> hyper-malleable control surface [...] (the stream deck is popular for a reason!).
I agree with the sentiment - making a control surface that adapts to the user's current task makes total sense to me, and is a compelling feature in theory.
The execution (and how the touchbar differs from the Stream Deck) is where I think the argument falls apart. There is effectively zero ability to navigate the touchbar without using your eyes and taking your focus off the display, and your work. The Stream Deck can easily be used without looking. A static grid of real buttons whose function changes within context is a more useful implementation in the real world, even though it is technically _less_ capable.
IMO the touchbar concept is flawed in exactly in the same way as the modern car user interface.
I agree with the sentiment - making a control surface that adapts to the user's current task makes total sense to me, and is a compelling feature in theory.
The execution (and how the touchbar differs from the Stream Deck) is where I think the argument falls apart. There is effectively zero ability to navigate the touchbar without using your eyes and taking your focus off the display, and your work. The Stream Deck can easily be used without looking. A static grid of real buttons whose function changes within context is a more useful implementation in the real world, even though it is technically _less_ capable.
IMO the touchbar concept is flawed in exactly in the same way as the modern car user interface.