Liquidmetal announces it is now shipping commercial parts to unnamed customers

124»

Comments

  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macarena View Post


    What makes you think that this cannot be done for Apple by Foxconn? This formula itself is not a secret - just that LQMT needs to be paid royalties for using the formula. If Apple has already paid LQMT for perpetual rights, why can't Apple use the formula and have someone like Foxconn make this for them? Where does LQMT make money in such a scenario?



    If Foxconn can do unibody machining for Aluminium, this should be a lot easier technologically.



    And more importantly, do you really think LQMT has the scale and the resources to satisfy Apple's demands, if Apple starts using this product on a serious scale?



    I look at LQMT kind of like a fabless semiconductor design company - they perfect the design, and then let others take care of the grunt work.



    First, Foxconn is an assembler, not a metal foundry. They almost certainly do not have the experience to do this.



    Second, the fact that Apple has a paid up license to use the product does not mean that they have a license to MAKE the product.



    Third, even if Apple has a license to make the product, it doesn't mean that it's transferrable to Foxconn or anyone else.



    Fourth, it takes time to build manufacturing capability. Why in the world would Apple go to someone who has no technology, no experience, and no equipment when LQMT is ready to make products for them?



    Finally, your last sentence is wrong. LQMT is a manufacturer. They are also a research firm. Now, it's entirely possible that they might license the technology to someone else at some time, but you made a flat statement that LQMT would not profit from Apple using their products - and you were flat out wrong based on what we know.
  • macarenamacarena Posts: 325member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    First, Foxconn is an assembler, not a metal foundry. They almost certainly do not have the experience to do this.



    Second, the fact that Apple has a paid up license to use the product does not mean that they have a license to MAKE the product.



    Third, even if Apple has a license to make the product, it doesn't mean that it's transferrable to Foxconn or anyone else.



    Fourth, it takes time to build manufacturing capability. Why in the world would Apple go to someone who has no technology, no experience, and no equipment when LQMT is ready to make products for them?



    Finally, your last sentence is wrong. LQMT is a manufacturer. They are also a research firm. Now, it's entirely possible that they might license the technology to someone else at some time, but you made a flat statement that LQMT would not profit from Apple using their products - and you were flat out wrong based on what we know.



    Foxconn does a whole lot more than just vanilla assembling. Read up on how unibody is made. Yes, machining is not the same as being a metal foundry - but it is a lot closer to foundry than just assembling is.



    Read my post - the formula and the process are well known. The only thing stopping someone else from making this themselves is the royalty payments to be paid to LQMT. There is nothing stopping Apple from making this product on their own. And being a contract manufacturer, Foxconn would be able to do this for Apple. Especially since Apple owns all the rights to commercialize this product. Apple's lawyers might have slipped up with Proview - but do you think they would sign an agreement where Apple cannot get a contract manufacturer to make this stuff for them, and have to make it themselves??



    Yes - it takes time to build up manufacturing capacity. But pretty much anyone in this forum would agree that Foxconn is easily the best in the world at building up capacity quickly. Do you really think LQMT can match Foxconn in terms of people, labor, land, access to raw materials, and the like? Or in terms of logistical expertise?



    Yes - LQMT makes this stuff. But in puny volumes. The volumes they make are like prototype volumes compared to the kind of volumes Apple can absorb. If LQMT has that sort of volumes and capacity, do you think they would be a penny stock?



    Don't get me wrong - this is a major boost to LQMT - but it is more a boost in terms of an increase of profile and will possibly open doors for them in other industries. They already made the money they could make from Apple.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macarena View Post


    Foxconn does a whole lot more than just vanilla assembling. Read up on how unibody is made. Yes, machining is not the same as being a metal foundry - but it is a lot closer to foundry than just assembling is.



    Read my post - the formula and the process are well known. The only thing stopping someone else from making this themselves is the royalty payments to be paid to LQMT. There is nothing stopping Apple from making this product on their own. And being a contract manufacturer, Foxconn would be able to do this for Apple. Especially since Apple owns all the rights to commercialize this product. Apple's lawyers might have slipped up with Proview - but do you think they would sign an agreement where Apple cannot get a contract manufacturer to make this stuff for them, and have to make it themselves??



    Yes - it takes time to build up manufacturing capacity. But pretty much anyone in this forum would agree that Foxconn is easily the best in the world at building up capacity quickly. Do you really think LQMT can match Foxconn in terms of people, labor, land, access to raw materials, and the like? Or in terms of logistical expertise?



    Yes - LQMT makes this stuff. But in puny volumes. The volumes they make are like prototype volumes compared to the kind of volumes Apple can absorb. If LQMT has that sort of volumes and capacity, do you think they would be a penny stock?



