NEW - 3D Case Model - Animated Render - High Quality

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Piggie, Nov 1, 2014.

  1. Piggie macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #1
  2. mtmac macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    #2
    So are you willing to concede your thin shell theory with this render? This obviously is structurally sound from either of the three materials.

    I wish whomever did this also told us the volume and therefore the anticipated weight of the gold portion. This would enable us to figure out the cost of the gold used, and aid speculation on the edition pricing. Pure gold today is $1,172.49. All gold watches are heavily marked up. Still think they're going to sell it cheap?
     
  3. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #3
    Be careful :D:D:D
     
  4. Piggie thread starter macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #4
    Just to make you aware, and to again, try my best to clear up any confusion on various postings. This is exactly how I have suspected the case of the Apple Watch will look all along.

    I must assume my terms/words I have used have been misunderstood in the way I have used them. Personally I still call this a shell, and I feel the analogy of a chocolate Easter egg is still a good one.

    I hope now we can all understand, that we are accepting this is a reasonable, representation of how the case on this device will probably, approximately look in reality.
     
  5. mtmac macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    #5
    $100 of 18k gold would make this case weigh 1/10th of an ounce. Even the aluminum case will weigh more than that. Gold is 716% heavier. The sub $1000, 1/10th once gold eggshell better supports your tin foil theory. Are you wearing any on your head?

    You are right that (at least) tens of thousands of people will pay the extra for a gold one as it's within affordable reach. $5k for an upgradeable watch will be available to many. A sub $1000 gold watch with a recycling program doesn't make sense. Jony Ive won't be saying at release, "this is a full tenth of an ounce of the hardest 18k gold ever produced." Yet all the reviewers are commenting on how a tenth of an ounce watch is so much heavier. You seem to be a placebo theorist on all of the reviewers.
     
  6. Piggie thread starter macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #6
    You are pulling a very old posting about when I was simply saying how a gold watch COULD be done. I was simply running through various examples of what a manufacturer COULD do.

    In this case, I do not, and have never believed Apple WOULD do this.
    I still, feel the Guts of the watch will be fitted to an internal body, which Julian calls a tray (we are just calling the same thing by different terms) and this internal body/tray is then fitted into the case (or outer shell as I call it) then the front screen and rear sensor area popped on.

    That seems to most logical and practical method of assembly, and also does, potentially offer the easiest means of an upgrade if one were to be offered which we have yet to find out.
     
  7. Piggie thread starter macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #7
    I have been wondering about the post you linked to, as I never have thought that it would be a $100 gold watch.
    I was puzzled about that posting, and why I may of said that.
    Eventually I found it.

    I will make a polite request to you, as I am wishing to keep this nice and friendly and polite, to not selectively pick just sections of my postings, to make it sound like I am saying one thing and in effect twist the meaning of my original posting to those who did not see it.

    We are all free to post views, and feelings, but I think it's a bit below the belt, when selected parts of posting are posted in an attempt to twist meanings.

    Thank you.

    So let me post how I said the $100 flippant comment originally, so it can se seen how and why I was saying that as just vivid examples of the alternate ways a manufacturer could decide to go:

    ===========================================

    Apple has 2 routes.

    Make the gold one stupidly expensive, so that it really is a device for people with more money than sense and they wish to throw it away simply for fashion and publicity, so Apple can show well known people in photos with the gold one.

    This will make good brand publicity for them.

    Or they can make a ton of money on the gold one and sell bucket loads.
    As I said in previous posts, they may be very little actual "Case" in the Apple watch, just a thin shell around an aluminium? skeleton which holds it all together.

    Say $100 worth of gold maximum

    They could price this at say $250 premium, enough to make $150 clear profit extra on just the case material.
    But low enough that thousands, tens of thousands of people feel like they'd like to feel special and pay the extra for a gold one as it's within affordable reach.

    That would make them a lot more money to get the masses to pay more for gold than a small number of people willing to throw $1000+ at it.

    =========================================


    As you can see from the above posting that I made weeks ago.
    I was simply giving extreme examples of two vastly different paths a maker could go when making a gold watch.

    Please don't just select half of my posting, as you did, as I makes me sound like I was saying something I never did.


    My viewpoint is, and let me bold it:

    I feel those renderings/videos at the start of this thread are a reasonably realistic view of what the real item may look like.

    Can we please agree on this, and drop any personal attacks and twisting of old postings?

    Thank you.
     
  8. mtmac macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    #8
    This isn't personal, but yes this is a debate. I like Julien before me correctly posted quotes you made. You then said you were going to report him to the mods. Now you're saying the several paragraphs I quoted from you was taken out of context. There's a difference between twisting your words and just quoting your twisted words. Your whole point in that post was Apple wasn't going to make it "stupidly expensive" and instead make it out of a "thin shell" containing "$100 of gold maximum" and 'that would make them a lot more money." I did not twist your words and take this out of context but rather presented your speculation on the watch. I will continue to quote correctly.

