> no need to make a NASA pen
The "NASA pen" urban legend (often used to comment on the contrast between American over-spending on innovation and Russian common-sense) is actually a myth. Both NASA and the Soviets used pencil-based technology originally -- NASA used ordinary sharpening-based pencils (later moving to mechanical pencils), while Soviets used more crayon-like "grease pencils". There were flaws with both technologies, and a private American company (Fisher) created a pen they claimed could work in space which was later adopted by both NASA and the Soviets. NASA only paid $4.00 per pen, nowhere near the "millions of dollars" often cited as the cost of development.
As is frequently trotted out whenever someone reaches for this analogy, http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp (tl;dr: pencils aren't great in space, another company invented the pen on their dime and sold it to NASA). There's definitely UX headroom when iterating on user input; the first gen touchbar has been undeniably meh, but that's not to say another iteration or two can't be a marked improvement over a 150 year old technology.
The Touchbar has many clear benefits over physical keys (in addition to drawbacks). Adding haptic feedback doesn't make the TouchBar equivalent to hardware keys. It makes it a better Touchbar. The fictitious NASA pen had no benefits over a pencil. Touchbar has benefits.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-n...
Yeah they are called physical keys, no need to make a NASA pen... didn't Apple buy out some company making keyboards out of tiny e-ink dipslays, that would actually make sense. Making keys out of a touchscreen when the only reason to look at it is because there are no physical keys on the other hand is ridiculous.