And for the 100th time, that's not true. Some of the LM alloys are under $15 per pound - which puts them in the range of Titanium and some grades of stainless steel.
LM has been accepted slowly because design of the molds is very tricky and time consuming. Not because of the cost of the material.
You can't seem to provide any more evidence than you say I'm providing, so don't get huffy here. You can quote other posters, but that means nothing. Someone might quote you, but so what?
And I'll tell you something, even $15 a pound, if true, is expensive. My processing equipment was very expensive. The Kodachrome machine we designed and had built had all 316L tanks, except for the bleach tanks, which were titanium. A single screw cost in tit cost several dollars. Sure, not just the cost of tit, but more expensive machining costs.
The problem with LM is material cost and processing cost. According to the company, you need their special molding machines. Apparently, despite what people say, this isn't usable in metal injection machines.
Then there is the problem of you not knowing which alloy Apple would need. You can't assume that the cheapest alloy would be just dandy. It could be the most expensive alloy that's most suitable. So you're making a number of unsupported suppositions here.
I suspect that its a combination of material cost, processing problems, and some other difficulty we don't know about that's preventing a quick usage.
But I don't know why Apple didn't just buy the company, and spin off the part they didn't want.
You can't seem to provide any more evidence than you say I'm providing, so don't get huffy here. You can quote other posters, but that means nothing. Someone might quote you, but so what?
Nonsense.
1. I provided a link to an article. The link is broken, but someone said they were quoting a price of $12-15 (which is in the $6-15 range of titanium) directly from the article - and no one challenged them on that quote.
2. I have personal experience.
3. I cited the fact that $60 tennis rackets use LM.
Those are all pretty strong evidence that LM is affordable under at least some circumstances.
What have you offered? Nothing but "everything I've heard" - which is not evidence at all.
And I'll tell you something, even $15 a pound, if true, is expensive. My processing equipment was very expensive. The Kodachrome machine we designed and had built had all 316L tanks, except for the bleach tanks, which were titanium. A single screw cost in tit cost several dollars. Sure, not just the cost of tit, but more expensive machining costs.
That's nice. First, $15 per pound is insignificant. The iPhone would use something like 1 ounce of metal, so you're looking at $1 for materials. And you'd save money on machining.
The cost of equipment is not that big a deal when you're manufacturing millions of units. If they can make the necessary equipment to allow them to sell tennis rackets containing LM for $60, why not phones that sell for $600 and up?
The problem with LM is material cost and processing cost. According to the company, you need their special molding machines. Apparently, despite what people say, this isn't usable in metal injection machines.
That is misleading - and I note that you still haven't provided any evidence to back up your claims. The real problem is mostly in the mold manufacture rather than the injection part itself (again, I have experience in working with LM and you don't). Furthermore, it's again a non-issue. If they can do it for $60 tennis rackets, why not for $600 phones?
Then there is the problem of you not knowing which alloy Apple would need. You can't assume that the cheapest alloy would be just dandy. It could be the most expensive alloy that's most suitable. So you're making a number of unsupported suppositions here.
I'm not making any unsupported suppositions. I haven't made ANY claims about how much Apple would have to pay or what Apple's costs would be. I have been responding to your claim that it's horrendously expensive. My response is that it's not always horrendously expensive (although, as I've pointed out, it can be - if Apple were to choose the platinum-based LM alloy which is over $1500 per pound). You made a claim that it is too expensive for Apple to use and I've shown that your claim is not necessarily true.
I suspect that its a combination of material cost, processing problems, and some other difficulty we don't know about that's preventing a quick usage.
But I don't know why Apple didn't just buy the company, and spin off the part they didn't want.
Any number of reasons. Apple doesn't like owning companies that make hardware. Most of their acquisitions have been IP companies. Since they've got an exclusive license to use it, there's not much benefit in owning the company.
Different materials for different purposes. Sometimes movement is better. A friend of mine has two bikes, one is carbon fiber and the other is magnesium, I think. The carbon fiber bike has more give. When riding over rocks or roots, as they do all the time, the ride is softer.
