or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Liquidmetal Technologies filing outlines its $20 million agreement with Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Liquidmetal Technologies filing outlines its $20 million agreement with Apple

post #1 of 52
Thread Starter 
In its 10-K filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Liquid Metal outlined the details of its $20 million licensing program with Apple, which began in 2010.

Toward the end of 2010, Apple entered into an exclusive agreement to license the use of Liquid Metal's amorphous metal alloys with unique atomic structures, used to create products that are stronger, lighter, and resistant to wear and corrosion.

The metal alloys owned by Liquidmetal Technologies were developed by a research team at the California Institute of Technology, and their amorphous, non-crystalline structure makes them harder than alloys of titanium or aluminum.



In its latest 10-K filed today, the company noted that its "Total Revenue decreased by $19.6 million to $972 thousand for the year ended December 31, 2011 from $20.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2010.

"The decrease is primarily in the licensing and royalties revenue category due to a one-time licensing fee that occurred during 2010," the filing stated. In 2011 the $972,000 in revenue came from a combination of $572,000 in product sales and $400,000 in other licensing and royalty payments, a steep drop from the previous year's $20.6 million that largely came from Apple.

Describing that transaction, Liquidmetal stated, "On August 5, 2010, we entered into a license transaction with Apple Inc. ("Apple") pursuant to which (i) we contributed substantially all of our intellectual property assets to a newly organized special-purpose, wholly-owned subsidiary, called Crucible Intellectual Property, LLC ("CIP"), (ii) CIP granted to Apple a perpetual, worldwide, fully-paid, exclusive license to commercialize such intellectual property in the field of consumer electronic products, as defined in the license agreement, in exchange for a license fee, and (iii) CIP granted back to us a perpetual, worldwide, fully-paid, exclusive license to commercialize such intellectual property in all other fields of use.

"Additionally, in connection with the license transaction, Apple required us to complete a statement of work related to the exchange of Liquidmetal intellectual property information. The Company recognized a portion of the one-time license fee upon receipt of the initial payment and completion of the foregoing requirements under the license transaction. The remaining portion of the one-time license fee was recognized at the completion of the required statement of work.

"Under the agreements relating to the license transaction, we are obligated to contribute all intellectual property that we develop through February 2012 to CIP. In addition, we are obligated to refrain from encumbering any assets subject to the Apple security interest through August 2012 and are obligated to refrain from granting any security in our interest in CIP at any time. We are also obligated to maintain certain limited liability company formalities with respect to CIP at all times after the closing of the license transaction. If we are unable to comply with these obligations, Apple may be entitled to foreclose on our assets."

AppleInsider was first to discover that Apple was looking to hire a number of experts on amorphous metal alloys to build products using Liquidmetal's technology. The first product Apple created using Liquidmetal was an iPhone SIM card ejector tool.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 52
A last gasp of hope: The new MacBooks will have some LQMT pizzaz in it.

Otherwise, after a patient two years, I'll probably bail. \
post #3 of 52
Fascinating video. If this technology were to be used for iPhone and iPad cases, would the characteristics of the liquid metal make the cases practically indestructible and lighter than any competitor's products?

If this is in Apple's future product releases, like this Fall, for example, this, as well as their practical lock on retina displays, should suck all the air out of whatever MS and RIM are going to say about their products. It can practically destroy Samsung's "plastic" products in comparison. These are interesting times for Apple competitors.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #4 of 52
Only $20M? Lol
post #5 of 52
I wonder why Apple did not manage to introduce a single liquid metal product in the last 2 years.
Surely they must have played with this technology even quite a bit before that, before they decided to license it in 2010.

Does it really take 2+ years from licensing to use this technology?

Perhaps there are substantial challenges still left, which is why we don't see it used more in any kind of products yet.

I wonder whether both the iPhone 5 and iPad 3 were supposed to use it - only to be pushed back.


Or maybe it is the other way around:

With the new iPad I can see Apple might have hoped to use Sharp's lower power IGZO panels, a lower power A6 CPU and true worldwide LTE modem. None of these happened yet, so they introduced the 'iPad 2S' for which they did not want to use their new liquid metal case either.

