There are compromises that should have never been made. Just to please the eye. The Blackberry keybord worked fantastically well. It was killed because Steve beleieved that touch screen is always better. Then there are the knobs in cars replaced by touchscreens. I hope there are no attempts at replacing physical keyboards by touchscreens in laptops. I cannot type on touchscreens. I love keyboards. Especially my mechanical keyboard. Love it.
I think Steve (et al, I will not attribute everything to one person) did have a point; it's 2025 and an on-screen keyboard makes different inputs easier, for a lot more languages than physical keyboards can, without needing separate production lines.
There's multiple input methods; typing, swiping/path writing, braille, dictation. It's not for everyone, sure, but for others it's ideal and preferable over a physical keyboard.
> an on-screen keyboard makes different inputs easier
Sure, it can certainly make different inputs easier. But you'll be hard-pressed to convince me that those different inputs are better specifically because a touchscreen doesn't have the kind of physical feedback that comes from feeling the boundaries of different selections (eg, letters/characters) for that input.
With a keyboard, I can center my fingers without looking at them. I know exactly what input selections are nearby and in what directions; and I know exactly when my finger has crossed the boundary of one and is in a null-zone or is on another input. For many keyboards, I can even feel the embossing of the individual input selection (character).
> It was killed because Steve beleieved that touch screen is always better.
No, it was killed because people much preferred Steve's product than Blackberry's. In large part thanks to trading off a 5% of keyboard effectiveness in favor of 50% additional screen space.
