I’m not “Anti-Apple”

Tech Life

I’ve certainly been critical of recent Apple products and services. Certain design choices in OS X Yosemite left me quite underwhelmed, and the numerous, undeniable issues it brought left me so worried from the start that I still haven’t dared upgrade my Mac from Mavericks. As I probably said too many times already, my general impressions regarding Yosemite can be summed up by saying that it’s the first version in OS X’s history that doesn’t really feel like an upgrade, but something where what you lose appears to be more than what you gain.

Then there’s the new 12-inch retina MacBook, about which my only true complaint has been its keyboard — though it has been enough of a let-down to make me reconsider the new MacBook as my next Mac. I’m a writer, and after an intensive test of the machine, I’ve concluded that it’s not a laptop for writers. And finally there’s Apple Music, Apple’s new music streaming service: my first reaction after trying it briefly has been “What’s so special about it? What’s so compelling about it to make me drop Spotify, whose great service I’ve been enjoying for five years now?” (I’m not leaving Spotify, by the way, in case you missed my previous article). Not to mention the impact and side-effects it has had on iTunes and users’ music libraries, troubling enough I still haven’t updated to iTunes 12.2. (Check Kirk McElhearn’s blog to read more about the various iTunes issues that have arisen since Apple Music’s launch).

Last week I received a few brief emails from people who probably started reading my blog or checking my tweets only recently. Their feedback was along the lines of Man, what did Apple do to you to be so “Anti-Apple”? This past weekend I got a similar message from a long-time reader, who told me (I’m paraphrasing a bit): You used to be more positive and supportive of Apple and its products — what happened to you? with a smiley at the end.

I don’t receive much feedback, and the little I get usually triggers private responses and correspondence. But in this case I felt it warranted a public response, because it’s worth adding this to the debate. 

What happened to you? — this faithful reader asked me. Nothing happened to me. I’m not ‘Anti-Apple’ — in fact, if I didn’t care about Apple, I wouldn’t take the time to criticise their latest products (hardware & software) and services. I’ve been using Apple systems since 1989. I’ve spent a few years being (informally) an Apple evangelist and I have really lost count of the number of people I got to switch to the Apple ecosystem. I still use a lot of vintage Macs and devices, and I’m not leaving this ecosystem anytime soon because I honestly think it’s the best system.

The question is not what happened to me, but what happened to Apple.

Regarding the perceived decline in Apple’s software quality, back in January I wrote:

But looking at things from a more emotional, more personal standpoint, something has indeed changed. Above I said that, in the past, us long-time Mac users were more willing to put up with flaws in the Mac operating system and first-party applications because the total amount of such occasional annoyances wasn’t enough to affect the general level of satisfaction of working with Mac OS. I suspect that this perceived decline in the quality of Apple’s software products (OS X included) is more related to the nature of the flaws/bugs/annoyances, than the sheer number of those. In other words, it’s not that Apple’s software is quantitatively more buggy today than, say, in the Mac OS 8–9 era, but the issues are (or feel) more critical, and that in turn affects the general level of satisfaction of working with the Mac.

When a new OS X version introduces issues that were absent in the previous one, that doesn’t go unnoticed, especially when such issues — like Wi-Fi reliability — are taking two minor OS X releases to be fixed [In the end it took three]. When a new OS X version makes your Mac feels more sluggish than it was in the previous version, that perception clouds whatever new exciting features the new OS X version brings to the table.

There have been problematic minor releases in Mac OS X’s history, but in my experience no Mac OS X version took three whole minor releases to finally get rid of serious issues. Perhaps my recollection is clouded by a consistent positive experience with all versions of Mac OS X, but past versions felt generally more reliable, more ‘finished’, and more carefully thought-out from a UI standpoint than Yosemite. I’m insisting on this point because now that Apple Music has launched — and I’ve read how underwhelming and frustrating the experience is in iTunes on the Mac — now things are starting to accumulate. 

