I agree. Interesting and informative. Just not at a media event on stage. Oh, I suppose they were necessary to justify the premium prices to some people.
If they were some long drawn out videos I might agree with you, but those two videos lasted maybe 4 minutes tops. One could argue the MacBook video wasn't necessary as it recapped everything Schiller already said. Personally I would have played the MacBook video first and then had Schiller come on stage to fill in the details.
I machine 6061-t6 daily, and as both extruded bar and rolled plate. Plate generally has better characteristics, and is more stable during and after the machining process. Almost certainly, Apple is specifying plate for its processes. Using a 7000 series will also give Apple many more appearance options including mirrored if you are into that sort of thing, and it will be less prone to damage.
True. I like 6061, and use it for a lot of things. I use the 7000 series as well, but not as often. It's not available in as many configurations as the far more popular 6000 series is, so that's a problem when you're doing limited numbers of something.
Rolled plate is already somewhat work hardened, whereas extruded isn't. Rolled plate also weighs slightly (a tiny amount) more per cubic size. But if Apple compresses it the way they do for the watch, it will get even stronger and harder. I don't know if they would though, as that's really expensive to do. But, it's Apple, so who knows?
Yup, anyone can specify a different proportion of each ingredient, same as baking a cake. But that's not a fair representation of what Apple, or any other company, does when mixing a new formula. Changing the ingredients willy nilly in a cake recipe will very often result in a poor outcome. So there's no value in just modifying inputs without regard to outcome. Apple started with a specific goal, then had to apply physics and material science to determine which combination of ingredients in which proportion would yield that goal. I doubt its dead simply to target a stronger, harder version of an alloy that retains the color properties you want, and isn't more brittle or falls down in some other area, like workability, etc.
The quoting is incorrect. That was my reply to him.
Making a new alloy is just as much art as science. There is still a lot we do t fully understand about this. So while the materials scientists can do their math, and then the chemists can do theirs, the resu,t still may not be exactly what you want, and experiment is still in order.
But tiny differences in alloying elements can make a big difference in characteristics. As little as 0.1% change in some ingredients will ruin the alloy.
Using a higher strength grade of aluminium and abandoning their 'thinness' obsession will certainly help the product be less delicate.
As for 'creating a new alloy' that's more marketing nonsense than technological leap, all aluminium alloys contain up to a dozen other elements in trace amounts to impart specific properties. There are many grades used commercially with 7XXX alloys (which include more zinc than other grades) being heavily used in the Aerospace industry and selected because of their hardness. It's laughable to claim Apple have created a new alloy and improved the strength of these already available materials when the likes of Boeing, Rolls-Royce, Airbus, Lockheed, NASA etc just get by with good old 7068.
The Jobs reality distortion field is alive and well.
So, you do any work with metal? I do a lot, and have, for decades. I've seen a number of variations of known alloys that have been custom produced. All of the alloys we have now, that are considered to be standard are just a fraction of all the alloys in use. It's not that unusual for a company to spec, or design, a custom variation of a standard alloy.
There are, after all, large gaps between alloys. Very often I've wished for an alloy with specs that aren't produced. I'm not the only one. But unless enough of that alloy is needed, no one will come out with it. How do you think that alloys we have today were invented? They were, for the most part, custom in the beginning. Some were patented, and then the patents ran out. Some were trade secrets. There are a lot of alloys now that are trade secrets.
If Apple decides that for their use, an alloy with characteristics that aren't quite met with a standard alloy is needed, they are big enough to figure out how to vary one to meet their needs. When you are making small devices with a high value, as Apple does, then the extra cost of a custom alloy is doable. But when making an aircraft, with thousands of pounds of a particular alloy, even tens of thousands of pounds, it may raise the cost too much. It's hard to tell. But certain alloys such as 2024, as an example, were invented by the aircraft industry for their purposes, so that WAS a custom alloy. That's how it works.
What I object to more is lack of a lens cap. Some shutter type device to keep the glass clean and scratch free is needed. Open when the camera is being used; closed all other times.
You've scratched the sapphire cover, or are you not serious?
My iPhone 4s camera became so scratched up that the camera was quite unusable. I dislike cases. iPhone is a beautiful artifact, and I want to see it.
That was quite a while ago. I don't believe the 4s had a sapphire cover glass for the camera. In addition, the cover glass for these that do, have the metal ring that protrudes a tiny amount past the sapphire.
7075 is the most common of the 7000 series alloys, originally developed for high strength aerospace applications. That would be my guess as to what Apple is using for the Watch and is proposing for new iPhone cases. It can have a yield strength of around 65,000 psi (many steels are in the 45,000 to 60,000 psi range.) It consists roughly of 5.75% zinc, 2.25% magnesium, and 1.4% copper with some silicon, iron, and manganese thrown in as "tramp" elements.
