Pre-Media Event: Eddy Cue or Not Based on Unnamed Reliable Sources AW Reveal

[cleirac]

We got a little info or hints on what we are going to expect during Tim Cook's European tour. But here's a surprising EC detailed revelation related to one of iPhone's newest greatest assets / weapons being copied by rivals that could be use with just the AW - why it is even more important than ever to have it now among other reasons (I rather talk & look at it discreetly, take a glance than whip out my iP6+ all the time) - especially for Gen 1 beta tester aka gadget and Apple lover like me.

OAKLAND, Calif. -- iPhone 5, 5C and 5S owners, you're in luck.

Just like those iPhone 6 and 6 Plus owners, all you'll have to do is enter a passcode or unlock your Apple Watch with your phone to use Apple Pay, explained Eddy Cue, head of iTunes, Apple Pay and Apple's other Internet software and services businesses.

When Apple announced the Apple Watch in September, it said the device would support Apple Pay and would also make the iPhone 5, 5C and 5S work with the mobile payments service. But it didn't provide many details as to how.

But on Friday, as Apple announced Apple Pay's availability here at Oracle Arena before a Golden State Warriors game, Cue explained how the service will work on Apple Watch via iPhones.

Apple Pay works in iPhones by allowing users to simply tap their smartphone to payment terminals and then touch their devices' TouchID fingerprint sensors to purchase items. Both the smartphones and the terminals must have near-field communication (NFC) chips that store payment credentials -- something that limited the service to the new iPhone 6 and 6 Plus phones (unless you have an Apple Watch, it turns out).

Apple Watch also has an NFC chip that makes mobile payments possible, but the watch itself doesn't have TouchID. Instead, users have to either enter a password on the watch or touch their fingerprint sensor on their iPhone after they've put on the wearable, which unlocks Apple Watch. Users won't have to type a password every time they want to use Apple Pay, though. As long as they haven't taken off the device after pairing it with their phone or entering a password on the watch, it will remain unlocked, Cue said. Users also will be able to set a strong security setting that requires a password be entered each time if they desire.

"You can [type a password] if you want to, but you won't normally have to," Cue said. Right now the watch is unlocked, and I could do all of it without having to type any code. If I [took it off and] handed it to you, now you'd have to type in a security code or unlock it from your phone."

Owners of Apple's older phones that don't have fingerprint sensors or NFC will still be able to use Apple Pay through their Apple Watch, Cue said. All they'll have to do is type in a passcode on their watch or phone while wearing Apple Watch, unlocking the device. Apple started incorporating TouchID in iPhones starting with the iPhone 5S in September 2013. Apple Watch requires an iPhone 5, 5C, 5S, 6 or 6 Plus.

"You don't have to authenticate on the phone," said Cue, who was wearing the stainless steel Apple Watch with black strap -- the company's mid-range smartwatch model. "Your watch has to be unlocked, and your phone can unlock your watch. If I took my watch off and gave it to you, it would know and no longer work. If I wanted to pay right now, I could pay with the watch and not have to take the phone out of my pocket."

The information about Apple Pay on Apple Watch comes only a few days before Apple reveals more details about its smartwatch during an event Monday at the Yerba Buena Center for the Performing Arts in San Francisco. The company is expected to talk up apps and other features of the watch, as well as show off new Macintosh computers and possibly some software items.

http://mashable.com/2015/03/06/apple-pay-apple-watch-explanation/#:eyJzIjoidCIsImkiOiJfcGxmajcwc2hwaGU5ZnAxOSJ9

http://www.cnet.com/news/heres-how-apple-pay-works-with-apple-watch/

You will have my attention on similar advance reports / detailed revelations like this.

I will no longer bother reading the onslaught of click & baits meme / blogs / articles "based on unnamed reliable sources" from any tech sites. Not something I enjoy or need anymore to be even more excited on something that will change my life again forever.

 

[Night Spring]

I believe this is all information that was included in the September Apple watch announcement.

 

[cleirac]

Yeah, maybe but this was a much more detailed and clearer explanation on how Apple Pay will work with an AW and really EC himself speaking during an NBA game a few hours ago.

 

[cleirac]

I am very surprised that MR community especially, I am looking at you, Piggie is relatively quite or mum on this very interesting or compelling Jony Ive revelation,

"Ive explains how the molecules in Apple gold are closer together, making it twice as hard as standard gold. And, in case you were wondering, Apple’s cold-forged steel is 40 per cent more durable than regular steel."

http://howtospendit.ft.com/technology/77791-the-man-behind-the-apple-watch , instead many of his critics are focus on attacking him, unlike having a reasonable discussions, like here,

Is Apple’s real watch innovation a gold case that’s as tough as steel?
Interview with Jony Ive claims "the molecules are closer together in Apple gold."