Refining the software through iterations has always been the Apple way, and even more so since Steve Jobs returned at the helm back in 1997. (The hardware as well, of course, but I’m talking about software now.) What I’m noticing in today’s Apple software, however, is that the first iterations appear to be overall rougher than in the past. They feel more ‘beta’. They feel more hurried, more ‘let’s worry about pushing this out now, and we’ll get back to it later’. From a (software) design standpoint, certain aspects appear to be less focussed, less definite, less the result of saying no to a thousand things[1] and more the result of saying yes to feature creep (I’m thinking about Apple Music in particular here, but also about the Apple Watch user experience).

Yesterday, after noticing a tweet by my friend Fabrizio Rinaldi, I went to take a look at the article mentioned by Gordon Irving: it’s a series of observations on Apple written by Bob Lefsetz. At first I thought it was yet another ‘Apple is doomed’ piece, but then I found myself nodding more frequently than anticipated. The article is perhaps harsh and peremptory in places, but some of Lefsetz’s observations — especially on Apple Music — I believe are spot-on:

Once again, Steve Jobs only introduced a product when he knew he could win. Design did not sell the original iPod, however appealing it might have been, but functionality/usability. The iPod was the first MP3 player that transferred tracks at high speed, FireWire instead of USB. Furthermore, the software eliminated stupidity. That’s right, you just plugged your iPod into your computer and the software, i.e. iTunes, took care of the rest.

There is no great advance in Apple Music. Even Songza had hand-curated playlists. So the company’s only hope is it’s so early in the game that they can end up winning.

One can argue that Apple should have truly differentiated its product. Maybe by giving less. No playlists, but easier functionality.

And:

This was Steve Jobs’s credo, make it easy to use, with no flaws. Apple Music is MobileMe on steroids. And there are so many options included that functionality is crippled, users are overwhelmed. […] People are afraid to download the software for fear of it screwing up their library. I’m still waiting for a fix to library corruption, but Apple is mum.

Not only is there no admission of fault, there’s no manual. Steve Jobs may have put up a press blockade, but he was unafraid of explaining his product, which Jimmy Iovine and his cohorts did so poorly during the WWDC presentation.


 

I’m not sharing this criticism, and my diminished enthusiasm towards Apple’s software and services, because I got up one morning and felt suddenly tired of Apple. Not at all. I still care, a lot. I just think Apple could do better than this. (And especially with regard to iOS, Apple is really doing great.) I want Apple to do better. After seeing the Mac OS X 10.11 preview at WWDC 2015 I’m definitely more hopeful, and OS X 10.11 feels already like a much needed course correction. I want Apple to introduce services and solutions that make me want to adopt them right away like it used to happen, instead of making me scramble to gather information on the Internet to check the various reported glitches, issues and workarounds. I want Apple to rethink certain approaches to their Mac software and its user interface — less ‘facelift’ and more usability/functionality (see OS X and iTunes). And while we’re at it, I want Apple to produce better ads, because the latest If it’s not an iPhone, it’s not an iPhone campaign is rather bland and lacks certain punch and wit that were apparent in past commercials (I really miss the Mac vs PC ads).

On a final note, I wish there were more balance in the tech press when it writes about Apple. I still notice too much polarisation: blanket praise on one side, blanket negativity and defeatism on the other. Both sides are equally misinforming extremes. Apple is neither ‘doomed’ nor ‘doing everything great’ — Apple is transitioning, and the road has a few bumps. I believe there’s plenty of space for informed criticism without completely losing perspective one way or the other.

 


  • 1. “The system is that there is no system. That doesn’t mean we don’t have process. Apple is a very disciplined company, and we have great processes. But that’s not what it’s about. Process makes you more efficient.

    But innovation comes from people meeting up in the hallways or calling each other at 10:30 at night with a new idea, or because they realized something that shoots holes in how we’ve been thinking about a problem. It’s ad hoc meetings of six people called by someone who thinks he has figured out the coolest new thing ever and who wants to know what other people think of his idea. 

    And it comes from saying no to 1,000 things to make sure we don’t get on the wrong track or try to do too much. We’re always thinking about new markets we could enter, but it’s only by saying no that you can concentrate on the things that are really important.” 

