Why Do New Keyboard Models Vary in Speed Depending on the Brand?—A Look at the “Manufacturing Process”

This is a column.

On September 24, 2026, Topre officially announced the “REALFORCE RS1 Keyboard,” a split-design keyboard.

Personally, I think the fact that REALFORCE has entered the split-keyboard market is quite big news in itself.

On the other hand, as I looked over the specifications and pricing, a question arose that was slightly different from the RS1 itself.

Why is there such a big difference in the speed at which different keyboard brands can bring new products to market?

REALFORCE and HHKB are both companies with long-established Japanese keyboard manufacturing divisions, and they are known as brands that have consistently refined a single core design and typing experience over many years.

As for REALFORCE, in addition to updating the “R Series,” the company has been offering the “GX1” series—designed specifically for the gaming scene—since 2023.

As for HHKB, while there have been management changes—such as PFU, the company that operates the brand, becoming a subsidiary of RICOH—the HHKB series has been updated regularly for a long time, and in 2023, the company released “HHKB Studio,” which offers a new typing experience.

On the other hand, there are brands—such as Keychron—that offer a wide variety of layouts, switch types, and connection methods simultaneously.

Furthermore, when we look at Elecom, the simplistic explanation that “Japanese companies are slow to develop products” and “Chinese companies are fast” doesn’t hold up.

As we investigated further, we discovered that this difference is influenced by multiple factors, including not only the product philosophy but also manufacturing methods, cost considerations, the size of the target market, the reuse of design assets, localization, and sales channels.

In this article, inspired by the RS1, I’ll take a look at the current keyboard market from the perspective of how keyboard brands “make their products.”

Recommended

Cornix LP White Model Debuts | Featuring Mist Switches and Newly Developed “LAK v2” Keycaps

ColumnAbout This ArticleThis column includes the author’s analysis and perspective on keyboard products, market developments, and related topics. While every effort is made to verify factual information, the analysis and evaluation reflect the author’s point of view. It should be read as opinion-based editorial content rather than a product review or news report. On August 18, 2026, Jezail Funder Japan updated their official X account to announce the start of pre-orders for the “White” limited edition color, celebrating the first anniversary of the Cornix LP’s launch. The White model is priced at 31,500 yen (tax included). This isn’t just a simple color variation; it features exclusive specifications that set it […]

✓ Related Reading

1. The “prerequisites” for creating new products differ from brand to brand

First, let’s take a look at the brands we’ll be covering from the perspective of manufacturing and product development.

Just by looking at this table, it’s clear that companies that are quite different from one another are competing in the same market, even though they’re all lumped together under the term “keyboard manufacturers.”

Let’s go through them one by one.

REALFORCE and HHKB Professional each have their “own way of making things.”

First, let’s take a look at “REALFORCE” and “HHKB,” two keyboard brands with a long track record in Japan.

Topre officially explains that regarding REALFORCE, “We are committed to Japanese quality and handle everything—from design to manufacturing and support—entirely at our factory in Sagamihara City.”

The company has a history of developing capacitive, contactless input devices since 1983, and in 2001, it released the REALFORCE for the general public.

This is not simply a matter of “being made in Japan”; rather, the entire system—encompassing manufacturing technology, quality control, and support cultivated over many years—is considered an asset that defines the REALFORCE brand.

Source: Topre “PC Peripherals (REALFORCE)”

The HHKB lineup is broadly divided into the “Professional” and “Studio” series.

In particular, the traditional “Professional” model is based on a clear product philosophy of not making significant changes to the basic design.

When PFU revamped its Professional Series in 2019, the company explained that it was “evolving while keeping the core concept unchanged.”

While maintaining the core concepts of a logical key layout and compact size for over 20 years, we have added features necessary for each era, such as Bluetooth, USB Type-C, and customizable key mapping.

In 2026, the company released its first 30g actuation force model to commemorate its 30th anniversary, but PFU itself explains that it “has maintained a 45g actuation force for many years.”

Even in the official documentation for the Professional Series sold in the U.S., the country of origin is listed as “Designed & Manufactured in Japan,” confirming that products intended for overseas markets are also manufactured in Japan.

Source: PFU, “High-Performance Compact Keyboard HHKB Lineup Completely Renewed” / HHKB Professional Official Brochure

For these brands, launching new products isn’t the only thing that matters.

The very act of continuously refining our products over the long term—without significantly compromising the input experience and quality we have established—has become a key part of our brand value.

On the other hand, the HHKB Studio is a product that’s a bit different from the rest.

On the other hand, HHKB Studio employs input methods and manufacturing processes that differ from those of the Professional model. It’s interesting to note that even within the same HHKB brand, different “manufacturing approaches” are chosen depending on the product.

Kawamura

Although the HHKB Studio was released in 2023, I was impressed that this wasn’t just a one-off experiment—for example, the company released the long-awaited “Snow Model” the following year.

HHKB Studio “Snow Model” now on sale｜White all-in-one device

ColumnAbout This ArticleThis column includes the author’s analysis and perspective on keyboard products, market developments, and related topics. While every effort is made to verify factual information, the analysis and evaluation reflect the author’s point of view. It should be read as opinion-based editorial content rather than a product review or news report. On October 2, 2024, at 13:30, PFU Corporation announced in a press release the launch of the new HHKB Studio model, Snow. In the past few years, this site had predicted that the new products would be announced on October 2 and go on sale on October 25 each year, but it turned out to be wrong. […]

✓ Related Reading

Source: HHKB Studio FAQ, “Who manufactures the HHKB Studio?”

