Actually, there's no evidence that Apple is using ceramic in their Apple Watch Edition gold alloy.
"Yes, Apple Watch Edition is made from a custom 18-karat gold alloy. Yes, Apple filed that patent last year. But it does not follow that the gold in Apple Watch Edition is the gold described in that patent. If you watch the “Gold film” on Apple’s Edition page, Jony Ive says, “It begins at the molecular level, where precise adjustments in the amount of silver, copper, and palladium in the alloy result in very specific hues of yellow and rose gold.” Those metals are the only ingredients Apple has talked about."
Interesting, that makes sense. My original impression was that the actual titanium was painted over. At the time Apple hadn't yet achieved a unibody laptop design so I can see how they would have resorted to painting the plastic bits for aesthetic reasons.
If that's the case, then I can see how titanium would make a lot more likely candidate for a future Apple Watch variant.
Not from skin contact. I think the toxicity only arises from inhaling dust. Still, that would be a potential PR nightmare if Chinese factory workers started developing fibrosis as a result.
Yes.
Once again, the gold Apple Watch is not intended for someone who makes such a purchase decision based on practical considerations. It's an expensive and exclusive fashion statement for the sort of folks for whom $20k is an impulse buy - people who buy $3000 shoes that go out of fashion in a few months.
Titanium is not a particularly expensive raw material but due to its hardness, manufacturing costs are extremely high, especially for complex-shaped parts.
But how snappy is it while running iOS 8?
But it's not harder than steel. It's light for it's strength although not as light as aluminium.
Maybe they should look at beryllium for a truly exotic material
Anyone else want one made of "a new kind of plastic" for $250?
I wouldn't expect this anytime soon. The cost of materials does not account for a significant portion of the Apple Watch's selling price.
I expect prices will drop to that level eventually for an aluminum model. But it won't be for a long while. How long did it take the iPod to drop from $399 to as low as $49?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
Here are my choices for pre-holiday 2015 ?Watch casing materials:
1. Titanium alloy
2. Carbon fiber
3. Platinum 750 (equivalent to 18k)
4. Transparent Aluminum (with Space Black tint)
And maybe next year Apple will ship Sport models with new colors, starting with the Product(RED) red. Then gold, of course. Then green, blue, whatever. Should be a simple matter of anodizing and marketing.
I continue to ask every iPhone owner I meet if they plan to buy one and so far not a single person has said yes. Try it. When you're out in the real world (and not hanging out on a fan forum), ask iPhone users if they're interested in the watch and see how many say no.
Yup, same as the original reaction to the iPad. I'm sure Apple will be heartbroken if the Apple Watch ends up a failure like that.
Yup, same as the original reaction to the iPad. I'm sure Apple will be heartbroken if the Apple Watch ends up a failure like that.
Unfortunately there are far too many people that are simply not capable of seeing the truth until after the majority has seen it. That makes these surveys for paradigm shifting technology pointless for anything other than understanding how limited in thought most people are.
Besides the iPad being minimalize by the myopic which inane comments with "it's just a big iPod Touch," and "my
[Win]PC does so much more," it is the fastest selling CE in the world. Even the iPhone was scoffed at for a lack a physical keyboard and Adobe Flash is the standard by which all other smartphonea are judged. Only now do these same people say, "well, yeah, it obvious what Apple did. They didnt innovate anything." So are these people trolls or just not very bright?
Yup, same as the original reaction to the iPad. I'm sure Apple will be heartbroken if the Apple Watch ends up a failure like that.
Crying all the way to the bank.
I personally saw a lot more interest in the iPad than I have in the Watch so far. It'll be interesting. Either they legitimize the wearables market or prove, once and for all, that consumers aren't interested in the category.
You are correct in that we don't know whether or not the gold in the watch is using this process.
But based on the things they have said about the gold they are using (that it's harder than normal 18k gold), and that they are good at finding ways of getting higher margins (gold made in this process has less gold in it, due to the ceramic that comprises 25% of the mixture being less dense than the kinds of metals normally taking up that part of the mixture in 18k gold), it would make a lot of sense.