    (Steve Jobs, as quoted in “The Seed of Apple’s Innovation” in BusinessWeek (12 October 2004)

 

Some iOS photo apps with nice user interfaces

Software

Since I got my iPhone 3G back in 2008, there has been one particular category of iOS apps which never failed to interest me — photography apps. Over the years I’ve tried dozens, getting to fairly absurd situations where I sometimes missed a good shot because I could not decide which photo app to use. When I upgraded from the good old iPhone 4 to an iPhone 5 this past March, I took the chance to do a bit of spring cleaning, bringing to the newer iPhone only a small selection of such apps — they’re still a lot compared to what less photography-obsessed users may have on their phones, but the current setup is much more manageable than before. The fact that the iPhone 5 is much faster than the 4 really helps, too.

The main criteria that guided me in my choice of which photo apps to retain have been rather simple: if a photo app has a unique feature or gives images a unique look, then it’s a keeper. If a photo app provides a smooth workflow thanks to a generally well-designed UI, then it’s a keeper. If two apps feature similar filters/effects, and are able to give images more or less the same look and feel, then only the app with the best UI and filters remains.

Examples of apps that give a unique look to photos are Etchings (self-explanatory), Waterlogue (photos can be transformed into beautiful watercolours with a variety of styles) and ShakeItPhoto (a nice Polaroid emulator). A couple of apps that provide a pretty satisfying experience overall are VSCO Cam (a popular choice), and Mattebox (perhaps a less popular choice). And then of course I still use Hipstamatic with a selection of favourite lens/film combinations that still give an interesting effect to certain shots.

Anyway, this is not meant to become just a list of favourite photo apps. Rather, I wanted to mention a few specific apps I’ve been using lately, which are definitely keepers thanks to some very nice user interface design which makes them a breeze to use: 

And now a quick overview to briefly explain what I like about each of these apps.

Filters

Filters UI

Filters’ main feature is its impressive number of available filters — more than 800, in fact. You don’t take photos with Filters, you use the app to edit photos and images you’ve already taken. What I like about its user interface is that everything is at my fingertips and nothing is really hidden. The four buttons in the bottom bar are the essential part of the app. The first three (starting from the left) are the Filters button, the Overlays button, and the Effects button. When you tap on them, a series of ‘submenus’ appear as popovers, with icons that are easily recognisable; and if you think they aren’t, it’s enough to take one glance at the instructions to memorise them anyway (you invoke the instructions by tapping the ‘i’ button on the top bar).

I like the flow of this app. Each filter or overlay preview renders a big-enough image to let me choose the desired effect rather quickly. And with just the tap of another button (the one on the top row with a Time-Machine-like icon), I can remove all edits carried out so far. 

Faded

Faded UI

Faded’s UI is rather similar to Filters’. The core controls of the apps are all laid out in the bottom bar. As you tap on each of the five buttons (Presets, Adjustments, Effects, Crop/Resize/Rotate, and Overlays), additional menus appear as a strip over the bottom bar. These menus, again, are all quite clear, using either text or very recognisable icons. Like Filters, I love Faded’s smooth workflow, and I’m keeping Faded among the apps I routinely use because it can give images a very particular look through the combination of filters and effects (I like adding dust, scratches and Emulsion effects to give certain pictures an analogue, ‘decayed’ feel), but also because of one neat feature, Batch Process:

Faded Batch Process

It’s a really quick way to apply the same settings and effects to a series of photos, very useful if you need to maintain the same look in a set of images for a specific project.

Darkroom

Darkroom UI

Yes, at first sight Darkroom’s UI doesn’t look much different from Filters or Faded’s UI. The controls’ layout is especially similar to what we saw in Faded. But Darkroom has a couple of features I really like: the Curves adjustment is both very powerful and very intuitive (I remember my early days with Photoshop back in the 1990s, when I had to actually study the feature to fully understand what it did), and the UI for cropping and rotating an image is truly well designed:

Darkroom crop and rotate

The first time I saw it, I thought it was visually crowded, but it’s far from confusing. And I have everything laid out in front of me: if I want to rotate the image clockwise or counterclockwise in 90-degree increments, I just tap the right/left arrows. If I want to rotate it at a more precise angle, I scroll the central dial. If I want to crop it, I can choose from the options presented below. 

