Apple gold
leancrew.com
leancrew.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_matrix_composite
"MMCs are nearly always more expensive than the more conventional materials they are replacing. As a result, they are found where improved properties and performance can justify the added cost. Today these applications are found most often in aircraft components, space systems and high-end or "boutique" sports equipment."
So it seems the goal was really first to have the more durable material.
http://www.ebay.com/gds/How-Much-Gold-Is-Really-In-A-Rolex-W...
We see that the golden Rolex has most of the weight in the bracelet and I haven't seen the "full gold" bracelet on the Apple site. The body of the golden Rolex apparently has cca 2 thirds of the golden ounce of pure gold, which is at the moment not more than 700 USD. If Apple can save a half of it, it's around 350 USD saved, not counting the higher expense to make a composite which would reduce the saving.
Now if we accept Gruber's guess that the most expensive watch will be priced in the order of 10 K USD, compared to all the profits per unit, it doesn't seem to be a big percent. But if we factor the expected number of the items sold it's not something that should be ignored. Still I can imagine that they could have simply made a body with the steel "reinforcement" inside and nobody would blink.
I sure expect somebody will properly tear down the Apple Watch Edition to measure the exact amount of gold. If Archimedes managed to do this 2 millenniums ago, why wouldn't we?
Like how foods made with "100% fruit" still have other ingredients.
Maybe not if you're Apple. It could cost them less to go through a complex yet highly optimized manufacturing process than to buy more gold.
I have a fairly cheap mechanical watch combined with a Milanese mesh strap. I ordered a bunch of different mesh straps, looking for the right material and closeness of weave - it's hard to tell from online photos. The biggest difference between the one I chose and the ones I discarded was weight. The discarded ones felt like they were made of plastic.
Most MMCs replace base metals that cost a few dollars per kilogram. Gold currently trades at ~$37,000/kg. Even comparing against a relatively costly base metal like tungsten, gold is three orders of magnitude more expensive. Spending $100 or even $1000 per kg to halve the density of a given volume of material vastly increases the cost of aluminium, but greatly reduces the cost of gold.
I have absolutely no doubt that Apple could significantly reduce their materials cost by using this process.
Going back to the first iMac, their industrial design work has included developing or scaling new manufacturing techniques. Examples include co-molding white and clear plastic to get the liquid look of the iPod, and of course machining laptop bodies out of aluminum blocks.
If there is a company who could make this work at consumer scale, it's Apple.
Weight is critical to the iWatch. Look at the advertising they have done to date. It has all been in women and men's fashion magazines (with a particular focus on Asia) whose readers will generally have slighter frames.
The iWatch is quite different from other watch makers in this respect since they are targeting both men/women with the widest age range probably ever seen in the industry. This means the same watch needs to be capable of being worn on a 13 y/o Chinese girl as well as a 35 y/o 6 foot American guy.
This is something I've never heard. What is this based on?
What is the desirability of gold? It is the essence of the metal or the appearance? If apple is able to improve the essence of the metal and improve the longevity of the appearance - I say it's a win.
As long as it looks nice and performs well.
Of course, you only need a tiny, tiny amount relative to a watch to plate a PCB or connector.
(As someone who regularly uses public transportation, I personally won't be getting a gold watch. But I see the appeal.)
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/15/131430755/a-chemis...
----------------------------
So we're down from 118 elements to 30, and we've come up with a list of three key requirements:
- Not a gas.
- Doesn't corrode or burst into flames
- Doesn't kill you.
Now Sanat adds a new requirement: You want the thing you pick to be rare. This lets him cross off a lot of the boxes near the top of the table, because the elements clustered there tend to be more abundant.
At the same time, you don't want to pick an element that's too rare. So osmium — which apparently comes to earth via meteorites — gets the axe.
That leaves us with just five elements: rhodium, palladium, silver, platinum and gold. And all of them, as it happens, are considered precious metals.