Perhaps similar thoughts influenced the iPhone 5 -> 4S release. (P)reserving the liquid metal case 'revolution' for the true iPhone 5.
post #6 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post

I wonder why Apple did not manage to introduce a single liquid metal product in the last 2 years.
Surely they must have played with this technology even quite a bit before that, before they decided to license it in 2010.

Does it really take 2+ years from licensing to use this technology?

Perhaps there are substantial challenges still left, which is why we don't see it used more in any kind of products yet.

I wonder whether both the iPhone 5 and iPad 3 were supposed to use it - only to be pushed back.


Or maybe it is the other way around:

With the new iPad I can see Apple might have hoped to use Sharp's lower power IGZO panels, a lower power A6 CPU and true worldwide LTE modem. None of these happened yet, so they introduced the 'iPad 2S' for which they did not want to use their new liquid metal case either.

Perhaps similar thoughts influenced the iPhone 5 -> 4S release. (P)reserving the liquid metal case 'revolution' for the true iPhone 5.

You haven't thought about mass production.. The bigger question is can mass produce millions using this technology?
post #7 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

A last gasp of hope: The new MacBooks will have some LQMT pizzaz in it.

Otherwise, after a patient two years, I'll probably bail. \

Bail on waiting for LiquidMetal or bail on the Mac notebook line? I can see I'm getting tired of hearing about LM without anything coming to fruition.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #8 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post

You haven't thought about mass production.. The bigger question is can mass produce millions using this technology?

Yep that's exactly it. They need to look at all the individual chemicals/materials involved, the different treatments that need to be applied to them, the quality/uniformity of mass production, and finally they need to design a process to do it on a very large scale. They simply bought the patent rights 2 years ago to make sure no one else got there first. When they finally do produce a mainstream product with LM it's not going to be an iPad, iPhone or even a MacBook. It will be a product produced in much smaller quantities. People will scoff at the LiquidMetal AirPort Extreme or whatever but that's exactly the scale it will start at. (i.e. iPhone 3G SIM removal tool)
post #9 of 52
Hmm...hard to know what to think about this. Does a drop in revenue mean that Apple's not doing anything with the technology? Or simply that it was a one-time payment? If $20 million is all that they're getting paid, that's a steal if Apple can use it for mass-produced items.

LiquidMetal seems like a wonderful material. Strong, light, electromagnetically transparent (in some flavors, I think). That, combined with GorillaGlass 2, should make for some more durable iPhones in the future.
post #10 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by acslater017 View Post

Hmm...hard to know what to think about this. Does a drop in revenue mean that Apple's not doing anything with the technology? Or simply that it was a one-time payment? If $20 million is all that they're getting paid, that's a steal if Apple can use it for mass-produced items.

LiquidMetal seems like a wonderful material. Strong, light, electromagnetically transparent (in some flavors, I think). That, combined with GorillaGlass 2, should make for some more durable iPhones in the future.

Read the article again. Apple gained this exclusive relationship with a one time fee of $20 Million that they then created an LLC to apply this new IP that they then granted back to Liquidmetal Tech to use in areas other than the agreed upon exclusive areas Apple wanted.
post #11 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post

You haven't thought about mass production.. The bigger question is can mass produce millions using this technology?

The promise of Liquidmetal is a strength similar to CNCing from a solid block of metal (like unibody enclosures) with the "processing efficiency of plastics" (presumably injection molding).

Surely Liquidmetal must have proven this processing method before making any such claims.
And plastics processing is a fairly well understood production method. Yet if it turns out that such a process for Liquidmetal still has to be invented, then it perhaps is not as simple as for plastics. Somehow this statement seemingly doesn't match reality.


But perhaps Apple is still deliberately not using it, milking the unibody designs.
post #12 of 52
So when are we gonna get one of these?



post #13 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post

The promise of Liquidmetal is a strength similar to CNCing from a solid block of metal (like unibody enclosures) with the "processing efficiency of plastics" (presumably injection molding).