Another great feature is Darkroom’s history: unlike the Filters app, here tapping the Time-Machine-like icon provides me with a full history of all the settings and adjustments applied to the image, and if I’m not satisfied with a certain change, I can go back to the previous step and select something different, without having to reset all edits and start from scratch.

I usually am not a fan of in-app purchases, but with Darkroom they’re really worth the money.

Black

Black UI

Given that a) I love film photography, and b) I love black & white photography, Black didn’t struggle much to find a place in my iPhone. The main appeal of Black is its simplicity, but what it does, it does very well. Like Filters, you don’t take photos with Black, you edit what you’ve already shot by picking it from the Camera Roll. Once you’ve imported a photo, Black lets you choose among 10 black & white filters (which are, more specifically, black & white film emulations). A really cool touch, UI-wise, is the transition between different effects, so that you can instantly see how shadows and highlights change from one filter to the other:

Black transitions

Once you choose a black & white film, the app provides minimal but effective editing tools. You access them by tapping the rightmost button (with the wavy icon). You can adjust the fading and vignetting, and also the Curves. These manual adjustments are a $/€0.99 in-app purchase, but the app lets you try them first (saving is disabled, understandably). Like with Darkroom, I love how easy to use the Curves tool is, thanks to its well-designed UI:

Black curves

Black is the most minimalistic of these apps, but if you love to give your photos a black & white film look, you’ll like Black. It’s fast and intuitive, it has a specific purpose and carries it out very effectively. And the 99 cents in-app purchase is a no-brainer.

Obscura Camera

Obscura Camera UI

Obscura Camera is a newly-released iOS app and I already love it. This is a photo-taking app, not a photo-editing one, and I think it has a truly well thought-out interface. Controls are recognisable enough, but you should take a look at the built-in Walkthrough so that you don’t miss anything. There are, in fact, a couple of not-really intuitive things that the Walkthrough did clarify for me. The first was that the ISO/Shutter information area above the shutter button is itself a button (used to invoke the main menu); as for the second, while I did figure out that I can manually set both Exposure and Focus by tapping once on their respective buttons, I couldn’t find out how to revert to auto-exposure and auto-focus (you need to tap and hold those very same buttons, which makes sense in retrospect). 

Once mastered these details, I found Obscura Camera to be a nice, fast and responsive app to take photos with. Everything is in reach and — at least on my iPhone 5 and in portrait orientation — it’s very easy to use Obscura Camera with just one hand. The app features a limited set of live filters (you scroll through them by swiping left or right on the viewfinder area) but they’re all nicely done and subtle enough to be actually useful and not just a gimmick added as an afterthought.

Special mention: Photometer

Photometer

There are a lot of different photometer apps in the App Store, useful if you’re shooting with film cameras that lack an internal photometer, or do have one but it has become unreliable due to the age of the camera. I like this app because it’s quite precise, it also gives a RGB reading of the specific surface you’re pointing it to, and it has a ‘classic’ look for those who are accustomed to using vintage photometers:

Photometer classic look

If you need an Incident light reading (photographer Johnny Patience provides a good explanation of incident vs. reflective metering in this article, Metering for Film), the only way to do it with this app is to connect a cool external accessory called Lumu. I can’t afford it for now, so I’m using this app only for reflective metering, which is good enough for my current needs. (There are other apps which use the iPhone’s front camera for incident metering — I have one on my iPhone 4 called FotometerPro with an old-school skeuomorphic interface. According to the developer it’s still not iOS 8‑ready, though.)

Photometer ($0.99/€0.99 — App website // iTunes link)


 

That’s it. I hope you’ll find any of these app useful and fun to use. Let me reiterate one point: with these apps, their in-app purchases are all worth your money. Support these developers, who are providing amazing tools at a negligible price.