    You never said it would be a $100 gold watch. Now you're twisting your own words. You said it would be made of $100 worth of gold maximum of which they would charge a $250 premium, which implies you speculate the watch would be $600, or likely a bit more with the leather charging box.

    It's ok to evolve your views on this watch. That's the reason for this forum. Yet you want to say "This is exactly how I have suspected the case of the Apple Watch will look all along." If you've changed your mind, fine, but don't bs us and say the dozens of thin shell theory postings you've made don't exist, or we are all suffering mass hysteria, all of us misunderstanding your posts. The same mass hysteria you have theorized affecting the reviewers who all have succumbed to the placebo effect identifying the weight of the different models.

    Julien and I have speculated on a non-structural upgradeable plastic tray housing the S1, while your theory has been that there would be a structural non-upgradeable aluminum internal body, with a superficial gold skin. Two vastly different theories, so stop twisting our words and saying that we agree with you, as we don't.

    Before you have said Apple won't offer an upgrade path, yet according to the post below it seems like you now believe it's a possibility? Hopefully your speculation has evolved, otherwise this is a lot of wasted time.

    The Apple Edition watch case will be made out of more than a tenth of an ounce of gold. Can we agree on that?
     
  9. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #9
    Please don't take it 'personal' that I 'corrected' your post.:D
     
  10. Piggie, Nov 3, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2014

    Piggie thread starter macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #10
    I have to sigh a little as you seem to still not be understanding the way I posted the item week ago which you are quoting me on.
    Perhaps it's a phrasing or language issue between us, but let me try in a very short way, re say what I did back then, and hope you can see what I was trying to say, which I understand has come across wrong, and not how I intended.

    I said, and I will admit, in a flippant way :)

    Apple has 2 routes:

    It can make the Gold watch REALLY expensive but not sell many, so people with a LOT of money can buy it, be seen with it, which is great publicity for the brand.

    OR

    They could sell lots, by giving it a very thin $100 Gold covering to "look great" and sell these to tens of thousands of people.



    Can you now see, I was simply giving 2 scenarios of different things Apple 'could' do.

    Now, speaking from a more realistic and less flippant viewpoint, in reality I don't think Apple will do either of these things.

    Making it at a price some have speculated, at up to $10,000 would, I feel kill it from selling to the type of people Apple generally aim their products. Even if they wanted to make it high end, I think those numbers are way way too high.

    Neither do I think Apple are going to coat on a micro thin layer of gold and call it a gold watch, as whilst it would look nice, and millions would then like to buy it, then they would not be able to call it genuine luxury product.

    If you do look back at postings I've made, you will see that I have speculated a price, and it's only a guess of course, of around $1500 for the Gold models.

    I still feel that would be a fair and realistic price point, it would be high enough to be an expensive watch, a VERY expensive watch for many many people, but at the same time, not be so expensive, esp for a 1st gen model, for people to think that's so expensive I won't bother.

    Or course I'm guessing, and I know many feel the $1500 ish mark is well under the $5000 to $10,000 levels that have been thrown around.

    Again, we are all aware of Apple being a tech company, They like to be different, They like to price themselves just above others in the tech line, so that buyers pay that bit more, and feel that bit special for owning Apple, but they don't price things so high that it pushes normal people away from the brand.

    Again, having their normal web site, where they show off iPods, iPhones, iPads, iMacs etc, to also show off Gold Apple Watches in the same manner, but then to price them out of reach of those same customers, would seem, to be to be out of character.

    Almost to the point of if they did wish to bring out $5,000 to $10,000 watches, that type of product would be separated from their more typical products, and again, why I feel the $1500 ish price point would be high for many, but not so high that it would really not sit well in their range of current products.

    I could be wrong, very wrong, but I hope you see I am trying to use reasonable logic and reason to get to the place I'm at.

    Oh and yes....
    The Apple Edition watch case will be made out of more than a tenth of an ounce of gold. Can we agree on that?
    Indeed, I 100% totally agree on that. It will have MUCH more than that amount of gold. Much more.
     
  11. mtmac macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    #11
    Again you seem to be backpedalling. Your post, which now you didn't even quote yourself how you have asked others to quote you. You have failed to use the very special privilege rules you have established just for you, rather than the quoting standards the rest of us live by.

    The beginning of your post reads, "Apple has 2 routes:" not "Apple could possibly go two different ways:" or "These are the extremes Apple could go:", or simply "Don't bother reading as I often post flippant things that even I don't believe." The second option of your post begins with, "...As I said in previous posts, they (sic) may be very little actual "Case" in the Apple watch, just a thin shell around an aluminium? skeleton which holds it all together...Say $100 worth of gold maximum..." You reiterate that not only you feel it will be a tiny amount of gold, but also lead with "...As I said in previous posts,..." indicating your belief is consistent with other posts you've made previously. So are we to assume all those posts previously made were made "flippantly" too, or just everything seven paragraphs (and under) like this one was?