Surely Liquidmetal must have proven this processing method before making any such claims.
And plastics processing is a fairly well understood production method. Yet if it turns out that such a process for Liquidmetal still has to be invented, then it perhaps is not as simple as for plastics. Somehow this statement seemingly doesn't match reality.


But perhaps Apple is still deliberately not using it, milking the unibody designs.

I know amorphous metals from academic studies but I am not sure if it is really ready for mass production.
The process of producing amorphous metals is pretty expensive as it involves the special recipes and a super fast cooling
to prevent the metal from crystalizing. This means the original junk of metal is small because of the need of super fast cooling.
You then have to merge these really small junks of metal to a bigger one during the process.

When I looked at amorphous metals in Q4 2010 these plates the are using in the video was the absolute maximum the could make (I was not in contact with LiquidMetals).

Now you have to shape the metal to your desired design. But you are limited because you can not heat it too much
because then it would crystalize again. Shaping it by cold deformation at high deformation rates might include the risk
of some recrystalizion as it does with regular metal. Maybe even milling is inducing too much heat locally to form some
thin layer of crystalized metal.

I am no expert in amorphous metal but I believe there is still some work left to be done.
post #14 of 52
It seem like an amazing metal, and yet it's been around for years now and not more products imagined? Too bad.
post #15 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post

I wonder why Apple did not manage to introduce a single liquid metal product in the last 2 years.
Surely they must have played with this technology even quite a bit before that, before they decided to license it in 2010.

Does it really take 2+ years from licensing to use this technology?

Perhaps there are substantial challenges still left, which is why we don't see it used more in any kind of products yet.

I wonder whether both the iPhone 5 and iPad 3 were supposed to use it - only to be pushed back.


Or maybe it is the other way around:

With the new iPad I can see Apple might have hoped to use Sharp's lower power IGZO panels, a lower power A6 CPU and true worldwide LTE modem. None of these happened yet, so they introduced the 'iPad 2S' for which they did not want to use their new liquid metal case either.

Perhaps similar thoughts influenced the iPhone 5 -> 4S release. (P)reserving the liquid metal case 'revolution' for the true iPhone 5.

Read the press release. Most of 2011 was spent gearing up. Their revenues (if you leave out the $20 M Apple payment) were actually higher in 2011 than in 2010. They reported that during 2011, they were able to get things going for the future. The key statement is:
Quote:
Mr. Tom Steipp, President and CEO, commented, "Liquidmetal Technologies has reached an important milestone enabling it to realize the benefits of its partner relationships. By the end of 2011, we are now able to source alloy feedstock from Materion, process our alloys using next generation molding machines from Engel and manufacture commercial parts at our contract manufacturer, Visser Precision Cast. Looking forward, we will be working with our partners to scale up these production capabilities while engaging with customers in aerospace, medical, sporting goods and other industries."

Total revenue from product sales was largely unchanged for the year. (572 K to $569 K). The big change was in royalty revenue.

Keep in mind, also, their recent press release that they just started shipping product to several customers. On March 6, they issued the following press release:
Quote:
Liquidmetal(R) Technologies Inc. (OTCBB: LQMT) today announced that its manufacturing operations are currently in the midst of shipping commercial parts to several of its customers world-wide. Parts delivery began this past December with continuing shipments scheduled for the months ahead.

I expect that their numbers for the first quarter will look much better than the past.

Quote:
Originally Posted by acslater017 View Post

Hmm...hard to know what to think about this. Does a drop in revenue mean that Apple's not doing anything with the technology? Or simply that it was a one-time payment? If $20 million is all that they're getting paid, that's a steal if Apple can use it for mass-produced items.

LiquidMetal seems like a wonderful material. Strong, light, electromagnetically transparent (in some flavors, I think). That, combined with GorillaGlass 2, should make for some more durable iPhones in the future.

See above. We don't know if Apple's going to do anything with the technology because LQMT stated that they were just able to get supply and processing problems sorted out in December. I would guess that the earliest we could see an Apple product based on LQMT would be late this year, more likely early 2013 for the higher volume products. Of course, Apple's penchant for secrecy means that LQMT will not be able to comment on what they're shipping to Apple, if anything.