Sticking with Spotify

Tech Life

I’m aware I’m not a regular user when it comes to music. My reasons for sticking with Spotify are utterly personal and come from how I listen to music and how I’ve configured things on my Macs and in the household. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Now, before even downloading iOS 8.4 or the latest iTunes version and all that, the first thing I did was catching up with Kirk McElhearn’s blog. I’ve been following Kirk for years, and I realised his type of iTunes usage/configuration is similar to mine. I also imagined he wouldn’t miss the chance to test Apple Music and report, so I was waiting to read his reactions in that regard. Especially because my setup doesn’t allow me the luxury of testing stuff. (I keep wishing I could afford a second Intel Mac to use as a test machine, but that, I’m afraid, is not going to happen.)

Kirk wrote a series of short posts whose links are neatly arranged in this summary post: First Impressions of Apple Music. He confirms many of my initial fears. Here are a few quotes. 

From Apple Music’s For You Selections Are not For Me:

Apple knows a lot about my musical tastes. It knows what I’ve bought from the iTunes Store, and it knows what’s in my iTunes library through its Genius feature. So it should get a lot better than that.

And:

Over time, Apple Music is supposed to learn from what you like, and what you don’t. In the recommendations in the For You section, you can tap an album and press until you see a (very long) menu. Tap Recommend Less Like This to tell Apple Music that you don’t like their selection. But that doesn’t remove it from the recommendations.

I’ve had a Premium Spotify account since late 2010, and when I access the Discover section, the recommendations I get are absolutely spot-on 98% of the time, considering that I share the account with my wife. She and I have similar musical tastes, and that remaining 2% are recommendations that work specifically for her, who listens to more opera than I do. I don’t have time to train Apple Music to reach the same level of accuracy I already enjoy with Spotify.

From the self-explanatory iCloud Music Library Screws Up Album Artwork:

After turning on Apple Music and iCloud Music Library, I noticed that a lot of my albums had artwork that was wrong.

I don’t want this to happen with my iTunes library. In fact, I really don’t want Apple Music to mess with my library at all. I’ve been building my iTunes library for 13 years. It has grown to a considerable size. It’s not huge, but complex enough. I have a lot of albums ripped from CDs and even vinyls. More than a half of my library contains music that is not on the iTunes Store. A lot of what’s not on the iTunes Store is ripped at high-quality bitrates. Over the years, I have painstakingly searched for the correct album artwork of everything I ripped, and copied & pasted good resolution images; everything is carefully tagged; every album and artist information meticulously entered and consolidated to avoid orphan tracks or strange duplicates or songs belonging to an album being assigned to a different one; and so on and so forth. Maybe I’m paranoid or OCD when it comes to these things, but I don’t need and I don’t want Apple Music or iCloud Music Library to mess up anything, no matter whatever convenience I may get in return.

It seems that lots of people see Apple Music’s integration as the winning feature, but I’m actually happy to keep things compartmentalised. When I’m at home, I use the iTunes library on my MacBook Pro to listen to the music I already own and have ripped for convenience. If I feel like listening to classical music, I have another, separate iTunes library on my G4 Cube with my favourites, all ripped in Apple Lossless format. And if I feel like listening to music I don’t own, or discovering new music and artists, I fire up Spotify and take advantage of what the service offers. Given that my wife and I have different habits and daily schedules, it’s quite rare that we both feel like listening to Spotify at the same time. When that happens, finding an agreement is very easy. 

As for the music on my iPhone and iPad, I only have a few albums stored locally. Most of the time, it’s Spotify. Actually, most of the time I’m out and about either I don’t listen to music at all, or if I do, it’s usually random songs picked from a careful selection uploaded on my iPod shuffle. I do the curation work, thanks very much.

I really like how Spotify can be non-intrusive. If I want to add locally saved music to Spotify’s application, I can do so by entering Spotify’s Preferences and telling the app to Show Tracks From: iTunes, Downloads, or My Music. I keep all those settings off, and things stay happily separated. No overlaps, no confusion about what comes from Spotify and what is ripped and saved locally. If I want to discover new stuff or get recommendations, I choose to do so by entering the Discover section. There are no interferences while I listen, there is no training process to go through. I also find very handy to use Spotify playlists to ‘bookmark’ the albums I like to return to often, or things I found after a more complex search (e.g. certain film soundtracks, which I found more easily by discovering first who the composer is and then entering their name, than just looking for the film’s title). I currently have about a hundred playlists on Spotify: transferring all that information to Apple Music — which means finding all those albums on Apple Music manually, etc. — is something I really don’t have the time or the will to do.