Elecom is not the typical “Japanese company that operates its own factories”

On the other hand, Elecom is very different from the two companies mentioned above.

On its official page explaining the company’s strengths, Elecom clearly states that it has been a “fabless company”—one that does not own its own factories—from its founding to the present.

After comprehensively evaluating quality, cost, and supply systems, we source products from partner factories both domestically and internationally. We view our ability to achieve “rapid development” through a supply chain that integrates procurement, development, and sales capabilities as one of our core strengths.

In addition, we began operations at our Shenzhen Technology Development Center in 2024.

It appears that the center is stepping up its efforts to gather information on technology and product trends while also working to shorten development cycles by improving efficiency.

Source: Elecom, “Strengths of the Elecom Group”

Kawamura

It’s not the case that foreign companies are fast simply because they’re foreign, or that domestic companies are slow simply because they’re domestic.
However, this analysis focuses solely on manufacturing locations and does not take into account the speed of corporate decision-making.
It is possible that factors other than these could also lead to significant differences in product development speed.

Keychron is “developing multiple products in parallel while leveraging shared resources.”

Compared to REALFORCE, HHKB, and Elecom, Keychron’s product lineup is quite different.

Keychron officially states that it offers more than 40 keyboard models, which is a very large number even when compared to other keyboard brands.

Looking at the current lineup, in addition to multiple series such as Q, V, and K, there are numerous derivative models available simultaneously, including magnetic, 8K, wired and wireless, and ANSI, ISO, and JIS models.

Source: Keychron “About Us”

While Keychron tends to draw attention for its many new products, I believe what really deserves attention is its “product expansion based on shared assets,” which enables the company to assemble such a comprehensive lineup.

Let’s take the “Keychron Q1,” a 75% layout keyboard, as an example.

The case is made of CNC-machined 6063 aluminum, and the company has officially disclosed its manufacturing process, which combines CNC machining, sandblasting, polishing, and anodizing. It uses a “common aluminum case” to produce the same series in multiple regional layouts, including a Japanese-layout version. ( Keychron )

Source: Keychron, “How We Create the Keychron Q1” / Keychron Q1 Japan JIS Layout

In other words, Keychron can be seen as a brand that excels at rolling out new layouts, connection methods, switch types, and features across its product line —by leveraging existing assets such as chassis, basic designs, firmware, and configuration environments— rather than building everything from scratch for each product.

In other words, we create enclosure designs based on the ANSI layout—which is in high demand globally—and while standardizing the enclosures and basic design, we adapt the PCB, plates, keycaps, firmware, and other components to suit specific regions, thereby rolling out a single product platform across multiple markets.

This approach differs from that of REALFORCE, which places great value on integrated domestic production; HHKB Professional, which maintains a refined, established design over the long term; and Elecom, which develops products on a fabless basis with the Japanese market as its starting point.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that Keychron manufactures all of its products using the same parts or processes.

However, looking at the company’s product lineup—which involves developing multiple product series in parallel and expanding a single series to comply with standards such as ANSI, ISO, and JIS— it is clear that “increasing product variety while reusing design assets” is one of the factors underpinning the company’s rapid product launch pace.

Looking at the four examples so far, you can see that manufacturing infrastructure varies from company to company.

It is expected that there will be significant differences in the extent to which companies maintain their own fixed facilities, the flexibility with which they utilize external manufacturing capacity, and their approach to the international share of their product lineup.

The next important factor to consider when thinking about this difference is the manufacturing method used for the housing.

2. When it comes to manufacturing methods, “risk tolerance” is more important than cost

For keyboard housings, the primary manufacturing methods include CNC machining—which involves machining aluminum alloy from solid blocks—and injection molding, which uses molds to shape plastic.

These two differ significantly not only in terms of appearance and material texture, but also in the upfront investment required for commercialization, how costs change as production volumes increase, and their ability to adapt to design changes.

In other words, the decision on which option to choose involves not only the production cost itself but also the company’s business judgment regarding factors such as the expected sales volume, the extent of investment it can make in advance, and the level of risk it is willing to accept in the event of unsold inventory.

Kawamura

I’d like to note up front that this is strictly from a “manufacturing perspective.”

CNC machining and injection molding are suited for different production volumes.

First, let’s summarize the general characteristics as follows.

Xometry, a manufacturing services company , explains that while injection molding requires a significant initial investment in mold manufacturing, it is easier to reduce the cost per unit as production volumes increase.

On the other hand, CNC machining does not require as large an investment in tooling as injection molding, making it well-suited for small-scale production and products that involve design changes.

Source: Xometry, “CNC Machining vs. Plastic Injection Molding”

Protolabs also provides a guideline based on production volume: for quantities of 1 to 10 units, they recommend 3D printing; for 10 to 200 units, CNC machining; and for quantities exceeding 200 units, they suggest considering injection molding.

However, the company itself explicitly states that these are “not strict rules,” and the most suitable manufacturing method varies depending on factors such as material, required precision, and the complexity of the shape.

Source: Protolabs, “3D Printing vs. CNC Machining vs. Injection Molding”

Therefore, this does not mean that “injection molding is always the better option if production exceeds 200 units” or that “CNC is always cheaper for runs of 1,000 units or fewer.”