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/03/is-apples-real-watch-innovation-a-gold-case-thats-as-tough-as-steel/

I could see Rogifan is part of that community too.

 

[kdarling]

"Ive explains how the molecules in Apple gold are closer together, making it twice as hard as standard gold. Apple’s cold-forged steel is 40 per cent more durable than regular steel."

If P.T. Barnum were alive today, he'd be working at Apple.

As usual, Ive is just repeating common metallurgical knowledge as if it's something magical or unique.

We've already spoken about how 18kt gold is usually twice as strong as 24kt gold, because it's an alloy. Nothing magical there. And if you burnish it, or do any other kind of common work hardening, yes the molecules get closer and the metal gets harder.

Likewise, with the steel. Cold forging here probably means it's being stamped out like a coin. It's not uncommon at all for a forged piece to be 40+% stronger than a piece that's simply cut.

This is all stuff that jewelers and blacksmiths have been doing for thousands of years.

 

[Piggie]

If P.T. Barnum were alive today, he'd be working at Apple.

As usual, Ive is just repeating common metallurgical knowledge as if it's something magical or unique.

We've already spoken about how 18kt gold is usually twice as strong as 24kt gold, because it's an alloy. Nothing magical there. And if you burnish it, or do any other kind of common work hardening, yes the molecules get closer and the metal gets harder.

Likewise, with the steel. Cold forging here probably means it's being stamped out like a coin. It's not uncommon at all for a forged piece to be 40+% stronger than a piece that's simply cut.

This is all stuff that jewelers and blacksmiths have been doing for thousands of years.

Indeed yes. Apple goes out of it's way to use words, phrases and descriptions in an attempt to baffle the common customer, who just sits there with wide eyes and mouth, going, WOW it's a new type of Gold invented by Apple. Oh, My, God!

Likewise the rubber/plastic strap.

If any other company made it, just how many time do you think anyone could be arsed to keep typing "Fluoroelastomer" in a attempt to again give anything the public it must be special, look at this long word feeling.

Fluoroelastomers were developed in the 1940s and 1950s after the discovery at E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (now DuPont Company) of the heat-resistant resin polytetrafluoroethylene, subsequently sold under the trademark Teflon.

 

[Runt888]

If P.T. Barnum were alive today, he'd be working at Apple.

As usual, Ive is just repeating common metallurgical knowledge as if it's something magical or unique.

We've already spoken about how 18kt gold is usually twice as strong as 24kt gold, because it's an alloy. Nothing magical there. And if you burnish it, or do any other kind of common work hardening, yes the molecules get closer and the metal gets harder.

Likewise, with the steel. Cold forging here probably means it's being stamped out like a coin. It's not uncommon at all for a forged piece to be 40+% stronger than a piece that's simply cut.

This is all stuff that jewelers and blacksmiths have been doing for thousands of years.

I'm pretty sure Apple has been saying that their 18K gold is twice as hard as regular 18K gold, not twice as hard as 24K gold.

 

[KPOM]

If P.T. Barnum were alive today, he'd be working at Apple.

As usual, Ive is just repeating common metallurgical knowledge as if it's something magical or unique.

We've already spoken about how 18kt gold is usually twice as strong as 24kt gold, because it's an alloy. Nothing magical there. And if you burnish it, or do any other kind of common work hardening, yes the molecules get closer and the metal gets harder.

Likewise, with the steel. Cold forging here probably means it's being stamped out like a coin. It's not uncommon at all for a forged piece to be 40+% stronger than a piece that's simply cut.

This is all stuff that jewelers and blacksmiths have been doing for thousands of years.

If you actually read the Ars article, they do refer to a patent filing last clear that claims to be for a process that enables production of a gold alloy that is twice as strong as other 18kt gold alloys.

 

[Rogifan]

And NID we get the Apple isn't doing anything special I've done it a million times before comments. When of course no one but Apple knows exactly what they're doing.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/0...novation-a-gold-case-thats-as-tough-as-steel/

 

[cleirac]

This will be epic long but their takes are worth a read.

Bashing Jony Ive or Apple is the new favorite sport of some armchair people in the blogosphere before even waiting for the details or more reveal.