To sum up: I manage my iTunes libraries in a very specific, meticulous way. I have sizeable, complex, neatly compiled & arranged iTunes libraries on different Macs and I want them to remain that way, without interferences. I want to maintain the streaming music part separated from the music that’s been ripped, saved and catalogued locally, so using a third-party streaming service like Spotify makes a lot of sense to me. On top of that, I’m happy with Spotify’s service and how easily it lets me keep things separated. And after five years of being a paying customer, I’ve accumulated a lot of preferences in Spotify, and its algorithm for recommending me new music is very well honed and basically perfect. 

Last but not least, my Spotify account is shared with my wife. If we close our Spotify account, it’s certain we couldn’t use an Apple Music subscription in the same way, because we would have to use either my Apple ID or her Apple ID, which in turn is a mess because it’s also tied to other Apple services. Yes, we could probably set up a family account, and so on and so forth, but I really don’t see a good reason why we should go to all that trouble when ultimately we’re quite happy with how things work with Spotify. The principle Why fix what is not broken? definitely applies here. Apple Music doesn’t look compelling enough to make such a change.

Apple Wireless Keyboard and Bluetooth profiles

Briefly

I read with great interest Shibel K. Mansour’s review of the Logitech K480 keyboard. That keyboard was an option I seriously considered when I was looking for a Bluetooth keyboard to use mainly with my iPad for longer writing sessions. I remember finding the design attractive and sturdy enough. But the most interesting feature was the multi-device support and the ability to retain three different Bluetooth profiles to easily switch between devices.

But since I was looking for something lighter and less bulky (the Logitech K480 weighs 820 grams, which is roughly 200 grams less than an 11-inch MacBook Air), I ended up with the Incase Origami Workstation, which actually was the first accessory I had considered, since I already own an Apple Wireless Keyboard.

I’m really satisfied with the Origami Workstation. My Apple Wireless Keyboard is, by default, paired with the Power Mac G4 Cube (I bought a USB Bluetooth adapter long ago and use the Cube with the Wireless Keyboard and a wireless Mighty Mouse); at first I feared that, every time I wanted to grab the keyboard to use it with the iPad and the Origami Workstation, I would need to pair the keyboard with the iPad and then re-pair it with the Cube when I was done with the iPad. Not a big deal, but a tedious added step nonetheless. 

It turns out that it’s not necessary. Perhaps it was well-known and I’m just stating the obvious, but in case you didn’t know this either, I found out that — after the initial pairing with the Mac and then with the iPad — the Apple Wireless Keyboard remembers the pairing with both devices. When I take it with me to use it with the iPad, I simply activate Bluetooth on the iPad, turn the keyboard on, press a key, and it’s connected. When I bring the keyboard back to the Cube, I just turn the keyboard on, press a key, and again it’s connected. Very handy.

Not a laptop for writers

Tech Life

I have already offered a few first impressions on the new 12-inch MacBook with Retina display. In brief: it’s a lovely machine, it’s light, it has a gorgeous screen, a long battery life, an interesting new trackpad, and it could very well be my next Mac — too bad its quirky keyboard is a deal-breaking feature for me.

Back in April I wrote: I type a lot every day, so keyboard performance in a computer is one of the most important features for me. So, for the better part of the time I spent with the new MacBook, I tried to type as much as I could. And, like Christina Warren, I too found that “extended periods typing on the new MacBook keyboard tired my wrists a bit more than a traditional keyboard.” I also found the short key travel discomforting for my fingertips after just 15 minutes of more-or-less uninterrupted typing. Two months ago, my conclusion on the MacBook (and its keyboard) was:

It’s maddening. What I kept thinking was This should be the perfect computer for a writer and at the same time I was thinking I just can’t write on this MacBook all day.