The actual break-even point varies significantly depending on factors such as the size of the housing, the material, the machining precision, the surface treatment, the mold design, and the manufacturing location.

Furthermore, the materials themselves differ between CNC machining of aluminum and injection molding of plastic.

The point here is not to determine which manufacturing method is superior, but to highlight the difference in the level of fixed costs and volume risk that must be borne before a product can be brought to market.

In injection molding, a significant investment is required “before the product sells.”

A key feature of injection molding is the upfront investment in molds.

Formlabs explains that traditional metal molds typically take about 4 to 8 weeks to produce, and depending on the shape and complexity of the part being molded, production costs can range from $2,000 to over $100,000.

Source: Formlabs, “Comprehensive Guide to Small-Batch Production Using 3D Printing and Injection Molding”

Of course, this figure does not represent the actual cost of the keyboard housing mold itself.

The key point here is that, in injection molding, you have to bear the fixed cost of the mold before sales even begin .

If sales volume is high, those costs can be spread across a large number of products; however, if sales volume is low, those costs must be recouped from a small number of units sold.

On the other hand, with CNC machining, there is no need to prepare large-scale mass-production molds in advance.

Although the processing cost per unit tends to be high, production is possible even in relatively small quantities at a stage when the scale of demand is still uncertain.

Therefore, the difference between CNC machining and injection molding is not merely a matter of unit cost.

When considering manufacturing methods , it is also important to take into account the differences in risk —specifically, the extent of the potential losses a company would face if its product is not accepted by the market.

Even with the same manufacturing process, costs vary depending on “where it is made.”

Furthermore, manufacturing costs are not determined solely by the processing method.

Even for the same CNC machining or injection molding, the cost structure varies depending on the country or region where manufacturing takes place and the supply chain used.

According to a survey of Japanese companies in the Asia-Oceania region conducted by JETRO in fiscal year 2022 , local manufacturing costs in China are estimated at 81.4 when Japanese manufacturing costs are set at 100.

Of course, these figures do not apply exclusively to keyboard manufacturing; actual differences will vary depending on the industry, product, exchange rates, labor costs, procurement terms, and other factors.

However, it does serve as a reference .”

Source: JETRO, “2022 Survey on Business Conditions of Japanese Companies in Asia and Oceania”

Kawamura

Until now, I had a vague impression that manufacturing in China was cheaper, but this survey has given me a more concrete understanding of the situation.

In addition, in China—particularly in the Pearl River Delta, centered on Shenzhen and Dongguan—there is a concentration of companies engaged in electronic components, PCBs, CNC machining, mold making, injection molding, surface treatment, and assembly.

Source: World Bank, “China 2030”

In this region, it is not necessary for a single company to handle every stage of the process.

For example, PCBs can be manufactured in Shenzhen, molds and CNC machining in Dongguan, and surface treatment and assembly by neighboring companies—this way, products can be manufactured by combining the services of multiple specialized companies.

In addition, some companies use Hong Kong as a hub for international trade and logistics while leveraging the manufacturing network in mainland China, centered on Shenzhen and Dongguan.

What is important here is not simply low labor costs, but the fact that the companies necessary for the process from prototyping to mass production are concentrated in close proximity, allowing for rapid product development through horizontal division of labor.

It is believed that this manufacturing ecosystem is one of the reasons why so many keyboard brands are concentrated in Shenzhen and the surrounding area.

Kawamura

Although Keychron is a Hong Kong-based brand, it is presumed that its product development and manufacturing are closely tied to the manufacturing ecosystem of the Pearl River Delta, particularly Shenzhen.

On the other hand, when the entire design and manufacturing process is carried out within Japan, fixed costs are required not only for labor and materials but also for maintaining domestic factories and equipment.

Therefore, it is not enough to simply compare them by saying, “CNC is cheaper” or “injection molding is cheaper.”

You can’t truly understand the actual cost of a product unless you consider everything—including which manufacturing region it’s produced in and which supply chain is used.

This difference is also important when considering the current keyboard market.

For brands that utilize China’s manufacturing supply chain, it becomes easier to produce aluminum CNC enclosures in relatively small batches and bring products with new designs and features to market.

On the other hand, for companies with existing domestic production facilities, product planning involves not only selecting the cheapest external manufacturing method for each product but also considering how to best utilize their own facilities and technologies.

Different Approaches to Return on Investment Depending on the Company

Based on what we’ve discussed so far, for niche products where the scale of demand is unclear, it seems more reasonable to use CNC machining to bring them to market in small batches.

Even so, not all companies choose the same approach.

A key factor to consider when evaluating this difference is the concept of how long it takes to recoup the investment in a product.

If you plan to launch new products in short cycles and move on to the next product while gauging the market’s response, a manufacturing method that minimizes upfront investment offers advantages.

On the other hand, if a company plans to sell a single product for many years, it makes sense to invest a substantial amount in molds and equipment upfront, as the investment can be recouped through cumulative sales volume over the long term.

To summarize the differences between the two, here is a breakdown:

From this perspective, Keychron—which releases a large number of products in quick succession—and brands like REALFORCE and HHKB Professional—which sell a single product over a long period—may have fundamentally different approaches to manufacturing.

The important thing isn’t which one is better.

The approach to risk-taking in product development differs between businesses based on the premise of “building on a small scale and testing the market” and those based on the premise of “selling a product for an extended period to recoup the investment.”

Domestic manufacturers cannot be swayed simply by the argument that “it’s cheaper to manufacture overseas.”

