Actually, diamonds are not really diamonds in one sense. They aren't rare at all, and the only reason they cost what they do is because of artificially created scarcity. There's nothing special about them (unless we're talking about industrial uses).
Gold, OTOH, is pretty scarce. Something like 150,000 tons has ever been mined in all of human history.
"A total of 174,100 tonnes of gold have been mined in human history, according to GFMS as of 2012. This is roughly equivalent to 5.6 billion troy ounces or, in terms of volume, about 9020 m<sup>3</sup> or a cube 21 m on a side."
That's not even 70 ft × 70 ft × 70 ft!!! I wonder how much aluminum Apple, alone, has used?
Terrible idea. Adding multiple variations to the internal offerings of the ?Watch will increase costs with no increased benefits to the customer.
Then clearly you think the iPhone 5c was a terrible mistake, as is the iPad mini, or perhaps adding at least three color options for every single mobile device they make ... despite what Apple says in its quarterly reports?
Then clearly you think the iPhone 5c was a terrible mistake, as is the iPad mini, or perhaps adding at least three color options for every single mobile device they make ... despite what Apple says in its quarterly reports?
If is presumptuous of you to tell me what I clearly believe when you don't even understand what I wrote. The most that you can infer from my earlier post is that I believe that the addition of the iPhone 5c increased costs over offering only a single line. This would be a fair inference and an accurate one. I will remind you of the old saying:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
The iPhone 6 Plus is Apple's top-of-the-line phone. However, the iPhone 5c is not Apple's only down market offering. In addition to the iPhone 6, Apple also continues to offer the iPhone 5s. Do I believe that any of these units would cost less to manufacture of the others did not exist? Yes, I most certainly do. However, my position of the various model iPhones does not state nor does it imply that I believe that any of them is a mistake. The iPhone 5c [and its siblings] sell well and earn profit for Apple. Apple believes that the iPhone 5c captures sales that it would have missed otherwise if the iPhone 5c were not available. Increased profitable sales are by definition not mistakes.
The economics of the ?Watch are very different than the iPhone. Before I go any further, let me reiterate my earlier point--selling multiple versions of the ?Watch internals will increase manufacturing costs without increasing consumer benefit. There are several dramatic differences between the ?Watch and the iPhone. The first difference is that there are no older versions of the ?Watch that can be offered at reduced price. Another major difference is that the ?Watch internals represent a remarkably small fraction of the device's price. The ?Watch Sport goes for $350. I would estimate that the internals go for about $300 retail each. At $450, the black stainless steel link band sells for $150 more than a complete ?Watch Sport. As for the $17,000 ?Watch Edition, the price of its internals are a rounding error compared to the price of the device.
Here, I am writing only of the ?Watch as an initial sale. However, Apple intends that it will be a platform. Buyers are encouraged to purchase additional bands and other accessories. With each additional purchase, the relative cost of the internals becomes less important.
In fixating on the lowering the price of the ?Watch internals, you are fixating on a relatively minor cost while ignoring the ?Watch as a platform.
"A total of 174,100 tonnes of gold have been mined in human history, according to GFMS as of 2012. This is roughly equivalent to 5.6 billion troy ounces or, in terms of volume, about 9020 m3 or a cube 21 m on a side."
That's not even 70 ft × 70 ft × 70 ft!!! I wonder how much aluminum Apple, alone, has used?
Yeah, thanks for the link. What scumbags. Ugh.
As to gold and aluminum, there was a link in this thread -- I think it was in this thread; unfortunately I can't find the post now -- to an article concerning the creation of the various cases. Here's the link: http://mashable.com/2015/03/15/apple-watch-how-its-made/
It's really fascinating, and even though what I know about manufacturing and metallurgy could fit inside a thimble, leaving lots of room left over, the author does a great job of explaining things to laymen like me. If you haven't read it yet, I would definitely suggest it. When it comes to the aluminum case, he says some interesting things:
Quote:
It would be hard to argue that Apple isn't the world's foremost expert on the volume production of high-precision, high-finish aluminum components.
Quote:
Though I design aluminum parts, I long ago gave up even attempting to craft them to Apple's finishing standards. No company in the world is finishing and anodizing to Apple's level, and part of their secret is every perfectly bead blasted Apple surface starts off as a perfectly polished surface. To compete with Apple, one either needs to invest in equipment with prices equivalent to a CNC machine (6-axis robotic arms with custom end actuators — i.e., hands — to hold your parts), or pay staggering sums of money to have an expert hand-polish your parts and accept the fact that the best you will ever get is a reject rate of 10%.
Quote:
Again, Apple is likely anodizing more metal than any other organization on the planet, and we get a glimpse of a highly optimized set of racks with Sport cases in it.
The article is definitely worth reading in its entirety. But your question as to the volume of aluminum Apple alone has used made me think of those quotes.
Then clearly you think the iPhone 5c was a terrible mistake, as is the iPad mini, or perhaps adding at least three color options for every single mobile device they make ... despite what Apple says in its quarterly reports?
You clearly don't understand the 5C is still an iPhone, the iPad mini is still an iPad. The fitness tracker you recommend is not an Apple Watch.
