I wrote up a whole essay on it then decided not to post it as I figured there'd be no interest.
Flame on.
I think we can both agree that most people have little interest in philosophy. My response was written as an excercise in philosophical discourse, not as a piece of flamebait or general trolling. While I don't expect sarcasm from established erudite members such as yourself, I wou;dn't think it the right "tone" to match with the type of post that GH'ers are wanting to see and respond to. I would be upset if I posted that and only got sarcasm and trolling, so I just PM'd the document to some people who might find it interesting.
My opinion is that the expression "mechanical keyboard" is only a way to identify a keyboard with a better mechanism for detecting the actuation of a key than those with nearly no mechanism (aka rubber dome).
Indeed, I think most people use the term to mean that, but really it just becomes a "sand heap" issue. At what level of perceived "quality" does a keyboard become mechanical? Effectively it's just like saying "well these are mechanical because I think they're worthy". A fine position to hold, but somewhat selfish and hard to define, especially for keyboards you haven't tried. This position has a lot of potential issues that one must be aware of were they to espouse it.
But in fact, since things move and/or deforms in every keyboard (expect lazer thing maybe), they all have some sort of mechanism and engineering to do so. But since the more complex mechanism are often the ones that feel better there's this common acceptation that to consider a keyboard mechanical it requires more than 2 pieces of rubber and an conductive material crushing together to be part of this big family.
and more complex mechanisms often feel no better and introduce more possibilities for failure. For example vintage futaba switches are one of the most complicated mechanisms known, and they are just linear (and usually scratchy). Linear complicated alps can be the same way. On the other hand, hall effect switches have just a few parts (sensor, housing, stem, magnet) and are one of the simplest designs possible: yet many people consider them to be amongst the best linear switches around. Perhaps it can apply to the general "RDOM vs. better" but it's hardly universal. This is a serious limiting factor which should be thought about if you want to take that position. Also, at what "level of complexity" do we consider a switch mechanical? another sand heap I think.
But in the end I have only 2 comments to add:
1. I am sad to see the world of mechanical keyboard going the cheaper route at a very fast rate. At this rate they will sell rubber dome keyboards under the name mechanical keyboard in a matter of a few years.
2. The only keyboard that matters anyway is the model F. So I don't care to argue more than that with anyone. Say that model F is not mechanical? I don't even care since it's just so superior. I don't need a model F club either as the Topre lovers seems to require. I just enjoy my keyboard and know in my hearth that it's the best.
1. I don't necessarily abhor cheapness. Any design I see that can make it cheaper or easier to manufacture without sacrificing other aspects is a design I really love! It means it was well engineered. I like to see signs of good engineering in my keyboards. While it's nice to take apart the sort of no-expense-spared no-holds-barred type of keyboard, the ones I find most impressive are the ones that do account for price while maintaining a high level of quality.
2. agreed: we shouldn't focus on this issue of 'what is mechanical". I see this is an "enthusiast" community where people really enjoy rubber dome keyboards like Topre, and membrane keyboards like the model M. I really like my rubber dome olivetti keyboard I got imported (NIB) from France. Even if it's "just" a rubber dome, I like the feel. This shoudl be the focus, not some "elite club" defined around a patchy (at best) definition.
By my definition an IBM Model F does not have true mechanical switches.
Counting the controller board as "one" piece, a quick tally indicates that an F-122 comes apart into approximately 520 pieces.
A keyboard with mechanical switches such as "complicated Alps" with many parts in each switch could easily have twice that many, I imagine.
As I said before, defining "mechanical" by number of components is a hard position to take. If that is your, please can you clarify your definition? I am interested to hear it. Also, if it has two-piece keycaps, your number is a little low. (122*5 (keycap top, keycap bottom, spring, flippy, barrel) + case plastic (3) plus screws (3 in the case and 0-4 attaching plate to pan) + metal plates (3) + pcb + controller + cable + feet (at least 4 pieces each side, depending on what foot)