Meanwhile, thanks to a generous acquaintance, I’ve had the opportunity to try the 12-inch MacBook much more extensively. I was hoping that my initial negative impressions regarding the keyboard would attenuate by spending more time typing on the MacBook and familiarising with the new hardware, using it in generally more comfortable situations than standing at an Apple Store desk without being able to move the computer much. Instead the experience did nothing but confirm I just can’t type consistently, comfortably, and for long sessions on this machine. Which is really a pity.

So when a friend pointed me to Matt Gemmell’s recent piece, A Laptop for Writers, I was curious to read an assessment that certainly promised to be different from mine.

Gemmell writes:

Otherwise, I was fluent and back up to speed with the new keyboard within an hour of switching over. It’s just not as different in use as it at first seems. The only lasting effect of the switch for me is that the keyboards on the Air, and my wife’s MacBook Pro, now feel spongy – but still perfectly usable. The shallower action on the new model still has enough travel to let you know that you’re typing. My error rate after the first day or so wasn’t any higher than on the Air’s scissor-action keys.

I used my loaned MacBook intensely over a weekend (Friday included), and while the typing mistakes almost entirely disappeared after a couple of hours, the keyboard maintained its unfamiliarity under my fingers all the time. When I briefly returned to other Macs and keyboards I use (like my MacBook Pro and my G4 PowerBooks) — as Gemmell notes — their keys felt softer and spongy indeed, but my fingers also felt quite relieved.

I’ve been lucky to never seriously suffer from RSI, but I’ve also always been careful. I believe that shallower-action keys are probably easier on the wrist. Whilst the keypress force on the new MacBook is delivered over a shorter travel, making it feel harder, I suspect that overall there’s less actual muscle movement required to operate each key compared to the much higher travel on the scissor-style keys on Air and Pro models (and indeed the desktop Apple keyboards).

In my experience, the opposite is true. I think we should not consider ‘key travel’ and ‘force to apply when typing’ as always in direct proportion. The keys of the Apple Extended Keyboard II, for example, have way more key travel than all modern Apple keyboards, but their responsiveness didn’t require me to apply more force. They have a different, and probably better, feedback that makes up for the longer key travel. That, in turn (at least for me) makes typing on such a keyboard much less stressful for my fingers, hands and wrists than typing on any modern flat keyboard. The only exception being the keyboard of the aluminium PowerBooks, which may sound and feel mushy to some people, while I find it to be one of the most comfortable and easy-on-the-hands Apple laptop keyboards ever.

Other mechanical keyboards I’ve used in the past, while having more or less the same key travel than the Apple Extended Keyboard II, required more force — perhaps because the keys themselves felt less robust, more wiggly, or because the switch mechanism simply required more force for the key to register. 

Back to the MacBook keyboard, I ended up tiring my fingers and wrists much more than with any other keyboard (mechanical or otherwise) I’ve tried previously also because I could not find and retain the ‘right’ force to apply when typing. It’s like the keys always register slightly before the expected travel, and that kept my typing unbalanced and erratic. When you pass your fingers over the MacBook’s keyboard, you have the feeling you could simply touch type, applying very little force. In reality, you have to apply a bit more force, but each time I tapped on a key, I ended up with the feeling I was just hammering on it too much. The feeling I kept having while typing on the MacBook keyboard was: Too little force, and I risk not typing some of the characters; a bit more force and it feels like I’m bashing on the keys.

Perhaps the title I’ve chosen for this article is too harsh and just provocative for the sake of being provocative. Perhaps other writers out there may find the MacBook’s keyboard perfectly adequate for their needs and habits. But I’m really having a hard time believing such a keyboard can be comfortable in the long run for someone who writes for a living. After three days spent typing on the MacBook’s keyboard for very long sessions (e.g. five consecutive hours with brief pauses here and there), my hands and wrists were exhausted. I’m still convinced the new MacBook’s keyboard is for truly casual users, people who type URLs in the browser, write emails and the occasional note or document or blog post. Unlike Gemmell, I don’t think that “[a writer’s] work can happily masquerade as casual use”, nor that it’s comparable to what a blogger does. Writers may use less CPU-intensive tools, and that may give them an advantage in the choice of what computer to use, but their work and their computer usage is certainly not casual.