Replies

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 won't.

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:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

"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.

So, what was “implicit” in my statements is fair game for criticism, but what was “implicit” in your statements isn’t.

I understand now.

I never said one word about the Touch Bar, formerly the Magic Tool Bar.

I never said one word about whether I thought the “Magic Keyboard” concept was good, bad, or indifferent, only that the word “magic” isn’t a particularly appropriate description for anything that has been (or will be) created by the efforts of man, no matter how good it might be.

Obviously, some marketing people would disagree.

But actually I think it’s a great idea, it’s just not one that is totally new. For example, one physical keyboard could serve the entire world market, regardless of language. Anyone who has to operate in multiple languages would love it.

Perhaps you should ask 100 people on the street who carry iPhones whether they think that the phone or any aspect of the phone’s operation is “magic”. I’m betting that not one will say that it is.