So, should companies that have been manufacturing products domestically for a long time simply outsource production to overseas manufacturers—such as those in China—in order to reduce manufacturing costs?

In reality, it’s not quite that simple.

Companies that have a long history of domestic manufacturing already have their own factories, manufacturing facilities, quality control systems, engineers, and procurement networks in place.

Even if we were to switch only some of our products to overseas manufacturing under those circumstances, that wouldn’t immediately eliminate the maintenance costs for our domestic facilities.

In some cases, while maintaining existing facilities, new expenses—such as outsourcing fees to overseas companies and quality control costs—will also arise.

Furthermore, when outsourcing manufacturing to overseas companies, the following challenges may arise in addition to manufacturing costs.

In other words, for companies that manufacture domestically, they cannot change their manufacturing methods based solely on the economic rationale that “manufacturing overseas will lower the unit cost of the product.”

When you factor in everything that has been built up over a long period—from manufacturing facilities and personnel to quality control and brand value—the decision to relocate a manufacturing base is, in itself, a major business decision.

This is a major difference from brands that are built from the outset on the premise of partnering with external manufacturers.

For companies that rely on external manufacturing, the standard product development process involves selecting a CNC machining company, a PCB manufacturer, an assembly plant, and other vendors on a per-product basis.

On the other hand, for companies that have long maintained in-house manufacturing, shifting production to an external provider is not merely a matter of “changing suppliers”; it can be a decision that alters the very structure of the business they have built up over time.

“Being able to make something” and “being able to turn it into a product” are not the same thing.

When you think about it this way, it becomes clear that for established brands, the ability to technically develop a new product is not necessarily the same as the ability to bring it to market as an actual product.

When launching a new product, decisions must be based not only on the product’s appeal but also on factors such as market size, projected sales volume, payback period, how it relates to existing products, its impact on the brand, and the utilization of existing facilities.

In particular, companies with established products and manufacturing systems have to address a number of requirements before entering a new category.

Conversely, companies that utilize external manufacturing supply chains and can test the waters with small production runs can release actual products to the market to gauge consumer response even at a stage where they “don’t yet know the demand.”

This difference is not merely a matter of company size or nationality.

The difference lies in whether a company has a business structure that allows it to test new products on a small scale.

In the past, HHKB also sold the “HHKB Professional HG,” which featured a machined aluminum frame, as a fully custom-made product.

Source: PFU, “HappyHacking Keyboard Wajima-nuri Model Now Available as a Fully Customizable Product”

It’s not that we can’t make the aluminum housing itself.

However, possessing that technology is one thing; continuing to offer aluminum-cased models at a fixed price and in fixed quantities to meet current market conditions is quite another.

I think this difference is precisely what’s hard to see if you only compare manufacturing methods.

Kawamura

I think it would be possible to manufacture only the housing components in China as part of a limited production run, but given the potential for quality control issues and the fact that users would be expected to disassemble and reassemble the devices themselves, there would likely be warranty and support issues.

The irony is that the risks faced by manufacturers do not align with the sense of luxury experienced by users.

So far, we’ve looked at this from the manufacturer’s perspective, but from the market’s perspective, there’s also a somewhat ironic dynamic at play.

From a manufacturer’s perspective, using CNC-machined aluminum enclosures for small-lot production is a relatively low-risk option that allows them to bring products to market while avoiding large-scale investments in molds.

However, from the user’s perspective, the texture and heft of machined aluminum, its surface finish, and the limited production volume are easily recognized as qualities that convey “luxury,” “exclusivity,” and “rarity.”

If demand is high, items may sell out quickly, and resale prices may rise.

In today’s terms, it’s likely to become a target for “resale.”

As a result, the very fact that only a small quantity is produced can sometimes serve to make the product appear even more valuable.

On the other hand, injection-molded plastic enclosures require manufacturers to make a significant upfront investment in mold production, and this manufacturing method is only viable if sales volumes are expected to exceed a certain threshold.

In other words, from the brand’s perspective, these may be “products they’ve bet on with the expectation of selling them over the long term.”

Even so, users sometimes judge the product based solely on the material, saying, “Since it’s plastic, it doesn’t look very high-end.”

As you can see, when you change your perspective, there are cases where “the perception of value is reversed between the manufacturing side and the market side.”

Products with higher investment risks for manufacturers do not necessarily appear more high-end to users.

In fact, CNC-machined aluminum products made in small batches may sometimes be perceived as having greater value, including their rarity and the sense of ownership they provide.

I believe this discrepancy is a crucial point to consider when examining the current custom keyboard market.

Manufacturers must not only choose the “most cost-effective production method , ” but also determine which manufacturing method is best suited for each price point and brand experience.

The difference in manufacturing methods comes down to the “speed at which new markets can be tested.”

Differences in manufacturing methods and business models result in significant differences in the “speed at which new markets can be tested.”

For companies that can easily utilize China’s external supply chain and small-lot production via CNC machining, it becomes possible to launch products into the actual market with a relatively small investment—even for new product categories where the scale of demand is unknown. This makes it easier to decide whether to increase production if the response is positive or move on to the next project if it is weak.

On the other hand, companies that recoup their investments while maintaining their existing manufacturing facilities and brand structures over the long term must consider, every time they launch a new product, how to position that product within their existing business.

In other words, differences in manufacturing methods and business models aren’t just about simple variations in production costs; they also determine “how effectively a company can test new user experiences—whose market potential is still unknown—in the market with minimal risk.”