My favorite comments / theories so far - taken from that arstechnica url link, http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/03/is-apples-real-watch-innovation-a-gold-case-thats-as-tough-as-steel/?comments=1&start=40, I posted earlier - love this kind of discussions, and not some premature outright dismissals or biases going on this forum ...

This isn't that hard guys.

18k gold is just an alloy which is 75% gold by mass and 25% some other thing. There's no standard for what that other thing might be - it can be anything. Traditionally it's silver and a bit of copper but it can be other things. Rose gold is more copper, for instance. White gold is usually more nickel.

Apple is claiming that the 25% 'some other thing' allows the gold atoms to bond with greater force than traditional silver/copper alloys allow, thereby making it harder. And that they likely achieve that result through additional steps (heat, pressure, etc) beyond simple alloying.

So long as the end result is 75% pure gold, they've made 18k gold.

Now, historically there's been a presumption that you could melt 18k gold down and recover most of the constituent parts and there are fairly standard techniques for doing it. It'll be interesting to see how that changes should Apple introduce a new alloy.

One advantage to a harder gold alloy is that you can use less of it in structural elements. So this may actually be a way for Apple to make a thinner frame for the watch which is just as strong as a conventional watch frame, saving gold, and allowing for a different market price point.

My chemistry is undergraduate level, but it does make sense.

Pure gold (24 caret) is very soft, which is why its almost never used in jewelry. Alloying it is how you get stronger/harder more wear resistant 18 caret - the standard in jewelry (ok not cheap jewelry).

So pretty much anything you add to gold makes it stronger - Apple have found some nifty new alloy.
Gold is also a relatively large atom (periodic number 79) so guessing that the nonmetal being added to make a ceramic are lower atomic number (ALL non-metals bar RN at 86 are) so can have atoms closer together.

“Ive explains how the molecules in Apple gold are closer together, making it twice as hard as standard gold.”

It's certainly possible that a composite of gold and other materials is stronger than gold (a fairly weak metal) and also that its component atoms/molecules are closer together than gold atoms in pure gold. The quote does not say that the gold atoms are closer together, only unspecified molecules, so as long as you read "Apple gold" as not being pure gold, it could make sense.

Okay, after looking at the patent the statement "the molecules in Apple gold are closer together" seems... odd... but reasonable (especially if we substitute the word atoms where the word molecules is).

As they say in the patent, 18kt gold is 75% gold by mass. So if we assume from their table they are combining boron nitride with the gold (it is not clear what the 400Hv alloy is), and comparing it to a gold/platinum alloy, there are 58% more total atoms in the same volume. BUT there are 42% less gold atoms in the same volume. Therefore the claim the "atoms/molecules are closer together is true therefore it is harder" is technically correct (the best kind of correct), even though the gold atoms are further apart.

The real takeaway here I think is the cost savings, since there is less gold in the part, and boron nitride is about $0.03 per gram compared to platinums $40 a gram it costs about 60% less to make the same part!

If we are talking about 18k then you need to compare to another 18k, say gold + silver or gold + copper or gold + platnium.

If the 25% matrix is smaller than silver+copper or platinum+copper then, yes, by definition the gold will be closer. Iron has a smaller atomic radius than copper; a gold+iron mix would, upon naive assumption, have more closely spaced
gold than gold+copper. Carbon has an even smaller atomic radius so gold+carbon would have the gold even closer still.

I don't understand why people are mocking the concept. The patent is perfectly clear. The 18K Gold alloy necessarily becomes approximately twice as hard as standard alloys by using a ceramic matrix. Yes, the molecules ARE CLOSER together. Learn to read.

That certainly sounds like the description a non-metallurgist might give after listening to a metallurgist talk.

Apple did say that this was a new alloy. By adding almost any other element to gold, you're going to reduce the lattice parameter a bit. That is not going to make it stronger, per se, but if it is a side effect of a precipitation hardening process, that might be what is really going on.

Anybody want to buy me an Apple Watch Edition to cut up? I'll throw it in an SEM and we'll find out.

Okay, EXPERTS, have at it, GO! If you are not an EXPERT, chut up. I am not talking to you, Piggie.

I have nothing to add or meaningful to say but I am super excited to find out but I am not interested with the (baseless) non-sense too.

----------

And NID we get the Apple isn't doing anything special I've done it a million times before comments. When of course no one but Apple knows exactly what they're doing.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/0...novation-a-gold-case-thats-as-tough-as-steel/

Ha. EXACTLY. I was busy preparing my epic posted when you posted this. Thanks.