    Don't get me wrong - this is a major boost to LQMT - but it is more a boost in terms of an increase of profile and will possibly open doors for them in other industries. They already made the money they could make from Apple.



    The formula is not well known. These are proprietary LQMT formulas and not anyone can make it. Unless Apple's license specifically allows them to sublicense the manufacture of LQMT materials, then LQMT will be the manufacturer. Period.



    Oh, and a metal foundry is absolutely nothing like machining - if Foxconn even does machining, that is. Most reports are that Foxconn buys the unibody cases from someone else.





    ETA:

    I was right. Apple's license is to USE Liquidmetal in consumer electronics devices, not to manufacture it:

    http://www.theblogismine.com/2010/08...-technologies/

    Quote:

    And the company has reportedly signed a deal with Apple on August 5 and transferred all of its intellectual property assets to a new company which has in turn licensed the technology to Apple on an exclusive worldwide basis for use in consumer electronic products while extending the license back to Liquidmetal Technologies for use in all other fields.



    It would require a different license for Apple to have the right to MAKE the products.
  • sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,712member
    Fascinating. Liquidmetal amorphous metals could have a strength to weight ratio higher than that of steel, while being cheaper to manufacture than composite materials. And because of their flow properties, amorphous metals can be formed into complex shapes without machining. Another cost benefit.



    But can Liquidmetal be recycled? How could Apple capture the Liquidmetal in their products for re-use? (Just to keep Greenpeace off their backs.) Maybe some kind of recycling program that gives participants a discount toward newer Apple products?
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post


    Fascinating. Liquidmetal amorphous metals could have a strength to weight ratio higher than that of steel, while being cheaper to manufacture than composite materials. And because of their flow properties, amorphous metals can be formed into complex shapes without machining. Another cost benefit.



    But can Liquidmetal be recycled? How could Apple capture the Liquidmetal in their products for re-use? (Just to keep Greenpeace off their backs.) Maybe some kind of recycling program that gives participants a discount toward newer Apple products?



    Liquidmetal can be recycled like any other metal alloy.



    As for the rest, it's important to realize that Liquidmetal is a technology, not a product. There are many different liquid metal alloys. Not all of them have the properties you cite. Some are very expensive ($1500 per ounce, for example).
  • galbigalbi Posts: 968member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    Fuck Samsung.



    The pathetic stuff that they showed off last week at that mobile conference sucked. Talk about a non-update with no new features to talk about in their new tablets.



    That whole mobile conference sucked. A bunch of third rate Android manufactures showing off a bunch of crappy phones and tablets. A new Android tablet or new phone is about as exciting and rare as taking a dump.



    That isnt everything they are introducing this year.



    The big announcements will come out in the Summer.



    Until then, have a look at this:



    http://www.patentbolt.com/2012/03/a-...e-in-2013.html



    Talk about a real "revolutionary design".
  • galbigalbi Posts: 968member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Who gives a frick? Doesn't matter anymore.



    Just want to put the record straight that those who love to make the argument that Apple used Liquidmetal first on consumer electronics. But this is Apple fans that we are talking of so they will come up with some excuse to say otherwise.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    Just want to put the record straight that those who love to make the argument that Apple used Liquidmetal first on consumer electronics. But this is Apple fans that we are talking of so they will come up with some excuse to say otherwise.



    Look, everyone here knows that Apple is rarely first to market with a new tech, but your comments like to ignore and deny the difficult parts of engineering which are coming to market in a large scale and doing it right so that it enhances the user experience. Example, Apple wasn't the first smartphone with a touchscreen or capacitance touchscreen, but they were the first with a multitouch capacitance touchscreen which is needed for natural appliances like two-finger pinch pinch and zoom. Cut/copy/paste is another one. Even today Android still hasn't gotten scrolling or copy/paste down nearly as well.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    Samsung has been using Liquid metals products before Apple ever got a hold of them.



    Really? Where?



    Of course, it doesn't matter because Samsung can't use it any more. Too bad.
  • mmtm1983mmtm1983 Posts: 31member
    WATCHED THE VIDEO



    man this thing looks as thou if you drop it will bounce back into your hands lol
  • galbigalbi Posts: 968member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Really? Where?



    Of course, it doesn't matter because Samsung can't use it any more. Too bad.







    http://www.cellular-news.com/story/7670.php



    Um... Liquid Metal has a plant in South Korea...you know home of Samsung?
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post






    http://www.cellular-news.com/story/7670.php



    Um... Liquid Metal has a plant in South Korea...you know home of Samsung?



    OK. Too bad Samsung can't use Liquidmetal any more.
Sign In or Register to comment.