In today’s keyboard market, where new form factors—such as split layouts, 40% keyboards, staggered columns, and integrated pointing devices—are constantly emerging, isn’t this “speed at which you can try things out” itself becoming more important than ever before?

And even if we were able to minimize manufacturing risks, the next question is how widely we can sell a single product in the market.

From here on, we’ll take a look at global expansion based on ANSI and localization for the Japanese keyboard layout.

3. Keyboards based on the “ANSI” standard—which is popular worldwide—have significant limitations when it comes to Japanese layouts.

Keychron describes ANSI as the most widely used layout for custom mechanical keyboards.

In addition, physical layouts vary by region—for example, ISO layouts are intended for the European market, while JIS layouts are intended for the Japanese market. ( Keychron )

Source: Keychron “ISO / ANSI / JIS Keycaps”

Therefore, if products are manufactured based on ANSI standards, they can be sold in a relatively broad market rather than being limited to a specific country.

Furthermore, if we can add ISO and JIS standards to the same series, we can recoup the development costs invested in the enclosure and basic design across multiple markets.

The Keychron Q1 is a good example of a keyboard with a straightforward design.

Both the ANSI version and the Japan JIS version measure 145 mm in width and 327.5 mm in length and feature a fully CNC-machined aluminum housing.

While they aren’t exactly identical down to the internal specifications—for example, the official specs indicate differences in the plate material—at least the major design elements, such as the external shape and the chassis, are standardized. ( Keychron )

In addition, Keychron has released firmware and JSON files for ANSI, ISO, and JIS layouts for several products, including the Q Series. ( Keychron )

As mentioned in the previous chapter, localization can be achieved by standardizing major assets—such as the outer casing and product platform—as much as possible, while modifying region-specific components such as the PCB, plate, keycaps, firmware, and keymap.

If this plan goes through, we won’t need to recoup the chassis development costs solely for the models intended for the Japanese market.

The very fact that a platform developed for the global market can be adapted for the Japanese market is a major strength of a global brand.

The Japanese keyboard layout has more keys than the ANSI layout.

However, localizing the Japanese keyboard layout is not a simple task.

Keychron itself explains that the physical key structures differ between ANSI, ISO, and JIS layouts, and that simply swapping out the keycaps is not enough to change the layout itself.

The Japanese keyboard layout has more keys than the ANSI layout and also includes dedicated keys for Japanese input. ( Keychron )

At Greenkeys, we have also been continuously reviewing the points to keep in mind when designing Japanese-layout keyboards.

For example, while a standard 75% English layout can easily fit within a width of about 16u, the Z row of a Japanese layout contains an additional key (_) that is not found in English layouts.

If you want to fit this difference within the same outline, you’ll need to make adjustments, including around the right Shift key and the arrow keys.

Reference: Greenkeys, “Comprehensive Guide to Japanese Keyboard Layout and Keycap Design”

This is the challenging part of localizing the Japanese keyboard layout for global products.

Changing the outer casing would provide more flexibility, but if we were to develop new housings and exterior parts just for Japan, the benefits of standardization would be reduced.

Conversely, if the outer frame is standardized, the problem then arises of how to fit the Japanese keyboard layout into the limited space.

Localization is not merely a matter of translation or changing key labels; it is also a design process that involves finding a balance between a globally standardized design and how users in each region actually use the product.

Their respective strengths and weaknesses

To summarize these differences, here is a breakdown:

Product development for Keychron-style products is a strong point because it makes it easy to build up sales volume globally.

On the other hand, for companies like Elecom that can plan products while directly observing the needs of the Japanese market, this represents a strength that companies capable of designing products with the Japanese market as their starting point possess, compared to overseas brands that rely on a globally standardized design approach.

There is no definitive answer here as to which one is better.

It seems safe to say that designs that are easily scalable on a global scale and those that are deeply optimized for regional markets each have their own strengths.

4. Challenges in Selling Keyboards in Japan

Previously, at Greenkeys, we examined the Japanese keyboard market from the perspectives of “tools that last a long time” and “experiences that make you want to buy more.”

While long-lasting products such as REALFORCE, HHKB, and FILCO hold significant value, Greenkeys observes that among users with a strong interest in mechanical and custom keyboards, there is a growing trend of purchasing additional keyboards—even if their current ones are still in working order—simply to experience different layouts, keystroke feel, or new features.

Source: Greenkeys, “Tools You Can Use for a Long Time” and “Experiences That Make You Want to Buy More”—How Have Keyboard Sales Changed in Japan?

GreenEchoes Studio also highlights the importance of clarifying the reasons for purchase—such as “Why would someone who already owns a good keyboard want another one?”—as part of its approach to supporting corporate clients.

Reference: GreenEchoes Studio, “Restructuring Corporate Support for Keyboard Brands”

These points are from the perspective of “keyboard buyers.”

From the perspective of the “manufacturers,” it becomes clear that a major challenge lies not only in “creating products that spark interest,” but also in figuring out how to distribute them in Japan.

This chapter does not cover topics such as “Technical Conformity Certification,” which is required when selling wireless devices in Japan.

To sell in Japan, you need to localize not only the “product” but also the “sales environment.”

When selling products from overseas brands in Japan, a Japanese keyboard layout and a Japanese manual aren’t the only things you need.

