3 ms·
They didn't fail after a year or so, they failed when dust particles got in there because it was physically impossible to make that design not do that. They rew
by _bxg1 7y ago
They didn't fail after a year or so, they failed when dust particles got in there because it was physically impossible to make that design not do that. They reworked it and reworked it but it just couldn't be done. Finally they admitted it was a mistake to require that level of thinness from a design standpoint.
- Wowfunhappy 7y agoI actually don't think the problems were due to dust, ever since I read this a year ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/bjtyaw/macbook_pro_keyboard_failures_why_apples_dust/ https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/bjtyaw/macbook_pro_k... But putting that aside, I still see that as an execution flaw, or at least, it's a way in which design and execution are so intertwined that the distinction no longer makes sense. A computer with a non-replacable keyboard that breaks after a year is a badly-executed product. The way to execute it better would be a keyboard that doesn't break, whatever design decisions that entails.
- _bxg1 7y agoThe way I see it is those doing the executing were handed an impossible constraint. Immediately upon having that constraint loosened, the keyboards became pretty much perfect.
- eganist 7y ago> Finally they admitted it was a mistake to require that level of thinness from a design standpoint. So what you're saying is it was a design flaw from a design company.