Apple’s patent-pending 18k gold: Harder, more scratch-resistant, and ‘less gold’

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Rogifan, Mar 7, 2015.

  1. Rogifan macrumors P6

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #1
    For piggie :)

    http://leancrew.com/all-this/2015/03/apple-gold/

    Apple's patent application: http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNu...f=G%26l=50%26s1=20140361670.PGNR.%26OS=%26RS=
     
  2. cleirac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 7, 2014
  3. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
    #4
    "Less gold" would be inaccurate. It's still 18K gold but mixed differently.
     
  4. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #5
    It's still 75% gold by mass, but if the total mass is lower, then it is "less gold."
     
  5. cleirac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 7, 2014
    #6
    Yeah, so I immediately thought it will be cheaper! Haha. Seriously, at the end of the day, 18K gold, but would it be cheaper or more expensive?

    ----------

    OMG. My brain hurts. How reliable is this report / new findings / ?, Rogifan? Is this being discussed over at ARS?
     
  6. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #7
    If it's half an ounce of gold, it still has over $600 of gold in it, plus there are R&D costs to recoup, as well as the finishing process. It could make the $4,500 FT estimate a lot more feasible.
     
  7. Gav2k macrumors G3

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #8
    See I said this in another thread and the nay Sayers jumped me!
     
  8. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #9
    Yes, there is a link to a patent filing at the Ars article. It was filed in June and granted in December 2014. Rogifan links to it in her post above.
     
  9. cleirac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 7, 2014
    #10
    Yeah, I know about the patent. But this 'less gold' thing, how sure?

    Wait, that is in the patent itself.
     
  10. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #11
    Put it this way. That friend of Gruber who supposedly knows watches saw (and I believe held) the gold Apple watch, and judged it to be similar quality to $10k gold watches. Assuming that he did hold the watch, then the watch was probably similar in weight to comparable size gold watches. So if the legal definition of 18k gold is 75% gold by mass, then the Apple watch must have the same amount of gold, by mass, as other $10k gold watches.

    Is this correct, or am I missing something?
     
  11. betabeta macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2013
    #12
    1 ounce of 18k gold is "only":p going for 876.00 as we speak.

    So the watch cold have 1.2 ounces and it would be 1050 cost for apple.

    Remember the quotes we hear about gold are for 24k.
     
  12. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #13
    You must still use copper and silver to color the gold. You can't have rose gold without adding more copper less silver to the alloy since rose is NOT the color of gold (more copper tints it to the red/rose color). I'm betting that the percentage of ceramic is very small and probably only 1% or so of the total alloy. Also it won't have any appreciable effect on the volume to specific mass ratio of the final alloy.
     
  13. troop231 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    #14
    I'm not a fan of the yellow or rose gold colors. I wish Apple would've done Edition models in platinum or white gold at least! :)
     
  14. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
    #15
    So the density is still the same.
     
  15. cleirac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 7, 2014
    #16
    If you are right with the cost + Apple (New Gold) Premium + Luxury Premium of the Market + AW technology is so not equal to $2.5k you are hoping for.

    It might be at least $4.5k. FT hits the sweet spot. It could be more or a little less.

    ----------

    Love it but we will soon find out if there are more surprise options to anything.
     
  16. troop231 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    #17
    Love what, the current colors or my proposed in addition to the current ones colors?
     
  17. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
    #18
    Not different enough from stainless steel. They'd want the Editon models to scream "Look what I can afford!"
     
  18. gr8tfly macrumors 603

    gr8tfly

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Location:
    ~119W 34N
    #19
    No. And thus the volume can be less, requiring less gold. The percentage in mass stays the same at 75% for 18K. This is because the ceramic is lighter, so more – by mass – is used in the same volume. (whew – I think I got that right... ;) )
     
  19. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #20
    I find it interesting that Apple came out (through back door channels) to correct the original FT article that erroneously stated that the stainless steel watch would be $349 like the aluminum watch, but did not correct the $4,500 estimate. The FT article now says "unconfirmed" for the stainless steel, and "unconfirmed of about $4,500" for the Edition. If it were massively off, Apple might have told the FT to remove the $4,500 reference. It isn't as if readers of How to Spend It aren't used to seeing $20,000 watches in the magazine. There are usually at least half a dozen ads for watches like Patek Philippe in an issue.

    ----------

    It may be difficult to tell from mere sight or even holding. Apple could do other things to increase the weight of the device, and it could still be significantly heavier than steel, which is mostly carbon and iron (much lighter than gold).

    ----------

    Rose gold is fashionable these days, particularly with women. Yellow gold is popular in China and has made a comeback in the West in recent years.
     
  20. Mikes1 macrumors member

    Mikes1

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2015
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    Lol ..... less than what!
     
  21. cleirac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 7, 2014
    #22
    Both*.


    *Really meant the current colors, but I am for adding more colors and as many combinations as possible (not just for AWE).
     
  22. JayLenochiniMac macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Location:
    New Sanfrakota
    #23
    First let's define density. I take it you're using mass density, which is mass per volume. Using that definition the density is higher. But wouldn't the volume of the case be fixed?
     
  23. cleirac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 7, 2014
    #24
    KPOM,

    My gut feeling is telling me now that it will be a little less than $4.5k. It is going to change after another "interesting reveal". Haha.
     
  24. gr8tfly, Mar 7, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2015

    gr8tfly macrumors 603

    gr8tfly

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Location:
    ~119W 34N
    #25
    No. If they can make a stronger type of 18K gold, it would allow them to make the case thinner – having less volume, and use less material (less gold per case).

    And, I certainly could have stated it in a different twisty maze of words all similar. ;)

    afterthought: The density would be lower because the amount of lighter weight ceramic used to make up the other 25% by mass takes up more volume. And because this is now a stronger material than a metal alloy 18K gold, they can use less material, which would contain less gold relative to a structure of the same strength made of traditional 18K gold.

    Since I might be getting myself twisted up in the wording, take a look at the first link by the OP – it has a very good explanation.
     

Share This Page