Talk:Optimus Maximus keyboard

Estimate for cost of keys?

Its been stated that you can buy more keys for the lower end keyboards, but is there an estimate to how much these will cost? -TheNinjaPirate (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Article is merely an advertisment

(The original poster left no headline. I made up one. --Netizen 10:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC))

This "article" is nothing more than an attempt to gain publicity as part of an undercover marketing campaign for a new or conceptualized product. It would be a shame to watch Wikipedia become a sandbox for commercialism.--P Todd 19:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. But I, for one, would love to see this product come to market. :-) We have lots of articles on products that have never come out. It doesn't make them any less encyclopedic. Just MHO, of course. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Although I agree, I think we should strive to present what facts there are with NPOV, rather then avoid facts because it's hard to do so. I always feel a bit dissapointed when something exists and wikipedia has no article on it, so I'd rather see reconstruction than removal. -- Anonymous

Seems like a crystal ball article to me. This is pure vaporware. There should at least be a prototype before we give this sort of thing publicity on the front page. If we're going to have articles on fictional products, surely the iBrator is more deserving than this. Pburka 20:36, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but what about these articles?

1. Duke Nukem Forever
2. [[1]] (How long has this article existed as longhorn?)
3. The Phantom (game system)

The fact is that people come to wikipedia looking for information. If a product is out there being talked about as much as this one wikipedia should strive to present inteligent information about it: Not advertisements, not wild predictions, but at least mention what there is to know.

If I saw an article on this thing and wanted to know more about it, if it was legit, and so on, one of the first places I would turn is wikipedia. The Phantom article is very useful for finding out that the thing is vaporware, the DNF article is useful for finding out that there are disagreements, and the longhorn article is useful for finding out what it will eventually be. This, based on factual information, could easily be made to fit one of those categories. -- Anonymous 22:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

There's a big difference between those articles and this. Duke Nukem Forever is a cultural phenonemen and a running joke in the software industry. Most of the article is actually about the vaporous nature of the product. Additionally, demos of the product have been seen. Windows Vista is also a verifiable product with numerous demos over the years. The Phantom (game system) also appears to have been demonstrated, so at least some prototypes must exist. The Optimus keyboard, on the other hand has never been demonstrated. No prototype exists. It's just an idea and a pretty picture.

I disagree that people come to Wikipedia looking for information. I think that they come here looking for verifiable and accurate information. It is impossible to verify the accuracy of this article, so all we're doing is lending false credibility to something which we cannot realistically verify.

Pburka 03:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

It's more than an "idea and a pretty picture". Firstly, it's actually planned to be produced, and the studio is active in trying to find a manufacturer. And considering that according to [2] the studio has actually released some products earlier, I don't really think this can be classified as "vaporware". Secondly, it's a novel idea, and something that hasn't been done before on this technological level.

As for people coming to Wikipedia looking for verifiable and accurate information, then the article says what the studio is planning, which is completely verifiable. PeepP 11:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

But surely, even if the keyboard is going into production, this page is still a wikivertisement... Adidas 16:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Get rid of this vaporware advertising - DaveBuchanan1337 22:47 29/07/2005 SAST

Someone obviously does not know the definition of vaporware. Maybe check it out on Wikipedia? A vaporware is a product that has been promised at a certain date, and has not been delivered past that date. Since Art. Lebedev studio has explicitly stated the product won't be ready before 2006, your claim of "vaporeware" can be classified from irresponsible to libel.