If Apple was going to significantly improve the yield strength they might consider adding 0.1 or 0.2% scandium. Scandium is a potent hardener in aluminum, but it is also very expensive. With a bit of scanium they could easily bump the yield strength up to 75,000 to 85,000 psi, and some aluminum alloys with scandium are known to exceed 100,000 psi - right up there with high strength steels.
Notwithstanding, I doubt Apple themselves developed a new alloy - at least not without significant input and likely the core expertise of one of the major aluminum manufacturers like Alcoa. At least Apple is referring to this as an aluminum alloy, and not being disingenuous and using scandium as a marketing ploy like S&W does for their so-called "scandium-framed" revolvers. When an alloying element only exists in the 0.2% range, the alloy can hardly be named after that minor composition element.
I'm guessing all this talk is to help alleviate the "bending iPhone 6+" problem. A common trick with many if not most manufacturers who have a basic design problem (i.e., insufficient aluminum in the case to resist bending moment) resort to "improving" the material by "polishing it up" instead of facing the design issue head-on. Such an approach often leads to mixed results.
7075 is the most common of the 7000 series alloys, originally developed for high strength aerospace applications. That would be my guess as to what Apple is using for the Watch and is proposing for new iPhone cases. It can have a yield strength of around 65,000 psi (many steels are in the 45,000 to 60,000 psi range.) It consists roughly of 5.75% zinc, 2.25% magnesium, and 1.4% copper with some silicon, iron, and manganese thrown in as "tramp" elements.
If Apple was going to significantly improve the yield strength they might consider adding 0.1 or 0.2% scandium. Scandium is a potent hardener in aluminum, but it is also very expensive. With a bit of scanium they could easily bump the yield strength up to 75,000 to 85,000 psi, and some aluminum alloys with scandium are known to exceed 100,000 psi - right up there with high strength steels.
Notwithstanding, I doubt Apple themselves developed a new alloy - at least not without significant input and likely the core expertise of one of the major aluminum manufacturers like Alcoa. At least Apple is referring to this as an aluminum alloy, and not being disingenuous and using scandium as a marketing ploy like S&W does for their so-called "scandium-framed" revolvers. When an alloying element only exists in the 0.2% range, the alloy can hardly be named after that minor composition element.
I'm guessing all this talk is to help alleviate the "bending iPhone 6+" problem. A common trick with many if not most manufacturers who have a basic design problem (i.e., insufficient aluminum in the case to resist bending moment) resort to "improving" the material by "polishing it up" instead of facing the design issue head-on. Such an approach often leads to mixed results.
I can't completely agree with your conclusion. Often, an alloying element in the 0.2% range does make a big difference. Try to tell me that going from 0.1% carbon in a ferros alloy to .3% doesn't make a difference. Or silicon in many alloys at low point percentages doesn't make a big difference. Yes, it does. This isn't a cake, where a tiny difference makes no noticeable difference in the flavor, or consistency, though, even there tiny amounts of certain ingredients can make a big difference.
Melgross, please go back and carefully read what I posted. I did not say that slight amounts of alloying element do not contribute to physical properties. On the contrary I cited scandium added in the 0.1% to 0.2% range as being a very potent hardener in aluminum, and I even gave some figures to back that up.
Look, I'm a degreed metallurgist (BS and MS degrees.) I've got 43 years experience in the field. I was vice president of technology & quality for a multinational producer of specialty metals. What I did say is that it is disingenuous for someone to add 0.2% scandium to an aluminum alloy and call it a "scandium alloy" in the process. That just isn't so! It's still an aluminum alloy because aluminum comprises by far the majority of the composition of the alloy. I was complimenting Apple on calling their "new" material by it's proper reference and not resorting to a marketing ploy to infer that it's some new "Buck Rogers" unobtanium.
You may recall a long period where people were attaching the name "titanium" to everything from jackets to credit cards. There were some golf balls that were actually named titanium and said to include titanium. Well, yes, there was some titanium oxide powder that coated the rubber band core under the sheath - but since TiO2 is the major solid whitener in paint the titanium was nothing more than an element in a paint job that one couldn't even see. How honest is that to go to market with something like that? But you know a lot of golfers fell for it because there was a legitimate use of titanium in golf club heads that significantly increased the "sweet spot" and range of flight of the ball.
Also, please realize that not all elements are what I'll call "potent" additions. For example, the 0.1% Sc addition to aluminum contributes significant additional strength. In the 7075 Al series a 0.1% addition of Zn would create a very modest to negligible increase to the base strength. Indeed, the specs say that Zn can vary from 5.6% to 6.1% and the material is still 7075 Al. This is merely a recognition by the producers and by the standards agencies like ASTM that a 0.5% compositional variation will not make a drastic difference in properties of the final alloy - it's still 7075.
Melgross, please go back and carefully read what I posted. I did not say that slight amounts of alloying element do not contribute to physical properties. On the contrary I cited scandium added in the 0.1% to 0.2% range as being a very potent hardener in aluminum, and I even gave some figures to back that up.