I have the very first carbon fiber tennis racquet. This goes way back, and was very expensive. Compared to wood racquets, it was much stiffer. Not as stiff as metal racquets that came later.
My metal tripods are much stiffer than my carbon fiber one. When I extend the legs properly, I can barely get movement when pushing down on the head of the aluminum models, but the carbon fiber model moves appreciably. These are Gitzo's, not cheap models.
I'm quite familiar with Gitzo. The upper end of their carbon range is really quite sturdy though in my experience. The aluminum tripods I've owned have shown a big of give. I've mostly owned the upper range of manfrottos including one of their older studio tripods with the geared center column. Their locks were never as rigid as Gitzo's, so it it may not be a fair comparison. Anyway regarding different materials for different purposes, they still work well for these things, and it may offer less wireless interference than aluminum. Other brands have also made carbon fiber work. I'm not sure which is more ecologically sound. I'd like it if they gave that some consideration when shipping millions of units.
Nonsense.
1. I provided a link to an article. The link is broken, but someone said they were quoting a price of $12-15 (which is in the $6-15 range of titanium) directly from the article - and no one challenged them on that quote.
2. I have personal experience.
3. I cited the fact that $60 tennis rackets use LM.
Those are all pretty strong evidence that LM is affordable under at least some circumstances.
What have you offered? Nothing but "everything I've heard" - which is not evidence at all.
That's nice. First, $15 per pound is insignificant. The iPhone would use something like 1 ounce of metal, so you're looking at $1 for materials. And you'd save money on machining.
The cost of equipment is not that big a deal when you're manufacturing millions of units. If they can make the necessary equipment to allow them to sell tennis rackets containing LM for $60, why not phones that sell for $600 and up?
That is misleading - and I note that you still haven't provided any evidence to back up your claims. The real problem is mostly in the mold manufacture rather than the injection part itself (again, I have experience in working with LM and you don't). Furthermore, it's again a non-issue. If they can do it for $60 tennis rackets, why not for $600 phones?
I'm not making any unsupported suppositions. I haven't made ANY claims about how much Apple would have to pay or what Apple's costs would be. I have been responding to your claim that it's horrendously expensive. My response is that it's not always horrendously expensive (although, as I've pointed out, it can be - if Apple were to choose the platinum-based LM alloy which is over $1500 per pound). You made a claim that it is too expensive for Apple to use and I've shown that your claim is not necessarily true.
Any number of reasons. Apple doesn't like owning companies that make hardware. Most of their acquisitions have been IP companies. Since they've got an exclusive license to use it, there's not much benefit in owning the company.
You actually haven't offered anything other than a broken link, of which I have several, as I mentioned. But if you look at the machined back of the iPhone 5, you will see that this is far more complex than the simple parts of the racquets.
What I've been saying about the cost is that we don't know which alloy Apple would need, and so your supposition that it would be the cheapest one isn't supportable without some evidence that it would be so, which is something none of us can state. Likely, it would be something else, assuming Apple might want different characteristics than what is being used over the main material of the racquets. Perhaps for use as an antenna part, or for some transparency to radio waves, as some of the alloys offer some of that characteristic.
The point is that the average price of the alloys is pretty high, and without more information, we have to assume that one that would be best for Apple could be pretty expensive.
I'm quite familiar with Gitzo. The upper end of their carbon range is really quite sturdy though in my experience. The aluminum tripods I've owned have shown a big of give. I've mostly owned the upper range of manfrottos including one of their older studio tripods with the geared center column. Their locks were never as rigid as Gitzo's, so it it may not be a fair comparison. Anyway regarding different materials for different purposes, they still work well for these things, and it may offer less wireless interference than aluminum. Other brands have also made carbon fiber work. I'm not sure which is more ecologically sound. I'd like it if they gave that some consideration when shipping millions of units.
I've been using Gitzo's for almost 40 years, and have accumulated quite a range. None of my carbon models are as torsion free as the equivalent aluminum models. They also have problems and are not as reliable.
I'm not saying that carbon tripods aren't good. They are. But it's just a fact that they have more give.