Back on topic, if you want to discuss the deletion of upholding of this article, please go to the deletion link that's right at the top. --- Elvarg 12:36 31/07/2005 PST

Merged and Edited

This article has been merged with the Computer Keyboard article and the advertising tone removed. This article can now be removed. --Cybersavior 22:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No it hasn't! It's just mentioned in the "See also" section. In fact, that requires it to still exist. It's a significant enough subject to warrent it's own article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:52, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

VfD closed

This result doesnt preclude merging and redirecting--please arrive at a consensus decision if you want to do this. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that the majority of the editors on this page are not aware of some marketing tactics by apparently respectable companies, while other are too easily upset by wikivertising. This leads to a situation where everyone think they are well-meaning and 'right' in their edits. Now that the VFD results are in, maybe the consensus could be reached by removing the subtle POV introduced by the careful phrasing of the article. For example, in the search results the entry is as such: "The Optimus keyboard is an OLED computer keyboard.". This could be rephrased to "The Optimus keyboard is a design concept for an OLED computer keyboard.", or something similar. Cheers. Adidas 11:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like to note that I'm the major contributor to this article, and have no affiliation with the studio. I added to it in good faith, using information from the web (mostly the interview in external links). I didn't realise that it sounded like an advertisement. Anyway, currently most of the POV seems to have been removed (with my last edit removing the bias against "vaporware"). PeepP 11:26, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

The mere fact that this article came up for VfD is ridiculous and shows how much Wikipedia sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.16.8 (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

Quoting What wikipedia isn't

"Future events are usually unencyclopedic, especially if they are unverifiable until they have actually occurred. In particular:

1. Individual scheduled or expected future events, such as the 2028 Summer Olympics, are not suitable topics for articles, unless they are as predictable as an astronomical event; planning or preparation for the event is already in progress and the preparation itself merits encyclopedic inclusion; or speculation is well documented, such as with the 2008 U.S. presidential election. The schedule as a whole may also be appropriate."

In this case, not only it's not only unverifiable, but a company has something to gain out of the product being advertised. Adidas 10:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah! Let's delete it and then recreate it for the sheer principle! Now the article is about a real product, however much criticised. The technology makes it notable. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

For all you wikivertisements lovers

Apparently another company is going to release something similar (but real) http://www.i4u.com/article4222.html. I recommend that all the wikivertisement specialists go and create a new page for it, linking to the prefilled shopping cart. Apparently there are enough of you to win the VFds anyway. Adidas 15:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

That keyboard is hardly in the same league as the Optimus. Wether or not the Optimus will ever be real, it is (as far as I know) the first keyboard with context sensitive keys like this. Not to mention the fact that that is true for all keys, not just a few function keys as the one you linked, which seems like just a small gimmick. At least this idea by itself is innovative enough to deserve a Wikipedia page, and the best way to do that is to create a page on something slightly (I know) more tangible... I am glad the other board exists though, as competitors will only increase chances of technology like the Optimus to reach the market sooner. That is my 2 pence worth. Retodon8 14:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur. The other keyboard feature is just a row of backlit monochromatic keys as it's distinguishing feature, as opposed the the Optinus' feature set. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I just found out about the Ergodex DX1. It's a completely different concept, but the target audience seems to be more or less identical. I also believe that (although I don't think the DX1 would be very useful, for me anyway) this thing's main feature is important enough to mention. Maybe along with the Zboard (apparently that has an article too) and Logitech's G15 Gaming Keyboard it could make for a new article Gaming keyboards or something along those lines. It could list and describe the aforementioned products, without bias, add a bit of history, the technologies used, the ideas behind them... Let the old pages redirect to the new thing. Anyone agree this would be a good (better) solution? Retodon8 14:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Those products make me almost wish I played modern computer games. Perhaps you could buy them, try them out for yourself, and write articles about them? JIP | Talk 18:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Who are you referring to exactly with the second sentence? The keyboard obviously isn't out yet... but maybe you were referring to buying the games and reviewing those? Or... in other words, I am more than a bit confused about what you meant to say exactly. :) Retodon8 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering earlier discussions, I have to admit I am a bit surprised nobody responded to my idea yet. Oh well! Retodon8 16:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

dear people.