 

[Piggie]

Thanks for that posting.

I LOVE straight forward talk by straight forward practical people.

There are many wonderful, amazing, glorious and interesting things in the world that I "LOVE" hearing about, and talking about.

This is why I can't Stand Apple (Jony Ive's) BullPoo where he has to talk in "Magical Terms" about things.

Honestly. Hand on Heart. He speaks to us in exactly the same way as if you were an Adult in a chair, sitting there reading a story to a group of 5 and 6 year old children sitting around you, staring in naïve wonderment of the story being told.

As an Adult, I don't want that. I don't need it, and The universe is amazing enough without any of that "Magical Talk"

I appreciate Apple products. I also appreciate other products.
The new Samsung Galaxy 6 edge, is stunning, and if this were made by Apple even more people would find it stunning

Back to the watch...........

Yes, I am very much looking forward to Monday, mostly to see the price of the Edition if nothing else.
Much has been speculated by many here, including myself

As I said in the past, and I think it's worth repeating:
When people say, this watch is made from Solid Gold. Whilst that is correct. The image this statement it conjures up in people's minds may not actually be what this photo clearly shows you:

It will be interesting to see, when the face is off, the rear circular sensor areas is removed, and the whole internal supporting structure (black in this photo) is also removed, and I'm taking a wild guess this is some aluminium framework it's all fixed to.

Just how much of a shell this "Solid Gold Case" actually is.

 

[kdarling]

If any other company made it, just how many time do you think anyone could be arsed to keep typing "Fluoroelastomer" in a attempt to again give anything the public it must be special, look at this long word feeling.

True, "fluoroelastomer" sounds fancier than saying "synthetic rubber".

If you actually read the Ars article, they do refer to a patent filing last year that claims to be for a process that enables production of a gold alloy that is twice as strong as other 18kt gold alloys.

Thanks. Okay then. I concede they do have such a patent, and that I could be very wrong. Mark this day

I'm pretty sure Apple has been saying that their 18K gold is twice as hard as regular 18K gold, not twice as hard as 24K gold.

All Apple has ever said is that it's "up to twice as hard as standard gold." There's no such thing as "standard gold", and they didn't specify a karat, so I assumed they were comparing to "pure gold".

However, perhaps they simply want to avoid saying that they're mixing powered gold with a powdered ceramic, to form an 18kt equivalent composite material that's not all metal.

Why not? Would people look down on such a gold alloy? Actually, I guess they probably couldn't even call it an "alloy" since it's not all metal. The patent calls it a "mixture", mixed in a mold and heated up.

Whoa. It also means that Piggie could be right, since the shell could be made very thin. Which means you could sell a "18kt gold" watch for much less. Which would explain why they think they can sell millions of that model. I think we have to revise possible Edition prices much further downward.

 

[FatMax]

It might not be a supporting structure that black part. It might be waterproofing. (Which might also double as a supporting structure)

 

[Rogifan]

Back to the watch...........

Yes, I am very much looking forward to Monday, mostly to see the price of the Edition if nothing else.
Much has been speculated by many here, including myself

As I said in the past, and I think it's worth repeating:
When people say, this watch is made from Solid Gold. Whilst that is correct. The image this statement it conjures up in people's minds may not actually be what this photo clearly shows you:

Image

It will be interesting to see, when the face is off, the rear circular sensor areas is removed, and the whole internal supporting structure (black in this photo) is also removed, and I'm taking a wild guess this is some aluminium framework it's all fixed to.

Just how much of a shell this "Solid Gold Case" actually is.

Jesus you are obsessed with this gold case. What will you do when a tear down reveals its all gold, not just some thin shell around an aluminum frame.

 

[Piggie]

It might not be a supporting structure that black part. It might be waterproofing. (Which might also double as a supporting structure)

Indeed yes, all parts of the jigsaw come together to complete the whole final product.

I actually really hope the Gold Edition watch does contain less actual gold that some, even me, are guessing at.

Personally I would like to see the Edition at $999

It would be a good price point, and I'm sure it's possible, given the photo above and careful manufacturing to reduce the gold that's needed in the case.

I want more people to be able to afford to have the watch they want. that's all.

Something like $349, $499 and $999 type pricing.

I'm probably wrong, but I would love to be right on those pricing levels.

----------

Jesus you are obsessed with this gold case. What will you do when a tear down reveals its all gold, not just some thin shell around an aluminum frame.