Look, I'm a degreed metallurgist (BS and MS degrees.) I've got 43 years experience in the field. I was vice president of technology & quality for a multinational producer of specialty metals. What I did say is that it is disingenuous for someone to add 0.2% scandium to an aluminum alloy and call it a "scandium alloy" in the process. That just isn't so! It's still an aluminum alloy because aluminum comprises by far the majority of the composition of the alloy. I was complimenting Apple on calling their "new" material by it's proper reference and not resorting to a marketing ploy to infer that it's some new "Buck Rogers" unobtanium.
You may recall a long period where people were attaching the name "titanium" to everything from jackets to credit cards. There were some golf balls that were actually named titanium and said to include titanium. Well, yes, there was some titanium oxide powder that coated the rubber band core under the sheath - but since TiO2 is the major solid whitener in paint the titanium was nothing more than an element in a paint job that one couldn't even see. How honest is that to go to market with something like that? But you know a lot of golfers fell for it because there was a legitimate use of titanium in golf club heads that significantly increased the "sweet spot" and range of flight of the ball.
Also, please realize that not all elements are what I'll call "potent" additions. For example, the 0.1% Sc addition to aluminum contributes significant additional strength. In the 7075 Al series a 0.1% addition of Zn would create a very modest to negligible increase to the base strength. Indeed, the specs say that Zn can vary from 5.6% to 6.1% and the material is still 7075 Al. This is merely a recognition by the producers and by the standards agencies like ASTM that a 0.5% compositional variation will not make a drastic difference in properties of the final alloy - it's still 7075.
And no, we are most decidedly not baking cakes.
Ok, correct, somehow, I had a disconnect between the different parts of your post. Sorry about that.
But naming something after what you call a minor contributed is normal, if it's believed that it is adding something of value that isn't present in the usual material. But sure, marketing can take that over, and even have the ingredient added purely for those marketing reasons. I was in advertising early in my life, and saw that more than once.
But different alloying elements do have large effects when varied by small amounts, while others do not. That's all I'm saying. And if Apple does vary those elements, it could have a significant effect who,e still remaining within the general classification of the alloy, while not being exactly the same.
But Apple is, with the watch, going to extremes in hardening processes. As temper is an additional process that gives an alloy strength and hardness, it can still be the same alloy, but with a different temper, whether from heat, or working. If Apple is tempering this differently, the resulting metal will be of a different hardness and strength. I suppose they could then say it's unique to them.
Ok, correct, somehow, I had a disconnect between the different parts of your post. Sorry about that.
But naming something after what you call a minor contributed is normal, if it's believed that it is adding something of value that isn't present in the usual material. But sure, marketing can take that over, and even have the ingredient added purely for those marketing reasons. I was in advertising early in my life, and saw that more than once.
But different alloying elements do have large effects when varied by small amounts, while others do not. That's all I'm saying. And if Apple does vary those elements, it could have a significant effect who,e still remaining within the general classification of the alloy, while not being exactly the same.
But Apple is, with the watch, going to extremes in hardening processes. As temper is an additional process that gives an alloy strength and hardness, it can still be the same alloy, but with a different temper, whether from heat, or working. If Apple is tempering this differently, the resulting metal will be of a different hardness and strength. I suppose they could then say it's unique to them.
Not likely that Apple could say it's unique to them. The whole issue of heat treating and cold working and it's effect on hardness have been know for 70 or 80 years, at least. It is extremely well documented as to the cause and effect for each specific alloy system. I highly doubt Apple can come up with a new set of conditions (specific to heat treat and cold work) that hasn't already been well explored and exploited by others. E.g., not patentable. Besides, Apple's expertise is not in metallurgy - they have to work with companies that actually make metals in order to determine what will work in an industrial situation. There can be lots of wild ideas, but not many of them are going to work in practice.
And yes, the advertising staff can do what they wish about naming an alloy "system" whatever they desire. But that doesn't make it any less of a charade, misleading, and obfuscating the truth.
Being a metallurgist, my first approach would not be to try and fine tune an alloy system to solve the issue of IPhonegate, Bendgate, or whatever the bending phones is being called. I would redesign the case, if even slightly, to get around the issue. For example a 25% increase in thickness of the case will provide at least a 240% increase in bending moment. That's because the bending moment is to the fourth power of thickness for a simple beam configuration. And I'm sure they could do better by beefing up the case around the button cut-outs where the bending is occurring. Increasing the case thickness from 1mm to 1.25mm would add virtually no weight, would create minimal additional costs (because the slab the case is being machined from is much thicker anyhow), and so long as the "meat" went on the outside of the case there would be no need to redesign internal parts to accommodate the additional thickness. It might give Jony Ive (Mr. Thinness) apoplexy but this is a case where function needs to rule over design.