Keep in mind, though, that LQMT involves more advanced processing than conventional alloys. While they would certainly save a great deal by being able to press powerbook cases rather than machine them out of aluminum billets, we don't know yet whether the cost savings will be great enough to justify the added material cost. If I had to guess, I would say that the first product will be the iPhone - because there is considerably less metal in the iPhone, so the cost premium would be smaller. In addition, space is a premium for the iPhone, so saving even a fraction of a cubic inch would be valuable.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #16 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

Fascinating video. If this technology were to be used for iPhone and iPad cases, would the characteristics of the liquid metal make the cases practically indestructible and lighter than any competitor's products?

When you drop your iPhone, it's not the case that breaks. Still, it'll be interesting to see what changes.
post #17 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Bail on waiting for LiquidMetal or bail on the Mac notebook line? I can see I'm getting tired of hearing about LM without anything coming to fruition.

Bail on the MB!? Heavens, no.
post #18 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by copeland View Post

I know amorphous metals from academic studies but I am not sure if it is really ready for mass production.
The process of producing amorphous metals is pretty expensive as it involves the special recipes and a super fast cooling
to prevent the metal from crystalizing. This means the original junk of metal is small because of the need of super fast cooling.
You then have to merge these really small junks of metal to a bigger one during the process.

When I looked at amorphous metals in Q4 2010 these plates the are using in the video was the absolute maximum the could make (I was not in contact with LiquidMetals).

Now you have to shape the metal to your desired design. But you are limited because you can not heat it too much
because then it would crystalize again. Shaping it by cold deformation at high deformation rates might include the risk
of some recrystalizion as it does with regular metal. Maybe even milling is inducing too much heat locally to form some
thin layer of crystalized metal.

I am no expert in amorphous metal but I believe there is still some work left to be done.

They use this for a number of things. One of them is the heads of some golf clubs. They make those by the tens of thousands, at least. I don't know how well they sell.

Mostly, product parts would be thin, not bulk. The m anufacturers isn't all that difficult these days, but the alloys are expensive, and that's what limits their use. As a practical matter, would the cases be better? Likely not.

People wanting a MacBook pro with a Liquidmetal case would have to be prepared to pay more for one.
post #19 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by SinisterJoe View Post

Yep that's exactly it. They need to look at all the individual chemicals/materials involved, the different treatments that need to be applied to them, the quality/uniformity of mass production, and finally they need to design a process to do it on a very large scale. They simply bought the patent rights 2 years ago to make sure no one else got there first. When they finally do produce a mainstream product with LM it's not going to be an iPad, iPhone or even a MacBook. It will be a product produced in much smaller quantities. People will scoff at the LiquidMetal AirPort Extreme or whatever but that's exactly the scale it will start at. (i.e. iPhone 3G SIM removal tool)

iPod nano (watch)
post #20 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

When you drop your iPhone, it's not the case that breaks. Still, it'll be interesting to see what changes.

It would be nice if it bounced back up into your hand.
post #21 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

They use this for a number of things. One of them is the heads of some golf clubs. They make those by the tens of thousands, at least. I don't know how well they sell.

Mostly, product parts would be thin, not bulk. The m anufacturers isn't all that difficult these days, but the alloys are expensive, and that's what limits their use. As a practical matter, would the cases be better? Likely not.

People wanting a MacBook pro with a Liquidmetal case would have to be prepared to pay more for one.

Check their history. They've made golf clubs,skis and tennis rackets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidmetal


Early versions had brittleness problems and some of the golf clubs shattered. But those have apparently been resolved (or they have found applications where brittleness doesn't matter) as they have lined up new customers.