Please stop saying that this isn't real. you have no proof other than thinking it's "too futuristic" or something. PLEASE. Pure inuyasha 00:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And you have proof that it is real? Or are you simply playing the "you can't prove it isn't so!" game? JIP | Talk 15:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

we Have a website that says it's real. your logic is like saying the playstation 3 is not real because it's too advanced and there is no proof that sony won't release it. Pure inuyasha 00:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

of course because having a website makes it real. I could make a website showing pictures of pink unicorns but that doesn't make it real. Quazywabbit 00:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, this is a product in development by a company and you have no evidence to support your claim other than you think it's too futuristic, which is POV. Zazaban 04:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

er, if it wasnt real how could the gadget show have tested it?81.108.233.59 (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, long time has passed, and now everybody agrees that it is real. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Similar keyboard

The article states that "Other, similar keyboards have been thought of before this, but due to high production costs none have been mass produced so far."

I'd like to point out the keyboards on the Act Apricot, from around 1983. Although the LCD screens were above the functions keys rather than on them, they behaved much the same - the software could change the label for the key.

Actually on Sale?

I just the mini 3 for sale on ThinkGeek http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/88ee/. Should this be reflected in the article.

Key technology

Does anyone know what type of key technology they will use (membrane, capacitor, buckling spring)? 71.34.10.45 23:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Product Confirmed

Acording to a post on the development blog posted on Monday, February 5th, 2007, the 103 is now in production to be shipped in April of this year... I am going to update the article acordingly.--Azslande 22:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The post in the development blog (see here) actually states that the OLED keys themselves are due to arrive (at the Studio) in April. While this is definitely progress, it does not mean that the keyboard will be shipping to buyers in April. The keys are the most complex part of this product, but I suspect there's still a long way to go, both in designing the rest of the keyboard (such as the hardware controller) and the supporting software.

That same post gives the release date of the actual keyboard as being 'this year'. 88.96.220.249 18:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Cannont Confirm Prices

I cannot confirm the prices listed in this article. Can anyone else? Seems a bit outlandish....--Azslande 22:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, the link was down before, working now, I'm just wondering how "fresh" that number is.--Azslande 04:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The price (a bit over UD$1500) seems correct to me, relative to the cost of OLEDs. MyrddinE 00:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

almost 1500 dollars? that's crazy, but i want it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.192.21 (talk • contribs)

I'll wait until M$ comes out with a "Natural" version. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the price, does anyone know why it's such a funny amount? Is it listed in Russian rubles or something? If it's listed in another currency, this should be the primary currency. Also completely OT but I expect if they had the capital and expected to be able to sell the quantity, it could be say $750 if they were really mass producing it Nil Einne 17:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep the price is listed in rubles. 43990,- rub. http://store.artlebedev.com/catalog/computer_add-ons/optimus/

Can we delete a specific entry here?

Production schedule is constantly being delayed, lastest info say no keyboards in the beginnig of december. The closes to the deadline they come the more they move it to the future. (see Duke Nukem Forever)

• Beginning of December 2007—200 keyboards
• End of December 2007—200 keyboards
• January 2008—400 keyboards

This is terrible and should be deleted.

Rudolpma 13:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Such keyboards existed since long.

It must have been around 1990 that I first saw one, but then it had a 8*8 pixel LCD on each key, and when pressing the shift key it took half a second to change all the keys .... 84.115.129.76 (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources or it didn't happen. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[3] – Elliott(Talk|Cont)  20:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Renders"

This page could really do without these old "renders" of possible layouts that were based on the wishful thinking of people who were obsessed with this thing prior to its release. The product is out now, it exists. There's no reason for these old images, which don't represent the final product, to still be in an encyclopedic article about it. Rodeosmurf (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Optimus Maximus keyboard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724020158/http://community.livejournal.com/optimus_project/60143.html to http://community.livejournal.com/optimus_project/60143.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228015732/http://community.livejournal.com/optimus_project/53878.html to http://community.livejournal.com/optimus_project/53878.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061129165534/http://community.livejournal.com/optimus_project/ to http://community.livejournal.com/optimus_project/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)