    I wish I could quote Julien's post, but you obviously believe in censorship, and have had that post removed. It best summarized your previous opinions on the watch.

    Your post was also removed, but not before I saved it. For the brevity of the readers, I will correctly quote portions of it. "...That's out of order and I am going to report you to the mods for this. I don't deny I typed those lines in various postings... Even I don't agree with those lines put into one posting you are quoting for me." Julien's post correctly used ellipses and posted Piggie's quotes verbatim with a dozen or so examples of the tin foil/thin shell theory.

    With additional information, your view should evolve on the watch. It's ok to change your view, but at least admit to it. Are you running for political office today in the midterms? You disregard a seven paragraph post you made as "flippant." You at least agree Apple will put more than a tenth of an ounce of gold in their watch. That's a start.
     
  12. Piggie thread starter macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #12
    Oh please, just drop it.

    I am fed up with your postings about "me" and I'm sure no one else wants to read this boring stuff either.

    I don't like the concept, and I'm sure no one else does, of something trawling thru a large selection of old postings, made perhaps from different points of view at different times, in different ways, cutting out individual lines from each posting, and reassembling them all together in a single post to try and make a person look a certain way.

    I've never done this, and can't understand why anyone else can be bothered.

    So let's just talk about the watch please and drop petty sniping at each other.
    It's boring, and no one wants to read it.
    Thanks. :)

    Back to the subject, and not sniping at anyone else.

    I do accept the image in my head I have had, and that has evolved over time of the Watch, I may well not have expressed in a way that conveyed things well enough for everyone.

    I still call what I think the case will be a Gold Shell.
    And my Chocolate Egg Analogy for me holds firm as I will show in this image:

    http://www.lovefood.com/Images/content/journal/easter-eggs-534x356.jpg

    To me that looks like the Render, a shell of a case.

    I would call this a gold shell also:

    http://i00.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/259458540/18k_gold_watch_case.jpg

    It will be interesting how easy the guts, and what the guts are fitted to.
    Tray/Frame/Skeleton, same thing different names, can be popped in and out of this Gold shell/case.

    Some have suggested it's a quick changeover, we will have to see.

    I think we can all accept the sports model being disposable.
    The questions been to be about how much the price will ramp up for stainless steel, and of course Gold.

    Stainless Steel, itself is near as dammit a zero cost addition for material, but it will be slower to machine and finish due to it's hardness. I understand it has the better back, and better straps, bot of which will bump the costs up.

    I'd like to think we'd be looking at $350 for sports, then $499, another $150 for the Stainless, but it's just a guess. It may well alter a lot if you select the strap at time of purchase.

    As for the Gold, again, we are just stabbing in the dark.

    I think a lot of this will depend more on how Apple decides to sell it, and/or what offers they put in place to make it sell.

    As had been mooted a number of times, there may be a special upgrade deal bundled into the gold one, so that people will buy it, as a v1 model, knowing it's not going to be made out of date after a year, so you pay more but you get more long term come back.

    If this were just a normal Apple product we'd know, but this time around it's a hard call for the higher ends.

    The one scenario I do struggle with is this:

    Gold watch comes out, no deal, no special upgrade package.
    iFixit tear down, pulls it apart.
    Same as the $350 model.

    Plus $10 difference for the back material, and upon total strip down and a weigh, they say the gold is worth $1300

    But Apple are charging the wild $5000+ numbers.

    I really struggle with thinking Apple would want that, as it would spread across the net like wildfire.

    say almost $3500 clear profit for Apple over a sports version.

    I really really struggle to see that scenario being wanted by Apple.
     
  13. mtmac, Nov 4, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2014
  14. mtmac macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    #14
    You can call it a gold shell. The entire watch industry, Apple and the rest of us will continue to call it what it is, a solid gold "case".

    Tray, Frame and Skeleton are entirely different things, not the same as you have continued to wrongly state on multiple occasions. A plastic tray would be just to insulate so that the S1 chip wouldn't short out on the gold and also to fill out space so it wouldn't rattle and possibly contain an attachment point. A frame or skeleton defines the structure comes from that item. The only frame or skeleton on this watch is the gold case itself. Apple didn't perfect a process to make gold stronger only to use aluminum as a frame, and then reiterate that the case is made of solid 18k gold.

    The gold watches will likely sell in jewelry or department stores, so Apple will not have the profits you speculate. All gold watches have high margins. Even at $5k, Apple will be on the less expensive side, shipped in a leather charging box to boot. At $1,500, Apple would be competing with the absolute lowest end of the solid gold watch market; that's not very Apple. And don't worry about your scenario, a $5k watch would certainly have to have an upgrade path or virtually no one would buy it.
     
  15. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #15
    Best thing since sliced bread.:cool: I highly recommend it.

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Piggie thread starter macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #16
    Thank you.
     
  17. MeFromHere macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    #17

    Hey! How did you take a picture of my screen?
     

Share This Page