Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

Rogifan

Rogifan

macrumors Penryn
Original poster
Nov 14, 2011
24,883
32,583
For piggie :)

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

How can this be? It’s because Apple’s gold is a metal matrix composite, not a standard alloy. Instead of mixing the gold with silver, copper, or other metals to make it harder, Apple is mixing it with low-density ceramic particles. The ceramic makes Apple’s gold harder and more scratch-resistant—which Tim Cook touted during the September announcement—and it also makes it less dense overall.
Click to expand...

Apple's patent application: http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNu...f=G%26l=50%26s1=20140361670.PGNR.%26OS=%26RS=
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
"Less gold" would be inaccurate. It's still 18K gold but mixed differently.
Click to expand...

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?

----------
KPOM said:
It's still 75% gold by mass, but if the total mass is lower, then it is "less gold."
Click to expand...

OMG. My brain hurts. How reliable is this report / new findings / ?, Rogifan? Is this being discussed over at ARS?
 
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.
 
See I said this in another thread and the nay Sayers jumped me!
 
cleirac said:
OMG. My brain hurts. How reliable is this report / new findings / ?, Rogifan? Is this being discussed over at ARS?
Click to expand...

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.
 
KPOM said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know about the patent. But this 'less gold' thing, how sure?

Wait, that is in the patent itself.
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
"Less gold" would be inaccurate. It's still 18K gold but mixed differently.
Click to expand...

KPOM said:
It's still 75% gold by mass, but if the total mass is lower, then it is "less gold."
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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! :)
 
betabeta said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

----------
troop231 said:
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! :)
Click to expand...

Love it but we will soon find out if there are more surprise options to anything.
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
So the density is still the same.
Click to expand...

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... ;) )
 
cleirac said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

----------
Night Spring said:
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?
Click to expand...

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).

----------
troop231 said:
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! :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
troop231 said:
Love what, the current colors or my proposed in addition to the current ones colors?
Click to expand...

Both*.


*Really meant the current colors, but I am for adding more colors and as many combinations as possible (not just for AWE).
 
gr8tfly said:
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... ;) )
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
JayLenochiniMac said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back