Box switches seem to be selling pretty well, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there. There's always risk in a new design, which is kind of the whole point. If the design ends up being no better than MX (which I never said was terrible), then it is doomed to fail from the start. The only way to get anything better is to try though, and if you catch a shooting star, you could win big.
Box switches are basically a variant of MX. With a slightly different inside but compatible outside....How does that differ from the other MX variants? Because on one variant they changed the material/stem a bit and the other they did a bit more and moved things around inside?
The linears and tactiles, sure, besides the box design itself, which may prove to be both smoother and more reliable than the Cherry mold they descend from. The clickies are nothing like MX other than compatibility with MX boards and MX caps. If nobody is ready/willing to break from the mold of MX when it comes to those two things, then it is only rational to stick with that compatibility.
Mechanical switch competitors didn't even matter in the 1990s. There wasn't enough average consumer demand to profit to begin with because everybody started settling for cheap dome boards as the average cost of an entire computer setup started falling below what keyboards used to cost. You're right about the reliability of MX, which was the driving force behind POS and industrial sales mentioned earlier, of course. You can abuse stock MX switches without much concern. I can't find many consumer-oriented boards at all from that period. We've got mountains of surplus TG3 and Cherry-branded boards floating out there.
Which part of the 90s? Early 90s you had MX and Alps and basically no one else....You started to have early slider based rubber dome keyboards that were just as expensive as Mech boards (which had dropped in price as well). You didn't start getting into cheap rubber dome keyboards until the later part of the 90s. But you're right about one thing, Alps had more consumer boards vs. Cherry....Apple, Focus, etc, and as they got cheaper, so did the switches and was eventually one of the reasons Alps went away..they were actually less reliable than rubber domes...
I can't comment on mid-late 90s/simplified Alps, I don't doubt anything you say about that. I don't even buy most boards from the 90s unless they've got Cherry switches or compatible caps (rarely, to modify) or they have no Windows keys. A lot of dome with slider boards don't feel much better than a random generic dome board you can get today. Some felt surprisingly great ... for domes (I don't consider Topre to be all that special, but I'm also not a tactile guy). I consider the 90s to be the decade of the rubber dome, since mechanicals all but went the way of the dodo in the public consciousness, and in computer marketing. Which dome with slider boards cost more to produce than mechanicals? Everything was cheapening across the board throughout that period. It is crazy to think that entire computer setups, monitor and all, started falling under the cost of IBM keyboards from the 1980s.
What else could I mean by we? The community is big enough now that enough demand for superior alternatives could be mustered. The only reason not to push for innovation is acting like Cherry is the only name in the game still, and that the enthusiast market is too small to be profitable. That was the case 10 years ago. I don't think that it is anymore.
We do have superior alternatives..There are a ton of different choices now but they revolve around MX..and they're going to for a long time. What is the incentive to move away from that base? Nothing. What will happen is there will just be improvements or alternative designs that are based around MX.....
But making a new switch..so something not based on MX at all...Good luck there. How has that worked out for everyone else that has tried?
Choices that revolve around MX are no choices at all. When you say there's no incentive, do you mean for the community, or for manufacturers? There's a big difference there. There's every reason to increase choices and see what improvements can be made, when it comes to the consumer. The manufacturers have no incentive, obviously, because they risk sinking R&D money into something that ends up being no better than MX in a given category, and may not even drum up significant attention even if they do ... because the community isn't focused enough on innovation.
It has worked great for Kailh. I couldn't say how well it has worked out for Matias or Unicomp (both should have more attention than they get, and I don't even like Model Ms). It doesn't sound like Hall effect or optical switches are going away any time soon either, and I hope that they do not.
How does Alps factor into your train of thought on this? Alps is a single example of something that does quite a few things better than MX. I make no assumptions one way or another about how many fans it has. In fact, if I had to assume, I would assume that the lack of easy introduction to Alps would mean a much lower potential for interest than should be the case. When you say it has its own set of issues that still don't seem to be resolved, what do you mean? I assume you're talking about Matias at this point, since Alps is otherwise a long-dead format. Lack of compatibility, of course, is one. I'm still on the hunt for the fabled chatter issues in relatively modern Matias boards. I literally own at least 7-8+ boards with Matias switches in them, all 3 available switch types. I don't have a huge amount of time on all of them yet (I do have a lot of time on a few), but other than the first week's use of my only brand new purchase I haven't had any problems with any yet. Regardless, what does any of this have to do with investing in that direction? Matias was just an example of something different that's still in production, and you're obviously going to have a better chance of major success in trying something entirely new than cutting into existing markets that don't even have major demand. Kailh and Novelkeys had it right in starting with MX-compatibility.