Not likely that Apple could say it's unique to them. The whole issue of heat treating and cold working and it's effect on hardness have been know for 70 or 80 years, at least. It is extremely well documented as to the cause and effect for each specific alloy system. I highly doubt Apple can come up with a new set of conditions (specific to heat treat and cold work) that hasn't already been well explored and exploited by others. E.g., not patentable. Besides, Apple's expertise is not in metallurgy - they have to work with companies that actually make metals in order to determine what will work in an industrial situation. There can be lots of wild ideas, but not many of them are going to work in practice.
And yes, the advertising staff can do what they wish about naming an alloy "system" whatever they desire. But that doesn't make it any less of a charade, misleading, and obfuscating the truth.
Being a metallurgist, my first approach would not be to try and fine tune an alloy system to solve the issue of IPhonegate, Bendgate, or whatever the bending phones is being called. I would redesign the case, if even slightly, to get around the issue. For example a 25% increase in thickness of the case will provide at least a 240% increase in bending moment. That's because the bending moment is to the fourth power of thickness for a simple beam configuration. And I'm sure they could do better by beefing up the case around the button cut-outs where the bending is occurring. Increasing the case thickness from 1mm to 1.25mm would add virtually no weight, would create minimal additional costs (because the slab the case is being machined from is much thicker anyhow), and so long as the "meat" went on the outside of the case there would be no need to redesign internal parts to accommodate the additional thickness. It might give Jony Ive (Mr. Thinness) apoplexy but this is a case where function needs to rule over design.
Some of that is unrealistic. I was a manufacturer, and I can say that even if you want to do something that seems to make sense, you can't always. Whether we like it or not, we have to sell products, and if thinness is a major selling point. Then if there is a problem, we need to solve it without making the product unsellable. There is simply no way that Apple can make their products 25% thicker. It would be suicide.
And it isn't just Apple. Every product category is getting thinner. Look at cars. They used to be taller than a person. Now, we need to bend down in order to get in. So, even there, there is a vertical thinness issue.
So if Apple goes to a series 7000 aluminum they will get significant increases in strength, even without hardening. No need to make the product thicker. I have, by the way, an iPhone 6+, which is the model the bendgate is all about. No bending yet. It's not a real issue, just a perceived one. CU measured 120 lbs needed to bend it. Not a real problem except under extreme circumstances. The Galaxy S6 also bent under the same pressure, but the screen cracked. I'd say we were ahead of the game there.
We don't know what experience Apple has in metallurgy, do we? Apple spent around $7 billion on R&D last year, and that number will be going up again. For all we know, they have a number of experienced researchers in this field, with an up to date lab, and even a small foundry. It's more than possible. And they have the same ability to search the literature as anyone, as well as consult outside experts. When Apple decides that they need to do something on their own, they just go and do it.
As far as calling an alloy uniquely theirs, you're wrong about that. They call the 316L for the Watch their own alloy. They call the gold alloys theirs, and they called the SS alloy they said they developed for the original iPhone 4-4S theirs as well. So there's plenty of precedence for that.
As far as calling an alloy uniquely theirs, you're wrong about that. They call the 316L for the Watch their own alloy. They call the gold alloys theirs, and they called the SS alloy they said they developed for the original iPhone 4-4S theirs as well. So there's plenty of precedence for that.
I don't think so! This makes my point precisely. Apple continues to call the 316L stainless steel exactly that. It's even engraved into the back of the Watch case. They don't call it "Appleloy" or some other crazy marketing term. They refer to it by the standard naming convention used by ASTM, AISI, ASME, and all other authorities on alloy naming conventions. And that's what I was complimenting them on in the first place.
Granted, they had the stainless steel manufacturer do some fine tuning on the alloy - lowering the inclusion count so that it would polish better (presumably by better control of the residuals such as sulfur, phosphorous and silicon.) The cold forging bit is a process that has little to do with the alloy itself - it's a manufacturing process above and beyond melting and hot rolling the ingot to plate which is how 316 is sold commercially. At that, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the cold forging is sourced outside Apple, as is the CNC machining, polishing, application of the carbonitride surface film, etc.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you are making it sound like Apple has their own steel mill. Apple is not in the steel making business, they are in the electronic consumer products and software business. Apple engineers no doubt specify what they need from the steel maker, but it is still up to him to institute the manufacturing processes and practices for compositional control, cleanliness, grain size, corrosion resistance, and to certify that his final product meets all the specified attributes thereby required.
You can listen to Jony Ive blow smoke all day long in his stainless steel video for the Watch about how special this stuff is, but it's no more technologically advanced than 316L 20% cold-worked stainless steel used in the fast breeder reactor program back in the 1970s. I know because I was there helping source it and use it. It makes for a great video for consumers because it gives them pride in knowing that Apple took care of something as detailed as the raw material, but so far as this being something out of the ordinary or entirely special, move on, there's nothing to see here. Been there, done that, 40 years ago.