Read Dr. Drang's article, it's interesting.
18k gold contains the same amount of gold no matter what other ingredients are added to the alloy. Whether it's ceramic, copper, silver, or anything else the 18k label guarantees a consistent amount of gold per weight.
18k gold contains the same amount of gold no matter what other ingredients are added to the alloy. Whether it's ceramic, copper, silver, or anything else the 18k label guarantees a consistent amount of gold per weight.
[@]Thomas Winzig[/@] is correct. He's clearly well aware that 18-kt means it's 75% gold by weight. Note his use of density.
Your comment is mostly correct but you the term "amount" without any apparent consideration for volume. For a given volume you need less material of a dense element to maintain 75% by weight, when you supplement with a less dense material. With cermaics this could mean a considerable drop in the "amount" of pure gold.
But it's not harder than steel. It's light for it's strength although not as light as aluminium.
Maybe they should look at beryllium for a truly exotic material
It's only 60% as dense as aluminum but more than twice as strong, as strong as some steels, plus it's highly corrosion resistant.
I think a huge demographic underrepresented is the contractor work/outdoor demo with a rugged edition. Scratch proof liquid metal case, sapphire screen and rugged leather or high performance straps.
I really think the blue collar work force/outdoor demo is one that could truly see the benefits most. The selling point is simple. Go about your daily activities but keep your phone in your pocket.
Great product for wives and girlfriends to gift their men for holidays and birthdays too.
Is this a demographic that traditionally embraces new technology and is willing to pay higher prices for products with premium design, materials, and workmanship? If the answer is no, then I don't think they'd be receptive to the sort of products Apple likes to make.
Lots of people making up straw men in attempts to make the proposition of ?Watch sound more negative (it will be obsolete in a year, who wants to upgrade every year, it will be a $17K lump of coal in a year, ...). Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but nothing wrong with putting a bit of thought into it.
So many people seem to regurgitate the "upgrade every year" as though this was a golden rule of consumer electronics. There seems to be some evidence that the typical upgrade cycle (e.g. for most people, the average) for modern smart phones is 2-3 years. Some will upgrade every year by trading in, but others hold out longer. Contracts mostly based on the 2-year cycle. However, that is not true of computers, tablets, TV's, game consoles, iPods before it, etc. The smartphone cycle is the "exception", and even there it is not "every year".
I do expect a new ?Watch to be released each year that has improvements across the board (subtle changes to design - a tiny bit thinner, advances in processor tech, possible new sensor or tech each year [GPS added] and above all - some improvements in battery life). Expect as this article indicates some different/new SKUs. This will drive some upgrades every few years, and expand the market. Those purchasing a new one likely will hold it for 4+ years, because as noted it will not become "obsolete" given its functions. It will gain more independence from the iPhone over time of course, and appeal to a broader audience.
To suggest that the watch is obsolete/useless/junk after one year is simply the height of intellectual laziness/stupidity.
My guess is that - as with the iPad - people will be reluctant to upgrade for minor, incremental improvements. The most exciting updates I can imagine for the Apple Watch would be those that give it increasing independence from the iPhone, and I don't see these developing for several years at least...
- True wireless charging with a range of several feet (your watch could recharge while you wear it at your desk or while sleeping.)
- Robust water resistance (your watch stays with you while swimming at the beach or pool)
- Cellular connectivity (not gonna happen unless carriers agreed to affordable iPad-style no-contract service, plus this would kill battery life.)
Anyone else want one made of "a new kind of plastic" for $250?
Originally Posted by Mac_128
Yes, especially if it means it's easier to waterproof it.
I will buy a sport model if i can actually use it for my sports, swimming, surfing, boating, and wear it in the shower without worry.
Why would making it out of plastic make it easier to waterproof? It's actually just the opposite since plastics are soft, and can more easily deform and compromise watertight seals.
