Lordy, I hope so. It is with great regret that my work has provided me with a MacBook Pro. I have come to realize that the keyboard is really, really great. And typing on my Framework has become somewhat joyless.
I wish it weren’t so. I fervently do. But I am here scrounging around looking for relief from someone, anyone. Seeing this fills me with hope! I’ll have my eyes peeled on this.
I’m delighted this project is still going. But I cannot help feeling that instead of designing, engineering, testing to millions of cycles, putting into manufacture, distributing and then dealing with any after-sales issue (many of which will be customer caused) it would not have been much simpler to have just made the chassis a smidge deeper to accommodate off-the-peg Cherry ULP! 
Edit: added smiley because some apparently need it spelled out to them I’m purposefully being irreverent!
The chassis is already made. We’re years past that point. So you’re just hassling them over a mistake you perceive they made? Targeting a certain thinness. A little extra thickness can sometimes be enough for a big reviewer to decide to call something a bulky brick vs acceptable.
@David_Eastham i feel like this conversation has already been thoroughly played out, but just in the interest of trying to button it up one final time:
yes, they could have made the chassis a little deeper. they could have done a LOT of things, that SOMEONE would have found more desirable in some respect. but when you’re making a product, you have to make decisions. determine what features you need, versus what features you don’t need. analyze the tradeoffs between one option and its competing options. settle on the breakpoints of what best serves the design you are attempting to make into reality.
they made a different choice than you on this point. they made different choices than i would on several points. that does not make the choices they made incorrect, or ill reasoned, or ill intentioned, it just makes the choices they made different. belaboring it endlessly definitely isn’t going to make history change, and it’s probably not going to convince them to re-engineer it for what is very clearly an exceedingly niche case.
please, i beg of you, find a way to focus on a viable way forward for your needs.
Much as I like needling the zealots on this forum I think the announcement of these switches does deserve an expanded and more earnest response, so here goes.
No, I’m responding to recent developments on the forum, if anything a little late to the post back in July. I would love to think that they produced a photo of a prototype key-switch just to shut me up, but I have not really been active here for a little while. Looking up thread, my last post mentioning discrete key switches is back in July of last year.
Paint me skeptical, but I cannot get so excited about a picture of a black rectangle purporting to be this switch. Whilst it gives an idea of how it might look in practice many of us will still have questions. Hopefully those in the know can enlighten me:
You ask the first better than I could: will it work? Is the object in the photo functional?
@Tony_Grosinger asks the next question: is it going to be practical for the amateur to build their own keyboards - the whole point of the exercise after all?
As for deeper cases, the responses from @MJ1 and @eso have dug their heels in on the issue. These responses risk painted us into a corner where the discrete key-switches must to be made to work if custom keyboard formats can happen. Since the alternative apparently requires a loss of face from the firm and more strident members of the user community.
Good news here: I am quietly optimistic about the new MNT Reform model (the Next) which has just been announced. That boasts a proper mechanical keyboard by default, so loads of depth for customisation, from a firm whose concept of open source hardware is on a whole other level.
As for the weariness I detect in your posts, that is a reflection of how long it has taken to this point. I actually felt similar weariness - some might say strangely - at the picture of this supposed key-switch. Part of me would have been happier if the whole thing had been quietly put to bed and we could - as you suggest - move on rather than try to get our hopes up again.
Hello hello. Pardon me, but does anyone know if there are KiCad or Eagle footprints for this? I’ve been trying to design a full-size split keyboard but I always get stuck on the PBC Design 
It seems to still be in the prototype stage.
That I can understand, but what key switch is it based on? Cause on can assume it’s PG1316, looking at the pins, but I rather ask to be sure.
Edit: Reference; https://www.reddit.com/r/ErgoMechKeyboards/comments/1cfg3vr/mikefive_a_kailh_pg1316_keyboard/
Sorry, I must have missed notification of your reply. Very late response, but it wouldn’t likely be a Kailh PG1316 switch. The FWL16 has 3.7mm of height available
Kailh PG1316 is over that even without the keycap or PCB.
I don’t think there is any off-the-shelf keyswitch module that is thin enough. Cherry MX ULP is 3.5mm, but it needs to be connected to a PCB underneath it. And then room for a keycap. cherrymx.de/en/cherry-mx/mx-ultra-low-profile/mx-ulp-click.html
I would think Framework is working on a custom module, perhaps based off of components of keyswitch mechanism used in their current FWL16 keyboards.