See Photo above.
Even you can see it's not "All Gold"

Unless you think Apple is now painting gold black

And I will always call it a "shell" as that's what it is, even if you do not like the term.
All we do not know is the thickness of the wall of the shell.
Of course it's not super thin, that would be silly, but it may not be super thick either.

 

[kdarling]

Jesus you are obsessed with this gold case. What will you do when a tear down reveals its all gold, not just some thin shell around an aluminum frame.

Rog, if Apple really is using a ceramic-gold composite for extra hardness above more common 18kt gold alloys, that would have advantages:

1) They could make a much thinner shell than normally possible.

2) Which means less gold to buy and to store at factories.

3) Most importantly, it means that an Edition watch could be far less expensive than anyone has guessed.

An unexpectedly super low price would help explain the leak claiming that Apple expects to sell a million gold Edition models in the first quarter.

I now think we could be in for a surprise. A lot of people could justify spending ~$999 every couple of years.

 

[cleirac]

Of course, the Apple fans love that "stunning" iPhone 6S also coming out in April. It is like Christmas in April.

----------

I am going to wait for the real deal iPhone 7. And I am pretty sure the maker of the "stunning" iPhone 6S cannot wait as well.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Jesus you are obsessed with this gold case. What will you do when a tear down reveals its all gold, not just some thin shell around an aluminum frame.

At least Piggie can take pride that his model is correct.

 

[Piggie]

Thank you.

Of course, this model has to make assumptions re. the internal form
Logically one would think it should not be a million miles away from reality.

It's a best guess based upon what seems realistic from a "that looks about right based upon all the information I can find" standpoint.

How accurate it is, well time will tell.

I actually hope I have over estimated the amount of Gold in this model, and Apple are using less, which will mean the Edition watch will be more affordable for more people.

Just a couple more days and we should know the price, then, some more waiting till someone will do the teardown, strip all away other than the actual gold, and see how far out I am

Always happy to be wrong.

 

[OllyW]

Personally I would like to see the Edition at $999

In yesterday's Jony Ive interview, the description of the box for the Edition sounds like that could cost a couple of hundred dollars by itself.

Ive's so-called "fanatical" attention to detail extends beyond the Apple Watch to the packaging of the wrist-worn device. The box for the Apple Watch Edition in particular will be crafted from premium materials, including aniline-dyed leather on the outside and an ultra-suede material on the inside. The small box is capable of charging the Apple Watch and its bottom half slides out based on friction, similar to past iPhone, iPad and iPod packaging.

I think it's just your wishful thinking showing with your diminishing estimates for the cost of the Edition.

Can't you just wait until Monday?

 

[Rogifan]

While I'm still skeptical about the $10K estimate, there's no way it will be only $999. That's just silly talk.

 

[cleirac]

While I'm still skeptical about the $10K estimate, there's no way it will be only $999. That's just silly talk.

Regardless of what they will come up as the final pricing of the new Apple Gold , as a fan, I thought it was pure genius ... Apple introduced or blindsided everyone with Gold color in the iPhones and iPads (it was like the elephant in the room moment) and at the same time busy cooking their, Apple Gold! Hehe I dunno we would see some limited edition of very selected iGadgets with Apple Gold.

 

[Night Spring]

While I'm still skeptical about the $10K estimate, there's no way it will be only $999. That's just silly talk.

So far, forum members seem to agree with you.
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=20788531#post20788531

If anyone hasn't voted yet, please vote!

 

[matrix07]

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=20788531#post20788531

If anyone hasn't voted yet, please vote!

I just voted on the popular choice!

 

[kdarling]

In yesterday's Jony Ive interview, the description of the box for the Edition sounds like that could cost a couple of hundred dollars by itself.

The box for the Apple Watch Edition in particular will be crafted from premium materials, including aniline-dyed leather on the outside and an ultra-suede material on the inside.

Yeah, retail for some watch boxes can be pretty high. But Apple will be getting these wholesale.

Ultra-suede is artificial suede. It's a common liner for jewelry boxes. It retails for about $10 per yard of 5 foot wide rolls (15 square feet). That means it would take max about a dollar's worth for each box. Retail.

Dyed leather is a more expensive material, but you can buy a couple of square foot sheets at Michael's for about $10-$15.

In Apple's quantities, the boxes should be pretty inexpensive for them to obtain... after all, they plan to buy a million in the first quarter, supposedly.
.