The reason why the Apple Watch isn't more water resistant has nothing to do with its metal case. It's almost certainly because the required o-rings and gaskets surrounding every button and seam would significantly increase the size of the watch and reduce the space available for the battery - limiting its appeal for most users.
Water resistance is huge on my wish list, but given the conflicting needs between a small design and a big battery I totally see why this wasn't a priority.
In fact, seal up the speaker and microphone ports and remove that functionality for this model.
People buying the cheap end of things will have to make a few sacrifices. The speaker is the dumbest thing on the watch, followed closely by the microphone.
That makes no sense. Siri is going to be a key input method (voice commands, dictation, and voice messages) and it won't work without a microphone. Likewise the speaker is necessary to listen to a quick message or voicemail. You don't sacrifice key functionality for a feature that will only be used by some people some of the time.
Apple wisely avoided making a "cheap" Watch. That is contrary to everything they stand for. Let the Android guys fight over who can make the cheapest watch right up until they go out of business like the PC industry.
They made a plastic iPhone 5C, so what's the problem with a plastic ?Watch? It still beats the pants off of any other smart watch on the market which are almost all plastic.
The plastic "C" model sold so well that Apple discontinued it. If anything it proved that Apple customers don't want to buy anything they perceive (or which appears to be) a "cheap" product. They'd rather buy last year's premium model at a reduced price. Plus don't forget that the cost of the case material accounts for a small portion of the selling price. Apple has comfortable margins on their entire product line and the various price points are established for marketing purposes and to maintain a healthy average sale price for a given product line.
There is no such thing as a waterproof watch. The term 'waterproof' was phased out long ago.
The Apple Watch will be IPX7 certified, meaning it can withstand water pressure similar to 1 meter of depth for 30 minutes. It could do more, but that is the baseline.
Again, that is a technical spec based on laboratory testing conditions. It doesn't mean you can thrash it around all day, 3 feet underwater and expect it to maintain its water resistance. For practical purposes IPX7 means it can resist sweat, rain, maybe getting wet in the shower - that's it.
Comments
Apple's gold is equivalent to Hublot's Magic Gold (i.e. they're both 18k gold made from gold and ceramic). http://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/03/07/apple-gold
Actually, there's no evidence that Apple is using ceramic in their Apple Watch Edition gold alloy.
"Yes, Apple Watch Edition is made from a custom 18-karat gold alloy. Yes, Apple filed that patent last year. But it does not follow that the gold in Apple Watch Edition is the gold described in that patent. If you watch the “Gold film” on Apple’s Edition page, Jony Ive says, “It begins at the molecular level, where precise adjustments in the amount of silver, copper, and palladium in the alloy result in very specific hues of yellow and rose gold.” Those metals are the only ingredients Apple has talked about."
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/03/12/apple-watch-patent-bloomberg
Few people know who Mossberg is. Few people care. Not that he's a nobody, but not everyone read the WSJ and his columns.
Mossberg is no longer at the WSJ.
(I consider that a plus for him, though I've never considered him particularly insightful when reviewing Apple products.)
Interesting, that makes sense. My original impression was that the actual titanium was painted over. At the time Apple hadn't yet achieved a unibody laptop design so I can see how they would have resorted to painting the plastic bits for aesthetic reasons.
If that's the case, then I can see how titanium would make a lot more likely candidate for a future Apple Watch variant.
Not from skin contact. I think the toxicity only arises from inhaling dust. Still, that would be a potential PR nightmare if Chinese factory workers started developing fibrosis as a result.
Yes.
Once again, the gold Apple Watch is not intended for someone who makes such a purchase decision based on practical considerations. It's an expensive and exclusive fashion statement for the sort of folks for whom $20k is an impulse buy - people who buy $3000 shoes that go out of fashion in a few months.
Titanium is not a particularly expensive raw material but due to its hardness, manufacturing costs are extremely high, especially for complex-shaped parts.
But how snappy is it while running iOS 8?
But it's not harder than steel. It's light for it's strength although not as light as aluminium.
Maybe they should look at beryllium for a truly exotic material
Anyone else want one made of "a new kind of plastic" for $250?