We need to establish an environment where Japanese users can shop with confidence, covering everything from product pages and payment processing to domestic shipping, warranties, repairs, and customer support .

In the case of Keychron, Kopek Japan fulfills this role.

Copek Japan has officially stated that, as Keychron’s authorized importer in Japan, it is responsible for the distribution and support of Keychron products in the domestic market.

Copec Japan Co., Ltd. is also the retailer for the current official Keychron Japan store.

Source: KOPEK JAPAN “Official Keychron Distributor in Japan” / Keychron Japan “Disclosure Required Under the Act on Specified Commercial Transactions”

Meanwhile, Keychron’s official global store also ships to Japan.

According to the official Shipping Policy, they do offer shipping to Japan, and it states that shipping address information must be provided in English. ( keychron.com )

In other words, in Keychron’s case, rather than completely shutting down direct sales from its home country, the company is maintaining both its global e-commerce platform and its domestic sales network in Japan.

Furthermore, the official Keychron list of retailers lists Super Kopek and Keychron Japan as authorized retailers in Japan. ( keychron.com )

Looking at this structure, it’s safe to say that Kopek Japan’s role goes beyond mere importation; it also involves adapting Keychron products so that Japanese users can purchase them with a sense of familiarity, as if they were domestic products.

With products like Nape Pro and Orca Echo, insights from the Japanese market are directly incorporated into product development.

What’s even more interesting is the joint development effort by Keychron, Kopek Japan, and MediaGene.

The Nape Pro, available on Gizmodo Japan’s online store “GIZMART,” is a trackball device that originated as a personal development project by a member of the Gizmodo Japan editorial team and was brought to market through a collaboration with Keychron.

As of April 2026, the cumulative total sales from the two crowdfunding campaigns combined exceeded 400 million yen. ( mediagene.co.jp )

Source: MediaGene, “Keychron and Gizmodo Japan’s Jointly Developed ‘Nape Pro’ Surpasses 400 Million Yen in Cumulative Sales”

Since then, in May 2026, GIZMART, Keychron, and Kopek Japan have been working together as strategic partners.

Keychron and GIZMART Become Strategic Partners | New Trackball “T1 HE” and Split Keyboard Announced

ColumnAbout This ArticleThis column includes the author’s analysis and perspective on keyboard products, market developments, and related topics. While every effort is made to verify factual information, the analysis and evaluation reflect the author’s point of view. It should be read as opinion-based editorial content rather than a product review or news report. Featured image: https://www.mediagene.co.jp/2026/05/19840.html On May 28, 2026, Mediagene, Inc. announced that Keychron and GIZMART have begun a strategic partnership. As the first initiative, Keychron’s new trackball mouse “Keychron T1 HE” will launch via crowdfunding on GIZMART starting June 1, 2026. Additionally, a split keyboard co-developed by Keychron and Gizmodo is scheduled to begin crowdfunding in mid-June. Keychron […]

✓ Related Reading

Source: MediaGene, “Gizmart Forms Strategic Partnership with Keychron and Kopek Japan”

Orca Echo is also a product that emerged from this collaboration.

Announced in June 2026 as a split keyboard jointly developed by Keychron and GIZMART, it garnered significant attention, including a crowdfunding campaign that launched first in Japan and raised over 700 million yen in total contributions.

Let’s break down this relationship.

With this approach, international brands themselves do not need to fully understand the Japanese market.

Companies that understand the Japanese market, companies that sell in Japan, and companies that can actually manufacture products each contribute their respective strengths, resulting in a division of labor that spans the entire process from product development to sales.

The Challenge of Maintaining Direct Sales from the Home Country While Competing with Distributors

However, simply establishing a sales office in Japan won’t solve everything.

Currently, many international brands operate their own e-commerce sites and have adopted a direct-to-consumer (DTC) sales model that allows them to sell directly to customers around the world.

From the manufacturer’s perspective, there are likely significant benefits to maintaining its domestic e-commerce platform.

In addition to being able to manage pricing in-house, you can sell directly to users without going through distributors, making it easier to launch new products simultaneously worldwide.

On the other hand, if a company sells directly from its home country’s e-commerce site while maintaining a sales agent in Japan, competition may arise between the domestic agent and the manufacturer’s direct sales.

Domestic distributors incur costs associated with selling products in the Japanese market, including importation, domestic inventory, logistics, product listings, Japanese-language support, warranties, repairs, and marketing.

In contrast, on the manufacturer’s official e-commerce site, since it does not have the same cost structure as Japanese distributors, products may sometimes be sold at prices lower than those in Japan through promotions or discounts.

As a result, a situation can arise in which agencies investing to develop the Japanese market and the parent company’s direct sales channels end up competing for the same customers.

However, as I will explain later, I believe that if sales are limited to the domestic e-commerce site, it is unlikely to pose a competitive threat to sales agents.

On the other hand, if a foreign brand opens its own store on an e-commerce platform that domestic users regularly use, the customer bases of the brand’s direct sales in its home country and its domestic distributor are likely to overlap, which could lead to more pronounced channel competition.

I believe this is a very important issue for overseas brands with sales agents in Japan to achieve long-term growth in the Japanese market.

This is because it is necessary to design a sales strategy for the Japanese market that goes beyond simply considering “whether there is a distributor” to include how to ensure that direct sales from the parent company and domestic sales can coexist.

“Can be shipped to Japan” is not the same as “can be sold in Japan.”

Another point to consider is the psychology of the users making the purchase.