MX Compatibility (I'm not considering just having a + has MX Compatible in this sense) is just an MX derivative...Alps have had issues for awhile...they are incredibly unreliable. I had a lot of hope for Matias thinking they'd bring back the original Alps level of quality and in some ways they have, but as more and more people had them, you could see they still had similar issues that IMO, killed Alps...So while I actually like Alps switches, why would I go to something that doesn't have the compatibility I want and get less than ideal reliability? That's right, I wouldn't..and why so many others don't.
Which Alps switches are you referring to when you say that they're incredibly unreliable? When's the last time you tried Matias switches? Have you used any produced by Gaote (Outemu)? I wonder how many people actually had problems with Matias' switches to begin with, vs the number of boards in circulation. People have had chatter problems with MX from certain keyboard manufacturers as well, if you're lumping the KBParadise V80 in there as well (I have a used one, it seems to work fine so far).
You say I have done it before, but you always misinterpret the entire intent behind what I say. I'm happy with the switches I already have, and always will be. I could use an entirely different clicky mechanism every day all week long and not run out, and it is wonderful. Some people may find some MX clone to be their ideal switch, that's obviously fine. The point is that the community is large enough now to usher in a renaissance of switches of all types, to rival the 1980s. It would seem like an awful shame to waste that opportunity.
Good luck w/ that. Not sure where you think there were more switches in the 80s. There were many different designs, most of which were pretty bad, but we have more switches available today than there were back then..a lot more. If you're grouping all MX variants as a single switch then yeah, there were more in the 80s. But we have a lot of choices now. We have the reliability, compatibility and mod-ability that we never had before..never..
Of course I'm grouping all MX variants as a single switch, at least within the same type. MX tactiles except brown (that I have tried anyway) all feel like MX tactiles, MX linears feel like acceptable linears, MX clickies all feel like typing on a plastic grocery bag. I don't consider MX to be worth modding, and if I did, I would still think there's far too little variation to care about doing so.
Sure, most designs from the 80s were bad, which is half of the fun of trying them. I'm sure it was no fun for the people who produced them, but such is the free market. Even with so many terrible designs, almost all of the best came from that period (or before). The past shows us that so much more can be done with the motivation to do so.
I don't understand what about any of this is so hard to get onboard with. Why settle for the same thing over and over again with so many players in the game? I would say the same thing if it were the entire modern aftermarket making slight variations of capacitive buckling spring, with a catchy new name and barrel color. It sounds like a ridiculous scenario, doesn't it? It is a ridiculous scenario, but it is equivalent to the situation we find ourselves in now.
What are we settling for? You're one of the few that thinks we're settling...
From my standpoint, we have tons of options...we can do so many different things on these switches and have so many different options for mods, keycaps, pcbs, plates, cases, etc, etc. A new switch would need to not only be better, but overcome that inherent disadvantage.
But I guess going back to your Box Switch example...you're seeing that as a completely different switch. I don't. IMO, what they're doing is the right way to go, try to make bigger changes but keep it the same.
The reality is, people are willing to spend a bit more for a better switch..but they don't need it to be completely different they just want an alternative to what they have. Companies out there that were making just one more MX clone needed to try to change things up because of all the other variants out there that were, frankly, better than theirs, so that's where growth and innovation is going to come from. Pushing those companies are the people in the community that are basically making small but noticeable improvements to an old design.
But are they going to create an entirely new switch? Someone might...why don't you give it a try rather than try to convince everyone else that's what should be happening...
We're settling for MX. I know we're settling because I do not. Regardless of how good or bad you think MX is, why settle? I could sit down and use capacitive buckling spring for the rest of my life if I wanted to, but why use only that if I can also use Matias, Alps, box, SMK, Space Invaders, NEC blue ovals, beam spring (if I ever pull the trigger), Fujitsu Peerless (yes, I actually like those) etc? They're all wonderful clickies, so I enjoy them all and regularly rotate between them.