I wouldn't expect this anytime soon. The cost of materials does not account for a significant portion of the Apple Watch's selling price.
I expect prices will drop to that level eventually for an aluminum model. But it won't be for a long while. How long did it take the iPod to drop from $399 to as low as $49?
Here are my choices for pre-holiday 2015 ?Watch casing materials:
1. Titanium alloy
2. Carbon fiber
3. Platinum 750 (equivalent to 18k)
4. Transparent Aluminum (with Space Black tint)
And maybe next year Apple will ship Sport models with new colors, starting with the Product(RED) red. Then gold, of course. Then green, blue, whatever. Should be a simple matter of anodizing and marketing.
No Unobtanium?
I continue to ask every iPhone owner I meet if they plan to buy one and so far not a single person has said yes. Try it. When you're out in the real world (and not hanging out on a fan forum), ask iPhone users if they're interested in the watch and see how many say no.
Yup, same as the original reaction to the iPad. I'm sure Apple will be heartbroken if the Apple Watch ends up a failure like that.
Unfortunately there are far too many people that are simply not capable of seeing the truth until after the majority has seen it. That makes these surveys for paradigm shifting technology pointless for anything other than understanding how limited in thought most people are.
Besides the iPad being minimalize by the myopic which inane comments with "it's just a big iPod Touch," and "my
[Win]PC does so much more," it is the fastest selling CE in the world. Even the iPhone was scoffed at for a lack a physical keyboard and Adobe Flash is the standard by which all other smartphonea are judged. Only now do these same people say, "well, yeah, it obvious what Apple did. They didnt innovate anything." So are these people trolls or just not very bright?
Crying all the way to the bank.
I personally saw a lot more interest in the iPad than I have in the Watch so far. It'll be interesting. Either they legitimize the wearables market or prove, once and for all, that consumers aren't interested in the category.
18k gold contains the same amount of gold no matter what other ingredients are added to the alloy. Whether it's ceramic, copper, silver, or anything else the 18k label guarantees a consistent amount of gold per weight.
[@]Thomas Winzig[/@] is correct. He's clearly well aware that 18-kt means it's 75% gold by weight. Note his use of density.
Your comment is mostly correct but you the term "amount" without any apparent consideration for volume. For a given volume you need less material of a dense element to maintain 75% by weight, when you supplement with a less dense material. With cermaics this could mean a considerable drop in the "amount" of pure gold.
Since the iPhone 5C sold so well?
It's only 60% as dense as aluminum but more than twice as strong, as strong as some steels, plus it's highly corrosion resistant.
Beryllium is not a sexy name. Any examples as to how it looks? What are the cons for using that metal in commercial application?
I think a huge demographic underrepresented is the contractor work/outdoor demo with a rugged edition. Scratch proof liquid metal case, sapphire screen and rugged leather or high performance straps.
I really think the blue collar work force/outdoor demo is one that could truly see the benefits most. The selling point is simple. Go about your daily activities but keep your phone in your pocket.
Great product for wives and girlfriends to gift their men for holidays and birthdays too.
Is this a demographic that traditionally embraces new technology and is willing to pay higher prices for products with premium design, materials, and workmanship? If the answer is no, then I don't think they'd be receptive to the sort of products Apple likes to make.
No ti is more dense than aly. It has a sweetspot between steel and aly that can be useful - as you say, low corrosion being one.
Nearly as strong as some steel but plenty lighter (heavier than aly though)
steel - 8 g/cc
titanium - 4.4 g/cc
aluminium - 2.7 g/cc
beryllium 1.8 g/cc !!
Titanium might make a nice Sport 'pro'. It would go up in weight a bit but be nearly steel strength and CAN be annodised.
Lots of people making up straw men in attempts to make the proposition of ?Watch sound more negative (it will be obsolete in a year, who wants to upgrade every year, it will be a $17K lump of coal in a year, ...). Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but nothing wrong with putting a bit of thought into it.