I don't think so! This makes my point precisely. Apple continues to call the 316L stainless steel exactly that. It's even engraved into the back of the Watch case. They don't call it "Appleloy" or some other crazy maraketing term. They refer to it by the standard naming convention used by ASTM, AISI, ASME, and all other authorities on alloy naming conventions. And that's what I was complimenting them on in the first place.
Granted, they had the stainless steel manufacturer do some fine tuning on the alloy - lowering the inclusion count so that it would polish better (presumably by better control of the residuals such as sulfur, phosphorous and silicon.) The cold forging bit is a process that has little to do with the alloy itself - it's a manufacturing process above and beyond melting and hot rolling the ingot to plate which is how 316 is sold commercially. At that, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the cold forging is sourced outside Apple, as is the CNC machining, polishing, application of the carbonitride surface film, etc.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you are making it sound like Apple has their own steel mill. Apple is not in the steel making business, they are in the electronic consumer products and software business. Apple engineers no doubt specify what they need from the steel maker, but it is still up to him to institute the manufacturing processes and practices for compositional control, cleanliness, grain size, corrosion resistance, and to certify that his final product meets all the specified attributes thereby required.
You can listen to Jony Ive blow smoke all day long in his stainless steel video for the Watch about how special this stuff is, but it's no more technologically advanced than 316L 20% cold-worked stainless steel used in the fast breeder reactor program back in the 1970s. I know because I was there helping source it and use it. It makes for a great video for consumers because it gives them pride in knowing that Apple took care of something as detailed as the raw material, but so far as this being something out of the ordinary or entirely special, move on, there's nothing to see here. Been there, done that, 40 years ago.
I'm certainly not saying that Apple has their own steel mill. But they do design, and have manufactured, machinery that isn't otherwise available. They spec everything that's done, and it's also been noted that they work their alloys to higher standards than is normal for the industries they are in. But no, they don't have to do the actual work themselves, any more than they have to manufacturer their own phones. This has also been noted a number of times before. It doesn't matter whether Apple is manufacturing metal themselves, or whether they are having a third party do it for them. Nevertheless, they call this 316L alloy their own. They have said this several times, as they have for other alloys. Do they give it a name or numerical designation? Perhaps in house they do, but as they aren't selling it, they don't announce it.
Since you do t work for Apple, it's a bit presumptuous for you to make absolute statements on what they do and don't come up with.
Sorry, don't mean to sound presumptuous. So, do you work for Apple?
I'm not making the claims you are. I'm simply using what we already know publicly, from statements they've made. From that is can be seen what they can, and might do. You're stating quite definitively that they can't do certain things, which they certainly can. Whether they are, or are not doing those things, is something else.
But I'm not ruling them out, which you are. I do t need to work there to know this, while you would have to to support your statements.
I'm certainly not going to say that you don't understand metallurgy, if you are a metallurgist. But to make bald statements that Apple isn't doing something, is something you can't know, unless you claim to know people running their programs who have told you so, and you're not claiming that. You're confusing R&D with actual manufacturing. Apple is certainly capable of doing any necessary R&D they want to, without needing to do the actual large scale manufacturing themselves, though they do work with manufacturers to develop manufacturing equipment and procedures. That's also something that been reported using a number of times.
I'm not making the claims you are. I'm simply using what we already know publicly, from statements they've made. From that is can be seen what they can, and might do. You're stating quite definitively that they can't do certain things, which they certainly can. Whether they are, or are not doing those things, is something else.
But I'm not ruling them out, which you are. I do t need to work there to know this, while you would have to to support your statements.
I'm certainly not going to say that you don't understand metallurgy, if you are a metallurgist. But to make bald statements that Apple isn't doing something, is something you can't know, unless you claim to know people running their programs who have told you so, and you're not claiming that. You're confusing R&D with actual manufacturing. Apple is certainly capable of doing any necessary R&D they want to, without needing to do the actual large scale manufacturing themselves, though they do work with manufacturers to develop manufacturing equipment and procedures. That's also something that been reported using a number of times.
I see, Mel. Well, since you got all the answers, I'll just stand down and shut up.
Comments
If they were some long drawn out videos I might agree with you, but those two videos lasted maybe 4 minutes tops. One could argue the MacBook video wasn't necessary as it recapped everything Schiller already said. Personally I would have played the MacBook video first and then had Schiller come on stage to fill in the details.
True. I like 6061, and use it for a lot of things. I use the 7000 series as well, but not as often. It's not available in as many configurations as the far more popular 6000 series is, so that's a problem when you're doing limited numbers of something.
Rolled plate is already somewhat work hardened, whereas extruded isn't. Rolled plate also weighs slightly (a tiny amount) more per cubic size. But if Apple compresses it the way they do for the watch, it will get even stronger and harder. I don't know if they would though, as that's really expensive to do. But, it's Apple, so who knows?
The quoting is incorrect. That was my reply to him.