----------------------------
It's interesting to note that before modern manufacturing processes, Aluminum was also a very valuable metal. It had all sorts of desirable properties and manufacturing costs were so high that it was effectively rare. Cheap hydroelectricity and process scaling have taken care of that however.
Without stating why it needs to be an element in the first place. Why not any compound?
Makes you wonder why nobody ever thought of it before?
1. http://www.watchtime.com/wristwatch-industry-news/technology...
This seems like a complete non-issue. "18 karat" isn't a measure of gold by volume, nobody buys gold by volume, and this "Apple gold" has the same amount of gold by weight as any other 18k gold.
Anyway I'm not a metallurgist, but it seems to me that if Apple watch is successful the gold watch will sell in large numbers. If that happens it seems to me it might spawn a cottage industry of gold refining to float off the ceramic and such and reclaim the gold. They aren't the first to make a hybrid like this, but they'll be the first to do it in large quantities.
Also, as others have pointed out the idea that you have to upgrade Apple products when new models come out is bunk. I use my iphones for at least 4 years. My current iphone is 4 years old and I will probably keep it for 5 years. I don't see why (if successful) the Apple watch after getting past the teething phase by the 2nd or 3rd revision you won't be able to keep it as long as an iphone.
People don't need to upgrade their iphones every year. Those that do are doing it purely out of their own desire. Apple devices last in a useful fashion quite a long time. The fact that they design them to do that inspires confidence in their institutional integrity. The fact that people who must have the latest thing don't acknowledge that they're usually upgrading purely for their own felt reasons–not that I'm opposed to it in any way–and not because anyone is forcing them to is just a way to hide the true reasons they upgrade from themselves. They made me do it!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specialized_Bicycle_Components...
EDIT: though, apparently most (all?) of their suits are trademark related, however specious.
Damn. Time to delete the thing from my cart. Sigh, it was prime too.
I will be surprised if more than 1,000 are ever sold.
I will be shocked if more than 10k are sold.
A more delicious question is: how many watches would have to be produced to create a significant impact?
All samples are 18k gold, so the reduction in gold mass should be (and actually is) exactly the same as the reduction in total mass.
Looking at their data, for some reason there is a reduction factor of 1.25 applied to all values, except for sample F which has no reduction. My suspicion is that someone wanted to correct for the fact that 25% of 18k gold is not gold, but even then they would have needed a factor of 1/0.75 = 1.333...
The people making much higher estimates of the gold watch's price (most notably, John Gruber) are backing their estimates with analysis and citations.
Keep in mind doing this type of compositing usually makes the gold MORE expensive. Granted Apple could take it to an unprecedented scale but I couldn't wouldn't hang my hat on it just yet.
(I.e., can this special Apple Gold(TM) be melted and reused like regular gold, or does it just go in a landfill after two years like every other apple product?)
Apple has let you bring you old devices in to be recycled in the past however; Maybe they could extend this to buy back old watches? People have envisioned some upgrade program, though I'm doubtful Apple would be too concerned with melting down old watches for their gold.
I'm sure Apple could buy back, clean, and reuse bands from obsolete watches, but they might be the only buyers if iGold is too difficult for a regular jeweler to work with. It will be interesting to see if one of Apple's first moves on entering the jewelry market is to hamstring the independent secondary market.
It's funny to think that in 20-30 years there may be a cross section of retro-computer enthusiast/gold watch enthusiast. Who'd have predicted that?
The iWatch would be lighter as a result of using this new technology. This reduces the value of the Gold it contains, but increases the iWatch's quality as a techology device.
Will this be possible with Apple gold? Maybe, but it sounds like the salvageable quantity from a watch band will be enough to make a ring, not another watch band.
My old 3GS is still doing good service for my father in law, and my 2006 iMac only packed in last year. My parents are still using my bought-on-release iPad 2 and 4 years after release its running the latest iOS 8. In my experience the useful lifetime of an Apple product is typically about 6-8 years.
Seriously, just click on the tweet and look at the ignorant responses.
I'll let myself out.