Buying products from overseas e-commerce sites has become easier than it used to be.

However, when shopping on overseas e-commerce sites, you may encounter procedures that differ from those on domestic e-commerce sites, such as entering your address in English, international shipping, customs duties and taxes, customer service for defective items, returns, and warranties.

Keychron’s Shipping Policy also explains that for orders shipped to Japan, the shipping address and recipient’s name must be provided in English, and that VAT or import duties may apply depending on the destination. ( keychron.com )

I don’t think it’s appropriate to make a blanket statement here that “Japanese people dislike buying from overseas.”

On the other hand, there are differences between domestic and international e-commerce in terms of the amount of information buyers must verify in advance and the psychological burden they face when a problem arises.

The author views this difference as the “trust cost at the time of purchase.”

Even if the price of a product is exactly the same, the barriers to purchase are lowered when the following conditions are met: “It can be purchased in Japanese,” “It arrives within a few days from a domestic distribution center,” “You can contact customer service in Japanese if you have any issues,” and “You can receive warranty service and repairs domestically.”

In other words, the fact that products can be shipped from overseas to Japan does not mean that Japanese users can purchase them with confidence.

When you take this into account, localization for the Japanese market is no longer just a matter of the JIS keyboard layout or Japanese language display.

We believe that integrating sales, shipping, and customer support into a cohesive whole is the key to localization that enables international brands to maintain consistent sales in Japan.

Sales in Japan require both “manufacturing” and “sales” to work in tandem

To summarize what we’ve discussed so far, it’s clear that simply “being able to make a good product” isn’t enough to launch a new keyboard in the Japanese market.

Looking at the collaboration between Keychron, Kopek Japan, and GIZMART, it becomes clear that this model can work even when tasks are divided among companies that each specialize in their respective areas, rather than having a single company handle everything.

This is somewhat similar to the horizontal division of labor in manufacturing discussed in Chapter 2.

In manufacturing, dividing tasks among multiple companies—such as PCB production, CNC machining, mold making, and surface treatment—can accelerate the time to market.

In sales as well, by dividing responsibilities—such as understanding the Japanese market, product development, domestic distribution, media relations, and customer support—among specialized teams, international brands may be able to enter the market faster than if they were to build everything from scratch on their own.

In other words, when considering the competitiveness of a keyboard brand, it is necessary to look not only at “how quickly it manufactures products” but also at “how quickly it connects those products to regional markets.”

As we saw in Chapter 3, if adapting a globally standardized product to a Japanese keyboard layout is considered “product localization,” then the sales, distribution, warranty, and support discussed in this chapter could perhaps be referred to as “localization for the Japanese market.”

And I believe that only when these two elements come together can new input experiences developed overseas reach Japanese users.

5. What a mature brand needs is “a system that allows it to experiment with new input experiences while preserving its established form.”

As we’ve seen so far, when you factor in manufacturing methods, the reuse of design assets, the size of the potential market, localization, and even sales channels, there are significant differences among keyboard brands in terms of how quickly they can bring new products to market.

That said, it cannot be said with certainty that brands like REALFORCE and HHKB—which have a long history of manufacturing keyboards in Japan—are at a disadvantage.

The typing feel, keyboard layout philosophy, trust in quality, and domestic sales and support infrastructure that have been built up over a long period of time are things that emerging brands cannot replicate in a short time—and they hold value in and of themselves.

On the other hand, in today’s keyboard market, aside from owning such a “highly refined model,” a new competition has emerged over how quickly companies can bring innovative input experiences to market.

The very role of the keyboard is beginning to change.

Until now, the primary function of a keyboard has been to allow users to type text accurately and efficiently.

However, as the use of generative AI becomes more widespread and applications like Vibe Coding gain further traction, the very role expected of keyboards may change.

Instead of typing out long passages of text or code entirely by hand, you convey your intent to the AI, give it instructions, review the generated content, and make revisions as needed.

If such uses become more common, the keyboard may evolve from being merely a “text-input device” into an interface for conveying human decisions and instructions to computers.

This also provides an opportunity to reevaluate the number of keys needed on a keyboard and the layout itself.

The main value of traditional full-size keyboards was that they allowed users to type all characters and symbols directly.

However, if AI or software begins to fill in some of the input, the need to keep all the physical keys laid out at all times may become relatively less important.

By then, perhaps keyboards will be able to take on even more versatile forms than they do now.

The value of factors other than “what can be entered” is growing

In fact, in today’s keyboard market, value beyond the basic function of “typing text” has already become increasingly important.

For example, with small keyboards, reducing the number of keys isn’t a drawback in itself; rather, it’s accepted as a benefit—they’re “small and easy to carry” and “free up desk space.”

While split-keyboard layouts and staggered-column layouts require a learning curve that differs from that of a standard keyboard, they offer ergonomic benefits, such as making it easier to maintain the home position and keep the wrists and arms in a natural position.

Furthermore, with features such as aluminum cases, unique color schemes, keycaps, and special layouts, the very feeling of “I like the way it looks” or “I want to own it” has become a factor that cannot be ignored when choosing a keyboard today.

In other words, the value of a keyboard can no longer be measured solely by “how easy it is to type on.”

It is not only an input device, but also a work tool, a tool designed to fit the body, and a product with a strong recreational appeal.

I strongly believe that these multifaceted values are one of the factors that make the current keyboard market so interesting.