Making a new alloy is just as much art as science. There is still a lot we do t fully understand about this. So while the materials scientists can do their math, and then the chemists can do theirs, the resu,t still may not be exactly what you want, and experiment is still in order.
But tiny differences in alloying elements can make a big difference in characteristics. As little as 0.1% change in some ingredients will ruin the alloy.
So, you do any work with metal? I do a lot, and have, for decades. I've seen a number of variations of known alloys that have been custom produced. All of the alloys we have now, that are considered to be standard are just a fraction of all the alloys in use. It's not that unusual for a company to spec, or design, a custom variation of a standard alloy.
There are, after all, large gaps between alloys. Very often I've wished for an alloy with specs that aren't produced. I'm not the only one. But unless enough of that alloy is needed, no one will come out with it. How do you think that alloys we have today were invented? They were, for the most part, custom in the beginning. Some were patented, and then the patents ran out. Some were trade secrets. There are a lot of alloys now that are trade secrets.
If Apple decides that for their use, an alloy with characteristics that aren't quite met with a standard alloy is needed, they are big enough to figure out how to vary one to meet their needs. When you are making small devices with a high value, as Apple does, then the extra cost of a custom alloy is doable. But when making an aircraft, with thousands of pounds of a particular alloy, even tens of thousands of pounds, it may raise the cost too much. It's hard to tell. But certain alloys such as 2024, as an example, were invented by the aircraft industry for their purposes, so that WAS a custom alloy. That's how it works.
You've scratched the sapphire cover, or are you not serious?
You've scratched the sapphire cover, or are you not serious?
My iPhone 4s camera became so scratched up that the camera was quite unusable. I dislike cases. iPhone is a beautiful artifact, and I want to see it.
That was quite a while ago. I don't believe the 4s had a sapphire cover glass for the camera. In addition, the cover glass for these that do, have the metal ring that protrudes a tiny amount past the sapphire.
7075 is the most common of the 7000 series alloys, originally developed for high strength aerospace applications. That would be my guess as to what Apple is using for the Watch and is proposing for new iPhone cases. It can have a yield strength of around 65,000 psi (many steels are in the 45,000 to 60,000 psi range.) It consists roughly of 5.75% zinc, 2.25% magnesium, and 1.4% copper with some silicon, iron, and manganese thrown in as "tramp" elements.
If Apple was going to significantly improve the yield strength they might consider adding 0.1 or 0.2% scandium. Scandium is a potent hardener in aluminum, but it is also very expensive. With a bit of scanium they could easily bump the yield strength up to 75,000 to 85,000 psi, and some aluminum alloys with scandium are known to exceed 100,000 psi - right up there with high strength steels.
Notwithstanding, I doubt Apple themselves developed a new alloy - at least not without significant input and likely the core expertise of one of the major aluminum manufacturers like Alcoa. At least Apple is referring to this as an aluminum alloy, and not being disingenuous and using scandium as a marketing ploy like S&W does for their so-called "scandium-framed" revolvers. When an alloying element only exists in the 0.2% range, the alloy can hardly be named after that minor composition element.
I'm guessing all this talk is to help alleviate the "bending iPhone 6+" problem. A common trick with many if not most manufacturers who have a basic design problem (i.e., insufficient aluminum in the case to resist bending moment) resort to "improving" the material by "polishing it up" instead of facing the design issue head-on. Such an approach often leads to mixed results.
I can't completely agree with your conclusion. Often, an alloying element in the 0.2% range does make a big difference. Try to tell me that going from 0.1% carbon in a ferros alloy to .3% doesn't make a difference. Or silicon in many alloys at low point percentages doesn't make a big difference. Yes, it does. This isn't a cake, where a tiny difference makes no noticeable difference in the flavor, or consistency, though, even there tiny amounts of certain ingredients can make a big difference.
Melgross, please go back and carefully read what I posted. I did not say that slight amounts of alloying element do not contribute to physical properties. On the contrary I cited scandium added in the 0.1% to 0.2% range as being a very potent hardener in aluminum, and I even gave some figures to back that up.
Look, I'm a degreed metallurgist (BS and MS degrees.) I've got 43 years experience in the field. I was vice president of technology & quality for a multinational producer of specialty metals. What I did say is that it is disingenuous for someone to add 0.2% scandium to an aluminum alloy and call it a "scandium alloy" in the process. That just isn't so! It's still an aluminum alloy because aluminum comprises by far the majority of the composition of the alloy. I was complimenting Apple on calling their "new" material by it's proper reference and not resorting to a marketing ploy to infer that it's some new "Buck Rogers" unobtanium.
You may recall a long period where people were attaching the name "titanium" to everything from jackets to credit cards. There were some golf balls that were actually named titanium and said to include titanium. Well, yes, there was some titanium oxide powder that coated the rubber band core under the sheath - but since TiO2 is the major solid whitener in paint the titanium was nothing more than an element in a paint job that one couldn't even see. How honest is that to go to market with something like that? But you know a lot of golfers fell for it because there was a legitimate use of titanium in golf club heads that significantly increased the "sweet spot" and range of flight of the ball.