I've been using Gitzo's for almost 40 years, and have accumulated quite a range. None of my carbon models are as torsion free as the equivalent aluminum models. They also have problems and are not as reliable.
I'm not saying that carbon tripods aren't good. They are. But it's just a fact that they have more give.
My days of strong interest in photography has passed but one thing that I've done and do do from time to time is to go hiking with camera in tow. Light weight becomes important then. The point being alternative materials can have their place.
I've taken an interest in machine tools at the hobbiest level, think work shop in the basement, and as such have developed a love hate relationship with castiron. Old fashion as it is cast iron makes for economical but sturdy machine tools. You have the option of aluminum and plastic tools these days but the feel of smooth running machine made of cast iron is hard to give up. What I'm getting at is the concept of a preferred material for a devices construction.
Now what does this have to do with Apple and carbon fiber? It is the idea that I don't believe they have found the preferred or optimal material yet for handheld devices. Aluminum is nice, but I actually like the glass on my iPhone 4. Carbon fiber is basically fiber reinforced plastic and as such not inspiring. At least it isn't in the examples I'm aware of these days. However I would not be surprised to find out that a plastic shell is Apples way to even thinner devices in that they could laminate the circuit board right to the shell / back or integrate things like antennas right into the shell.
In the end if Apple goes the route of carbon fiber it likely will be to gain benefits other than its mechanical qualities. If you look at current iPhone manufacture it is still traditional electronics in that you have a circuit board screwed to a metal chassis. Eventually I see electronics (portable devices anyways) moving away from this traditional arrangement. Your iPad or iPhone of the future could easily be a one piece device where the final device simply is a lamination of layers of functionality.
The machine tool industry gravitated to cast iron well over a century ago and really hasn't found anything that is better or more economical. The portable device industry though is an entirely different story, an optimal material and configuration has yet to be found. The fact of the matter is that the industry deals with compromises at any point in time.
Comments
You can't seem to provide any more evidence than you say I'm providing, so don't get huffy here. You can quote other posters, but that means nothing. Someone might quote you, but so what?
And I'll tell you something, even $15 a pound, if true, is expensive. My processing equipment was very expensive. The Kodachrome machine we designed and had built had all 316L tanks, except for the bleach tanks, which were titanium. A single screw cost in tit cost several dollars. Sure, not just the cost of tit, but more expensive machining costs.
The problem with LM is material cost and processing cost. According to the company, you need their special molding machines. Apparently, despite what people say, this isn't usable in metal injection machines.
Then there is the problem of you not knowing which alloy Apple would need. You can't assume that the cheapest alloy would be just dandy. It could be the most expensive alloy that's most suitable. So you're making a number of unsupported suppositions here.
I suspect that its a combination of material cost, processing problems, and some other difficulty we don't know about that's preventing a quick usage.
But I don't know why Apple didn't just buy the company, and spin off the part they didn't want.
Nonsense.
1. I provided a link to an article. The link is broken, but someone said they were quoting a price of $12-15 (which is in the $6-15 range of titanium) directly from the article - and no one challenged them on that quote.
2. I have personal experience.
3. I cited the fact that $60 tennis rackets use LM.
Those are all pretty strong evidence that LM is affordable under at least some circumstances.
What have you offered? Nothing but "everything I've heard" - which is not evidence at all.
That's nice. First, $15 per pound is insignificant. The iPhone would use something like 1 ounce of metal, so you're looking at $1 for materials. And you'd save money on machining.
The cost of equipment is not that big a deal when you're manufacturing millions of units. If they can make the necessary equipment to allow them to sell tennis rackets containing LM for $60, why not phones that sell for $600 and up?
That is misleading - and I note that you still haven't provided any evidence to back up your claims. The real problem is mostly in the mold manufacture rather than the injection part itself (again, I have experience in working with LM and you don't). Furthermore, it's again a non-issue. If they can do it for $60 tennis rackets, why not for $600 phones?
I'm not making any unsupported suppositions. I haven't made ANY claims about how much Apple would have to pay or what Apple's costs would be. I have been responding to your claim that it's horrendously expensive. My response is that it's not always horrendously expensive (although, as I've pointed out, it can be - if Apple were to choose the platinum-based LM alloy which is over $1500 per pound). You made a claim that it is too expensive for Apple to use and I've shown that your claim is not necessarily true.