If switching costs decrease, even unusual layouts are more likely to become viable options.

Until now, column staggered layouts and small keyboards with a key density of 40% or less have been strongly favored by some users, but they have presented a significant hurdle for the general public.

One of the main reasons is the switching cost involved in transitioning from an existing keyboard.

It took a certain amount of knowledge and time to master the use of this specialized input environment.

However, if we can use AI to create keymaps and settings, or ask it in natural language, “I want to assign this action to this key,” the learning curve may decrease in the future.

When you think about it that way, column-staggered layouts and small keyboards—which have traditionally been viewed as “difficult to master”—may become viable options for a wider range of users.

The reason Orca Echo garnered attention also lies in its “new input experience.”

One iconic example of this is the Keychron Orca Echo.

Orca Echo is a product that integrates pointing functions, such as a trackball, into a left-right split, column-staggered layout.

Compared to a standard keyboard, this layout is quite unusual.

Still, I think the main reason it attracted so much attention was that it presented the input experience itself—something different from what had come before—as a product.

See: Greenkeys, “Keychron Orca Echo-Related Articles”

In the past, just hearing the term “column-staggered layout” might have made many users think, “That sounds too difficult for me.”

However, these days, by combining features such as ergonomics, compact keyboards, and integrated trackballs, the motivation to buy—”I want to try it because it’s new”—has become a valid reason for purchase.

This seems to indicate that keyboards are evolving from mere durable goods into products designed to let users try out new experiences.

Keyboards Can Be Even More “Fashionable”

The term “fashionable” as used here does not simply mean “stylish” in appearance.

Fashion is all about that feeling of, “Right now, this is the style I want to choose.”

Even if I have clothes that are still functional, I sometimes choose different colors, styles, materials, or brands.

I feel that keyboards are also becoming more like that kind of product.

Even if the keyboard I’m currently using isn’t broken, I’ve recently started finding “reasons to buy a new one.”

• I’d like to try using the split-screen feature
• I want a compact keyboard that I can carry around.
• I want to try out the feel of a magnetic one
• I want a sturdy keyboard with an aluminum case.
• I want one with a trackball.

If this purchasing behavior holds true, then for keyboard brands, it’s not just about creating a single, finished product.

It’s also important to be able to consistently offer new value that users will want to try during that time.

What Mature Brands Need Is “An Experimental Track Separate from Their Established Form”

In this regard, established brands in Japan find themselves in a difficult position.

Making significant changes to the product philosophy and typing feel that we have maintained for many years could undermine the brand value in the eyes of our existing users.

On the other hand, if we focus solely on preserving the current form, we risk falling behind when new input experiences emerge on the market.

That’s precisely why I believe it’s important to create “a separate lane where users can try out new input experiences while preserving the existing, established format.”

HHKB Studio is a clear example of this potential.

The Professional series retains the core concepts that HHKB has developed over the past 30 years.

Meanwhile, the Studio model features MX-compatible mechanical switches, a pointing stick, and a gesture pad, and even the manufacturing process differs from that of the Professional model.

In other words, PFU already offers the “HHKB that stays the same” and the “HHKB that lets you try a new typing experience” as separate product lines.

Source: HHKB Studio FAQ

Even if we experiment with left-right splits or other form factors in the future, there is no need to necessarily change the basic design of the Professional model.

Isn’t it true that what a mature brand needs is not to abandon its established form, but rather to have a system that allows it to explore new possibilities while preserving that form?

The Strength of Companies That Can Turn New Input Experiences into Products

I believe that competition in the keyboard market going forward will develop in ways that cannot be explained by product performance alone.

What’s more, trends change significantly, and as a result, the “hit products that sell well at that particular time” also change.

In other words, the key will likely be how quickly we can turn new needs into products.

However, that’s not all.

Not only do we need to establish the manufacturing processes to make this a reality, but if we are to sell the product in Japan, we must also build an appropriate sales network and support system.

It is extremely difficult for a single company to handle all of these operations on its own.

That’s exactly why I think we should consider “collaborations” like the one Keychron formed with Kopek Japan and GIZMART.

At the same time, the role of the keyboard itself is changing.

It has the potential to evolve beyond a tool used solely for entering large amounts of text into an interface that allows users to give instructions to AI, convey their intentions, switch between tasks, control a pointer, and adapt to their own physical capabilities and work style.

If that happens, keyboards should be able to take on even more creative forms than they do now.

In the Japanese keyboard market going forward, we may be gradually shifting toward an era where the focus is no longer on competing over the “correct keyboard design,” but rather on competing over “what kind of typing experience to provide.”

What is required of a brand at that point is not to discard the established form it has built up over time, but to continue exploring new possibilities while preserving what must be preserved.

I believe that this will be one of the key factors for established keyboard brands to maintain their competitive edge in the next era.

Related Reading

Keyboards That Caught My Eye at the Tokyo Game Show 2026 | TGS 2026 Report

September 21, 2026

It’s Not Just the Orca Echo and Nape Pro: Keychron’s Efforts to “Go Beyond the Boundaries of Keyboards” at TGS 2026

September 20, 2026

The KIBU booth was packed with keyboards. A look at the future of the company’s “KIBU Gear” brand, as seen at TGS 2026

September 19, 2026

Greenkeysの記事をGoogleで見つけやすく Find Greenkeys More Easily on Google

Google検索の「優先ソース」にGreenkeysを追加します

Add Greenkeys as a Preferred Source on Google