Also, please realize that not all elements are what I'll call "potent" additions. For example, the 0.1% Sc addition to aluminum contributes significant additional strength. In the 7075 Al series a 0.1% addition of Zn would create a very modest to negligible increase to the base strength. Indeed, the specs say that Zn can vary from 5.6% to 6.1% and the material is still 7075 Al. This is merely a recognition by the producers and by the standards agencies like ASTM that a 0.5% compositional variation will not make a drastic difference in properties of the final alloy - it's still 7075.
And no, we are most decidedly not baking cakes.
Ok, correct, somehow, I had a disconnect between the different parts of your post. Sorry about that.
But naming something after what you call a minor contributed is normal, if it's believed that it is adding something of value that isn't present in the usual material. But sure, marketing can take that over, and even have the ingredient added purely for those marketing reasons. I was in advertising early in my life, and saw that more than once.
But different alloying elements do have large effects when varied by small amounts, while others do not. That's all I'm saying. And if Apple does vary those elements, it could have a significant effect who,e still remaining within the general classification of the alloy, while not being exactly the same.
But Apple is, with the watch, going to extremes in hardening processes. As temper is an additional process that gives an alloy strength and hardness, it can still be the same alloy, but with a different temper, whether from heat, or working. If Apple is tempering this differently, the resulting metal will be of a different hardness and strength. I suppose they could then say it's unique to them.
Ok, correct, somehow, I had a disconnect between the different parts of your post. Sorry about that.
But naming something after what you call a minor contributed is normal, if it's believed that it is adding something of value that isn't present in the usual material. But sure, marketing can take that over, and even have the ingredient added purely for those marketing reasons. I was in advertising early in my life, and saw that more than once.
But different alloying elements do have large effects when varied by small amounts, while others do not. That's all I'm saying. And if Apple does vary those elements, it could have a significant effect who,e still remaining within the general classification of the alloy, while not being exactly the same.
But Apple is, with the watch, going to extremes in hardening processes. As temper is an additional process that gives an alloy strength and hardness, it can still be the same alloy, but with a different temper, whether from heat, or working. If Apple is tempering this differently, the resulting metal will be of a different hardness and strength. I suppose they could then say it's unique to them.
Not likely that Apple could say it's unique to them. The whole issue of heat treating and cold working and it's effect on hardness have been know for 70 or 80 years, at least. It is extremely well documented as to the cause and effect for each specific alloy system. I highly doubt Apple can come up with a new set of conditions (specific to heat treat and cold work) that hasn't already been well explored and exploited by others. E.g., not patentable. Besides, Apple's expertise is not in metallurgy - they have to work with companies that actually make metals in order to determine what will work in an industrial situation. There can be lots of wild ideas, but not many of them are going to work in practice.
And yes, the advertising staff can do what they wish about naming an alloy "system" whatever they desire. But that doesn't make it any less of a charade, misleading, and obfuscating the truth.
Being a metallurgist, my first approach would not be to try and fine tune an alloy system to solve the issue of IPhonegate, Bendgate, or whatever the bending phones is being called. I would redesign the case, if even slightly, to get around the issue. For example a 25% increase in thickness of the case will provide at least a 240% increase in bending moment. That's because the bending moment is to the fourth power of thickness for a simple beam configuration. And I'm sure they could do better by beefing up the case around the button cut-outs where the bending is occurring. Increasing the case thickness from 1mm to 1.25mm would add virtually no weight, would create minimal additional costs (because the slab the case is being machined from is much thicker anyhow), and so long as the "meat" went on the outside of the case there would be no need to redesign internal parts to accommodate the additional thickness. It might give Jony Ive (Mr. Thinness) apoplexy but this is a case where function needs to rule over design.
Some of that is unrealistic. I was a manufacturer, and I can say that even if you want to do something that seems to make sense, you can't always. Whether we like it or not, we have to sell products, and if thinness is a major selling point. Then if there is a problem, we need to solve it without making the product unsellable. There is simply no way that Apple can make their products 25% thicker. It would be suicide.
And it isn't just Apple. Every product category is getting thinner. Look at cars. They used to be taller than a person. Now, we need to bend down in order to get in. So, even there, there is a vertical thinness issue.
So if Apple goes to a series 7000 aluminum they will get significant increases in strength, even without hardening. No need to make the product thicker. I have, by the way, an iPhone 6+, which is the model the bendgate is all about. No bending yet. It's not a real issue, just a perceived one. CU measured 120 lbs needed to bend it. Not a real problem except under extreme circumstances. The Galaxy S6 also bent under the same pressure, but the screen cracked. I'd say we were ahead of the game there.