It is important to keep in mind that Liquidmetal is a technology, not a product. They have many different alloys and the alloys can be tweaked for a given application. Some of the alloys are over a thousand dollars a pound, while others are far, far less. For example, Liquidmetal tennis rackets are on the market and they're not ridiculously priced:
http://www.nextag.com/head-liquidmet.../products-html

Since tennis rackets are competitively priced, I don't believe that a Liquidmetal Macbook Pro would be horrendously out of line. I'd be confident that the price premium would be $50 or less. Keep in mind that:
1. A liquidmetal case would use far less material than the current aluminum case.
2. The cost of expensive machining would be eliminated. Instead, the parts would be simply cast or pressed.
3. Recovery of aluminum fines (and the resulting explosion risk) would be eliminated.
4. The weight saved could reduce the size and weight of the MBP or it could allow for a larger battery.
5. Apple has a history of leading the way with new technologies and might well do something like this.

You can learn more at their web site:
liquidmetal.com
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #22 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by copeland View Post

I know amorphous metals from academic studies but I am not sure if it is really ready for mass production.
The process of producing amorphous metals is pretty expensive as it involves the special recipes and a super fast cooling
to prevent the metal from crystalizing. This means the original junk of metal is small because of the need of super fast cooling.
You then have to merge these really small junks of metal to a bigger one during the process.

When I looked at amorphous metals in Q4 2010 these plates the are using in the video was the absolute maximum the could make (I was not in contact with LiquidMetals).

Now you have to shape the metal to your desired design. But you are limited because you can not heat it too much
because then it would crystalize again. Shaping it by cold deformation at high deformation rates might include the risk
of some recrystalizion as it does with regular metal. Maybe even milling is inducing too much heat locally to form some
thin layer of crystalized metal.

I am no expert in amorphous metal but I believe there is still some work left to be done.

I have faith something made of LM is coming this way ....

Just remember back to the uni body design requiring a slow, mechanical process to litterally carve out the insides. Back then it was stated over and over by experts in the field (Soli could pull up some gems from AI, I am sure) that this was too expensive and slow to ever be used for mass production ... Look where we are now!

This is Apple we are discussing
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #23 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Check their history. They've made golf clubs,skis and tennis rackets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidmetal


Early versions had brittleness problems and some of the golf clubs shattered. But those have apparently been resolved (or they have found applications where brittleness doesn't matter) as they have lined up new customers.

It is important to keep in mind that Liquidmetal is a technology, not a product. They have many different alloys and the alloys can be tweaked for a given application. Some of the alloys are over a thousand dollars a pound, while others are far, far less. For example, Liquidmetal tennis rackets are on the market and they're not ridiculously priced:
http://www.nextag.com/head-liquidmet.../products-html

Since tennis rackets are competitively priced, I don't believe that a Liquidmetal Macbook Pro would be horrendously out of line. I'd be confident that the price premium would be $50 or less. Keep in mind that:
1. A liquidmetal case would use far less material than the current aluminum case.
2. The cost of expensive machining would be eliminated. Instead, the parts would be simply cast or pressed.
3. Recovery of aluminum fines (and the resulting explosion risk) would be eliminated.
4. The weight saved could reduce the size and weight of the MBP or it could allow for a larger battery.
5. Apple has a history of leading the way with new technologies and might well do something like this.

You can learn more at their web site:
liquidmetal.com

Any info on the recyclability? I am excited about this as hell but wonder what the green aspect is as of course aluminum and glass are very reusable.
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #24 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

It would be nice if it bounced back up into your hand.



Brings a whole new meaning to:

A return call ....

Dropped call ...

Bouncing a message ...

There must be more ....
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #25 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Check their history. They've made golf clubs,skis and tennis rackets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidmetal

Early versions had brittleness problems and some of the golf clubs shattered. But those have apparently been resolved (or they have found applications where brittleness doesn't matter) as they have lined up new customers.

After watching that video, I thought the same thing: make golf clubs! Would be a wicked driver.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #26 of 52
A look at Liquidmetal's website, they list Samsung and Motorola as 2 of their many customers.
post #27 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post

A look at Liquidmetal's website, they list Samsung and Motorola as 2 of their many customers.

Is that in the past tense or present? That will be interesting to watch.
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #28 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Any info on the recyclability? I am excited about this as hell but wonder what the green aspect is as of course aluminum and glass are very reusable.

I haven't found anything. In principle, any metal can be recycled, but I don't know whether it's easy with liquidmetal or not.