Any number of reasons. Apple doesn't like owning companies that make hardware. Most of their acquisitions have been IP companies. Since they've got an exclusive license to use it, there's not much benefit in owning the company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Different materials for different purposes. Sometimes movement is better. A friend of mine has two bikes, one is carbon fiber and the other is magnesium, I think. The carbon fiber bike has more give. When riding over rocks or roots, as they do all the time, the ride is softer.
I have the very first carbon fiber tennis racquet. This goes way back, and was very expensive. Compared to wood racquets, it was much stiffer. Not as stiff as metal racquets that came later.
My metal tripods are much stiffer than my carbon fiber one. When I extend the legs properly, I can barely get movement when pushing down on the head of the aluminum models, but the carbon fiber model moves appreciably. These are Gitzo's, not cheap models.
I'm quite familiar with Gitzo. The upper end of their carbon range is really quite sturdy though in my experience. The aluminum tripods I've owned have shown a big of give. I've mostly owned the upper range of manfrottos including one of their older studio tripods with the geared center column. Their locks were never as rigid as Gitzo's, so it it may not be a fair comparison. Anyway regarding different materials for different purposes, they still work well for these things, and it may offer less wireless interference than aluminum. Other brands have also made carbon fiber work. I'm not sure which is more ecologically sound. I'd like it if they gave that some consideration when shipping millions of units.
You actually haven't offered anything other than a broken link, of which I have several, as I mentioned. But if you look at the machined back of the iPhone 5, you will see that this is far more complex than the simple parts of the racquets.
What I've been saying about the cost is that we don't know which alloy Apple would need, and so your supposition that it would be the cheapest one isn't supportable without some evidence that it would be so, which is something none of us can state. Likely, it would be something else, assuming Apple might want different characteristics than what is being used over the main material of the racquets. Perhaps for use as an antenna part, or for some transparency to radio waves, as some of the alloys offer some of that characteristic.
The point is that the average price of the alloys is pretty high, and without more information, we have to assume that one that would be best for Apple could be pretty expensive.
I've been using Gitzo's for almost 40 years, and have accumulated quite a range. None of my carbon models are as torsion free as the equivalent aluminum models. They also have problems and are not as reliable.
I'm not saying that carbon tripods aren't good. They are. But it's just a fact that they have more give.
My days of strong interest in photography has passed but one thing that I've done and do do from time to time is to go hiking with camera in tow. Light weight becomes important then. The point being alternative materials can have their place.
I've taken an interest in machine tools at the hobbiest level, think work shop in the basement, and as such have developed a love hate relationship with castiron. Old fashion as it is cast iron makes for economical but sturdy machine tools. You have the option of aluminum and plastic tools these days but the feel of smooth running machine made of cast iron is hard to give up. What I'm getting at is the concept of a preferred material for a devices construction.
Now what does this have to do with Apple and carbon fiber? It is the idea that I don't believe they have found the preferred or optimal material yet for handheld devices. Aluminum is nice, but I actually like the glass on my iPhone 4. Carbon fiber is basically fiber reinforced plastic and as such not inspiring. At least it isn't in the examples I'm aware of these days. However I would not be surprised to find out that a plastic shell is Apples way to even thinner devices in that they could laminate the circuit board right to the shell / back or integrate things like antennas right into the shell.
In the end if Apple goes the route of carbon fiber it likely will be to gain benefits other than its mechanical qualities. If you look at current iPhone manufacture it is still traditional electronics in that you have a circuit board screwed to a metal chassis. Eventually I see electronics (portable devices anyways) moving away from this traditional arrangement. Your iPad or iPhone of the future could easily be a one piece device where the final device simply is a lamination of layers of functionality.
The machine tool industry gravitated to cast iron well over a century ago and really hasn't found anything that is better or more economical. The portable device industry though is an entirely different story, an optimal material and configuration has yet to be found. The fact of the matter is that the industry deals with compromises at any point in time.