We don't know what experience Apple has in metallurgy, do we? Apple spent around $7 billion on R&D last year, and that number will be going up again. For all we know, they have a number of experienced researchers in this field, with an up to date lab, and even a small foundry. It's more than possible. And they have the same ability to search the literature as anyone, as well as consult outside experts. When Apple decides that they need to do something on their own, they just go and do it.
As far as calling an alloy uniquely theirs, you're wrong about that. They call the 316L for the Watch their own alloy. They call the gold alloys theirs, and they called the SS alloy they said they developed for the original iPhone 4-4S theirs as well. So there's plenty of precedence for that.
As far as calling an alloy uniquely theirs, you're wrong about that. They call the 316L for the Watch their own alloy. They call the gold alloys theirs, and they called the SS alloy they said they developed for the original iPhone 4-4S theirs as well. So there's plenty of precedence for that.
I don't think so! This makes my point precisely. Apple continues to call the 316L stainless steel exactly that. It's even engraved into the back of the Watch case. They don't call it "Appleloy" or some other crazy marketing term. They refer to it by the standard naming convention used by ASTM, AISI, ASME, and all other authorities on alloy naming conventions. And that's what I was complimenting them on in the first place.
Granted, they had the stainless steel manufacturer do some fine tuning on the alloy - lowering the inclusion count so that it would polish better (presumably by better control of the residuals such as sulfur, phosphorous and silicon.) The cold forging bit is a process that has little to do with the alloy itself - it's a manufacturing process above and beyond melting and hot rolling the ingot to plate which is how 316 is sold commercially. At that, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the cold forging is sourced outside Apple, as is the CNC machining, polishing, application of the carbonitride surface film, etc.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you are making it sound like Apple has their own steel mill. Apple is not in the steel making business, they are in the electronic consumer products and software business. Apple engineers no doubt specify what they need from the steel maker, but it is still up to him to institute the manufacturing processes and practices for compositional control, cleanliness, grain size, corrosion resistance, and to certify that his final product meets all the specified attributes thereby required.
You can listen to Jony Ive blow smoke all day long in his stainless steel video for the Watch about how special this stuff is, but it's no more technologically advanced than 316L 20% cold-worked stainless steel used in the fast breeder reactor program back in the 1970s. I know because I was there helping source it and use it. It makes for a great video for consumers because it gives them pride in knowing that Apple took care of something as detailed as the raw material, but so far as this being something out of the ordinary or entirely special, move on, there's nothing to see here. Been there, done that, 40 years ago.
I'm certainly not saying that Apple has their own steel mill. But they do design, and have manufactured, machinery that isn't otherwise available. They spec everything that's done, and it's also been noted that they work their alloys to higher standards than is normal for the industries they are in. But no, they don't have to do the actual work themselves, any more than they have to manufacturer their own phones. This has also been noted a number of times before. It doesn't matter whether Apple is manufacturing metal themselves, or whether they are having a third party do it for them. Nevertheless, they call this 316L alloy their own. They have said this several times, as they have for other alloys. Do they give it a name or numerical designation? Perhaps in house they do, but as they aren't selling it, they don't announce it.
Since you do t work for Apple, it's a bit presumptuous for you to make absolute statements on what they do and don't come up with.
I'm not making the claims you are. I'm simply using what we already know publicly, from statements they've made. From that is can be seen what they can, and might do. You're stating quite definitively that they can't do certain things, which they certainly can. Whether they are, or are not doing those things, is something else.
But I'm not ruling them out, which you are. I do t need to work there to know this, while you would have to to support your statements.
I'm certainly not going to say that you don't understand metallurgy, if you are a metallurgist. But to make bald statements that Apple isn't doing something, is something you can't know, unless you claim to know people running their programs who have told you so, and you're not claiming that. You're confusing R&D with actual manufacturing. Apple is certainly capable of doing any necessary R&D they want to, without needing to do the actual large scale manufacturing themselves, though they do work with manufacturers to develop manufacturing equipment and procedures. That's also something that been reported using a number of times.
I'm not making the claims you are. I'm simply using what we already know publicly, from statements they've made. From that is can be seen what they can, and might do. You're stating quite definitively that they can't do certain things, which they certainly can. Whether they are, or are not doing those things, is something else.
But I'm not ruling them out, which you are. I do t need to work there to know this, while you would have to to support your statements.
I'm certainly not going to say that you don't understand metallurgy, if you are a metallurgist. But to make bald statements that Apple isn't doing something, is something you can't know, unless you claim to know people running their programs who have told you so, and you're not claiming that. You're confusing R&D with actual manufacturing. Apple is certainly capable of doing any necessary R&D they want to, without needing to do the actual large scale manufacturing themselves, though they do work with manufacturers to develop manufacturing equipment and procedures. That's also something that been reported using a number of times.
I see, Mel. Well, since you got all the answers, I'll just stand down and shut up.