Interestingly, while searching for recycling info, I found this:
http://www.cultofmac.com/54673/apple...xec-exclusive/

A former lqmt executive agrees with me that the iPhone will probably be the first item made from liquidmetal.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #29 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

In 2011 the $972,000 in revenue came from a combination of $572,000 in product sales and $400,000 in other licensing and royalty payments, a steep drop from the previous year's $20.6 million that largely came from Apple.



Wowww. Less them 1M in revenue? I thought that they were something big.

Why do they have so little in sales?
post #30 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post

The promise of Liquidmetal is a strength similar to CNCing from a solid block of metal (like unibody enclosures) with the "processing efficiency of plastics" (presumably injection molding).

Surely Liquidmetal must have proven this processing method before making any such claims.
And plastics processing is a fairly well understood production method. Yet if it turns out that such a process for Liquidmetal still has to be invented, then it perhaps is not as simple as for plastics. Somehow this statement seemingly doesn't match reality.


But perhaps Apple is still deliberately not using it, milking the unibody designs.


Entirely possible. The current products use the current production methods.

Maybe the new form factor MacBooks will use a new new production method?

We can't know. but we can assume that Liquidmetal is not good for much, as of now, considering that they only sold a half-million dollars worth of product in a year.

I wonder who accounts for the other 400 thousand in licensing over the past year? A fishing lure company? Something equally low-volume?
post #31 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post



Brings a whole new meaning to:

A return call ....

Dropped call ...

Bouncing a message ...

There must be more ....

"Your call has been terminated..."
post #32 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post

The promise of Liquidmetal is a strength similar to CNCing from a solid block of metal (like unibody enclosures) with the "processing efficiency of plastics" (presumably injection molding).

Surely Liquidmetal must have proven this processing method before making any such claims.
And plastics processing is a fairly well understood production method. Yet if it turns out that such a process for Liquidmetal still has to be invented, then it perhaps is not as simple as for plastics. Somehow this statement seemingly doesn't match reality.


But perhaps Apple is still deliberately not using it, milking the unibody designs.

There's the little matter of scale. The claimed you cited could easily be proven on equipment that would fit in a small office. It doesn't take much to prove that it works on a pilot scale or even a small production scale. And for that scale, it's not a big deal to have to rely on materials that are only available in limited quantities.

But to scale up to the volume Apple would need - even if it were just the amount needed to make the metal framework for an iPhone - they would have to operate on an entirely different scale. The entire operation would be different - from supply chain to manufacturing process to quality check to finances. It sounds like that's what LQMT has been doing for the past year. It would have been insane for Apple to announce a liquidmetal product before the supplier could support the quantities needed.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #33 of 52
1. Same-size enclosure as current iPhone, but with with edge-to edge 3.8" screen.

2. MagSafe dock connector.

3. iPod touch-like form factor with LiquidMetal back.

4. LTE capability.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #34 of 52
Happy speculating folks. There is more to this than we know.
post #35 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry View Post

Happy speculating folks. There is more to this than we know.

Of course there is. But my post indicates what we DO know - based on public statements from LQMT executives.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #36 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

It would be nice if it bounced back up into your hand.

That's the secret new RubberMetal technology. It won't be out till 2013 though.
post #37 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Wowww. Less them 1M in revenue? I thought that they were something big.

Why do they have so little in sales?

Apple does not do much for a couple of years ...
LM company's revenue goes way down ...
.... then Apple gets the entire company for pennies on the dollar?
post #38 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Touch1 View Post

Apple does not do much for a couple of years ...
LM company's revenue goes way down ...
.... then Apple gets the entire company for pennies on the dollar?

I'm not sure if this is just a troll post. It seems like they already licensed what they wanted. What would be the point of buying such a company just to close doors?
post #39 of 52
Perhaps a new Mac Pro line based around this?
post #40 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

Perhaps a new Mac Pro line based around this?

What advantages would liquidmetal give to a desktop machine? where would it be used? The frame?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Liquidmetal Technologies filing outlines its $20 million agreement with Apple
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Liquidmetal Technologies filing outlines its $20 million agreement with Apple