"... keycaps, pcbs, plates, cases, etc, etc" should be secondary to the switch. If the switch doesn't feel great, why bother with the rest? When I look at all of that stuff the disappointing thought of, "... but I have to settle for box jades with this" sinks in, and I usually move on.
Box clickies are the perfect example. They are a completely different switch. The only commonality is what's necessary for compatibility.
MX development is at a dead end. What can be done with the design has been done, and I would personally argue that even that wasn't worth the effort. It is time for something new. An alternative to one MX clone being another MX clone is no alternative at all.
I don't know why you keep telling me to design something. I have my switches. I don't care about fancy caps, cases, pcbs, etc. I don't fit the criteria to be invested in such a thing. The only modern possibilities I care about are things that are already being looked at like SKCM blue recreation and Silo switches.
TBH, I have had some modest chatter issues with Matias click switches. I also had one switch that stuck closed.
In a Matias board, or some other? About when were the switches made?
The worst I've seen was the Hua-Jie AK-CN2 Alps clones. Felt nice when new, but the click leaves declicked after a few months, and one of the switches died open. 6 months of daily driver programmer usage should not kill any keyboard.
I have never tried those. 6 months is obviously inadequate.
The Alps clicky sound and feel is the best, but the keycap availability and reliability is lesser than MX. I've put a hotswap MX-style board on order, and am hoping I can find a switch I like as much as Matias Click.
I tried Box Navies in another board-- while they give an incredible feel of solidity, they are a bit too stiff and tactile. The click still sounds higher-pitched and plasticky.
SKCM blue sounds even nicer than Matias. It would be nice if availability were to change, but such is the world. Reliability remains to be seen.
Have you tried box jades or pinks? Both address at least some of your concerns.
The BOX switches are MX-compatible, but not exactly MX, not Cherry-derived at least.
Many of the BOX designs are Cherry designs, and BOX can't stray too far from Cherry-like tactility.
But with the clickies, they were able to try clickbar solutions that Cherry wasn't doing, and create new options for MX-compatible boards. We need to see more of that.
Those of you discussing what could or should be done might want to examine [if information ever becomes available] what ZealPC was doing before the pandemic hit. They were prototyping ALPS-style clickies and tactility in an MX-compatible housing. Something that would work in the existing ecosystem, but be a different [ALPS-like] approach to click and tactility.
Is this viable? The question is not academic. Here we have a real-world attempt to bring something alternate to the MX method, within the MX infrastructure.
Yes, I hope they pull it off.
Those of you discussing what could or should be done might want to examine [if information ever becomes available] what ZealPC was doing before the pandemic hit. They were prototyping ALPS-style clickies and tactility in an MX-compatible housing.
This.
Covid really put a damper on innovation. Now that China has really figured out MX switches and shown they can dominate the market they will start creating new designs. Clickies are more difficult and Box was just the first step, clearly it worked, with that success others will jump into that market, it's how China does things. I suspect we probably would have seen more designs already had Covid not hit when it did.
Give it a year or so and I bet we see a LOT of innovation, clickies included, so long as the economy doesn't tank.
I surely hope so.
The BOX switches are MX-compatible, but not exactly MX, not Cherry-derived at least.
Many of the BOX designs are Cherry designs, and BOX can't stray too far from Cherry-like tactility.
But with the clickies, they were able to try clickbar solutions that Cherry wasn't doing, and create new options for MX-compatible boards. We need to see more of that.
Those of you discussing what could or should be done might want to examine [if information ever becomes available] what ZealPC was doing before the pandemic hit. They were prototyping ALPS-style clickies and tactility in an MX-compatible housing. Something that would work in the existing ecosystem, but be a different [ALPS-like] approach to click and tactility.
Is this viable? The question is not academic. Here we have a real-world attempt to bring something alternate to the MX method, within the MX infrastructure.
Of course it is viable..But again, keeping the outsides the same but changing the insides..you still have constraints that are derived from MX.
Not sure it would be viable outside of that..at least not in the current way we require a keyboard
We do not need to adhere to the status quo. All of this emphasis on vanity/customization is the only thing holding back substance. MX compatibility is great, but if it is a limiting factor in something that otherwise has potential, it is worth the sacrifice. Momentum is not in its favor now, but other standards can be created to replace MX.