So many people seem to regurgitate the "upgrade every year" as though this was a golden rule of consumer electronics. There seems to be some evidence that the typical upgrade cycle (e.g. for most people, the average) for modern smart phones is 2-3 years. Some will upgrade every year by trading in, but others hold out longer. Contracts mostly based on the 2-year cycle. However, that is not true of computers, tablets, TV's, game consoles, iPods before it, etc. The smartphone cycle is the "exception", and even there it is not "every year".
I do expect a new ?Watch to be released each year that has improvements across the board (subtle changes to design - a tiny bit thinner, advances in processor tech, possible new sensor or tech each year [GPS added] and above all - some improvements in battery life). Expect as this article indicates some different/new SKUs. This will drive some upgrades every few years, and expand the market. Those purchasing a new one likely will hold it for 4+ years, because as noted it will not become "obsolete" given its functions. It will gain more independence from the iPhone over time of course, and appeal to a broader audience.
To suggest that the watch is obsolete/useless/junk after one year is simply the height of intellectual laziness/stupidity.
My guess is that - as with the iPad - people will be reluctant to upgrade for minor, incremental improvements. The most exciting updates I can imagine for the Apple Watch would be those that give it increasing independence from the iPhone, and I don't see these developing for several years at least...
- True wireless charging with a range of several feet (your watch could recharge while you wear it at your desk or while sleeping.)
- Robust water resistance (your watch stays with you while swimming at the beach or pool)
- Cellular connectivity (not gonna happen unless carriers agreed to affordable iPad-style no-contract service, plus this would kill battery life.)
Originally Posted by GrangerFX
Anyone else want one made of "a new kind of plastic" for $250?
Originally Posted by Mac_128
Yes, especially if it means it's easier to waterproof it.
I will buy a sport model if i can actually use it for my sports, swimming, surfing, boating, and wear it in the shower without worry.
Why would making it out of plastic make it easier to waterproof? It's actually just the opposite since plastics are soft, and can more easily deform and compromise watertight seals.
The reason why the Apple Watch isn't more water resistant has nothing to do with its metal case. It's almost certainly because the required o-rings and gaskets surrounding every button and seam would significantly increase the size of the watch and reduce the space available for the battery - limiting its appeal for most users.
Water resistance is huge on my wish list, but given the conflicting needs between a small design and a big battery I totally see why this wasn't a priority.
In fact, seal up the speaker and microphone ports and remove that functionality for this model.
People buying the cheap end of things will have to make a few sacrifices. The speaker is the dumbest thing on the watch, followed closely by the microphone.
That makes no sense. Siri is going to be a key input method (voice commands, dictation, and voice messages) and it won't work without a microphone. Likewise the speaker is necessary to listen to a quick message or voicemail. You don't sacrifice key functionality for a feature that will only be used by some people some of the time.
Apple wisely avoided making a "cheap" Watch. That is contrary to everything they stand for. Let the Android guys fight over who can make the cheapest watch right up until they go out of business like the PC industry.
They made a plastic iPhone 5C, so what's the problem with a plastic ?Watch? It still beats the pants off of any other smart watch on the market which are almost all plastic.
The plastic "C" model sold so well that Apple discontinued it. If anything it proved that Apple customers don't want to buy anything they perceive (or which appears to be) a "cheap" product. They'd rather buy last year's premium model at a reduced price. Plus don't forget that the cost of the case material accounts for a small portion of the selling price. Apple has comfortable margins on their entire product line and the various price points are established for marketing purposes and to maintain a healthy average sale price for a given product line.
There is no such thing as a waterproof watch. The term 'waterproof' was phased out long ago.
The Apple Watch will be IPX7 certified, meaning it can withstand water pressure similar to 1 meter of depth for 30 minutes. It could do more, but that is the baseline.
Again, that is a technical spec based on laboratory testing conditions. It doesn't mean you can thrash it around all day, 3 feet underwater and expect it to maintain its water resistance. For practical purposes IPX7 means it can resist sweat, rain, maybe getting wet in the shower - that's it.