Laws ever since he penned them. You want to argue that point, go ahead. I know what he was referring to, even if you don't seem to know. The wording is quite explicit. It assumes the existence of a functional thing called "Magic" that technology could aspire to be the equivalent. It was a known comparative. Whether such a thing is real or not is irrelevant except in your mind. Whether Clarke believed in it or not is also irrelevant. You don't know what Clarke believe and neither do I. The man is dead.
Again had he meant what you said, he would have said it. He did not.
I don't see where I attacked you. . . You don't like the word "magic." Fine. I disagree with your interpretation of Arthur C. Clarke's laws, something that in Science Fiction is well established as Laws. Do you even know what all three are? If not, here they are:
"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.
It seemed to be implicit in your posts criticizing the entire concept of the nature of the Touch Bar and the "Magic Keyboard" as I described it and questioning how that technology would seem to be "magic". . . conjuring up primitive versions from the past as if they were somehow equivalent. That implies that there was not a huge advantage in the new versions. I don't see a lie. Again, we were discussing the improvements. I was challenging you to produce the products of the past. You did step up there with the 1977 document on cockpit keyboards and that is a legitimate example. Thank you.