As to gold and aluminum, there was a link in this thread -- I think it was in this thread; unfortunately I can't find the post now -- to an article concerning the creation of the various cases. Here's the link: http://mashable.com/2015/03/15/apple-watch-how-its-made/
[…]
The article is definitely worth reading in its entirety.
In regards to metalurgy and construction here's an amazing article linked from [@]JeffDM[/@].
Here, I am writing only of the ?Watch as an initial sale....In fixating on the lowering the price of the ?Watch internals, you are fixating on a relatively minor cost while ignoring the ?Watch as a platform.
You wrote a lot but gave very few facts, if any, nor clarified your position for me. I can only presume you misunderstood what I wrote.
I'm NOT suggesting Apple rush a plastic watch to market. Only offering one when it makes economic sense. And no, I'm not fixating on the internals at all -- only to the extent they affect the water-resistance rating of the current watch, to address a problem for a not insignificant demographic. I'm suggesting that by offering an identical watch in a lower cost material, without substantial re-engineering costs, and the modification of possibly leaving something OFF the watch on the assembly line (which even if pennies will add up over the 15 million units some are anticipating), will serve the exact same purpose as the iPhone 5c.
You clearly don't understand the 5C is still an iPhone, the iPad mini is still an iPad. The fitness tracker you recommend is not an Apple Watch.
Your stating the obvious has nothing to do with it. And again -- Siri is NOT critical to the success of the ?Watch. The elimination of which does not make it any less an Apple watch than a previous generation iPhone is without Siri. Many people don't use Siri now.
You wrote a lot but gave very few facts, if any, nor clarified your position for me. I can only presume you misunderstood what I wrote.
I'm NOT suggesting Apple rush a plastic watch to market. Only offering one when it makes economic sense. And no, I'm not fixating on the internals at all -- only to the extent they affect the water-resistance rating of the current watch, to address a problem for a not insignificant demographic. I'm suggesting that by offering an identical watch in a lower cost material, without substantial re-engineering costs, and the modification of possibly leaving something OFF the watch on the assembly line (which even if pennies will add up over the 15 million units some are anticipating), will serve the exact same purpose as the iPhone 5c.
You certainly like to cry innocent to charges that no one made. Nowhere in any of my previous posts did I ever mention a plastic ?Watch.
Apple don't offer a carbon fiber strap, my friend.
I think that's the point of this article isn't it? New Casing materials? I would also expect new watch bands to go along with those casing materials as well.
The fashion people Apple went out and recruited can be working on new designs for the ?Watch 365 days a year, and those bands are far easier and quicker to bring to market. My point all along has been that if Apple is going to position this product within the realm of the fashion world, they will have to take similar steps as the current watch industry takes by releasing different models every season. Since that's somewhat impractical for a tech device which needs a considerably longer window for R&D than a watch which uses essentially tried and true mechanisms, the most logical thing they can update are casings and bands, which rumors suggest could happen bi-annually in the Fall and Spring. I still expect subtle changes to the case and bezel designs every year, and maybe major redesign offerings every 18-24mo. (in addition to the previous offerings). The tech may change independently of the design change schedule. And let's face it ... iPhones and iPads make great gifts, but they aren't very personal -- watches are given pretty commonly for Christmas and graduation, make a more intimate gift, and Apple is going to want new models for each those important holidays -- and what better gift for a person who already has an iPhone? In fact, what better way to ensure diversity in the watch community so everyone isn't wearing the exact same black glass square and metal block on their wrists, a homogeny that is otherwise avoided in the watch world ...
Hi what I understand from watching the key note Platinum and or titanium was added to the gold to make it stronger, not to make a watch from either material.
I predict that he won't be sold on the Apple Watch.
No one gives a rat's a$$ what you think troll... The rubbish you speak trolling this forum is certainly a reflection of how you carry yourself in your personal life. Go away.
I would love to see them include options to make the device less expensive...maybe a Polycarbonate Plastic or something. I can't wait for these to be introduced but what makes me nervous is what Apple did in 2007. The iPhone debuted at $599/8 GB, $499/4 GB and like 2 months later Apple made the iPhone $399/8 GB. It seems that Apple would want to get this in as many stockings as possible this year so it would make sense to wait until the holidays and buy then.
I would love to see them include options to make the device less expensive...maybe a Polycarbonate Plastic or something. I can't wait for these to be introduced but what makes me nervous is what Apple did in 2007. The iPhone debuted at $599/8 GB, $499/4 GB and like 2 months later Apple made the iPhone $399/8 GB. It seems that Apple would want to get this in as many stockings as possible this year so it would make sense to wait until the holidays and buy then.
It isn't the materials alone of the Apple Watch Sport model that is making it $350 - the entry level is priced that way as Apple believes the product is worth that - its value to the user is worth that. They aren't sitting around Cupertino scratching their heads thinking "now what can we change to make it a little bit cheaper - so maybe we could offer it at $329 instead".
I would love to see them include options to make the device less expensive...maybe a Polycarbonate Plastic or something. I can't wait for these to be introduced but what makes me nervous is what Apple did in 2007. The iPhone debuted at $599/8 GB, $499/4 GB and like 2 months later Apple made the iPhone $399/8 GB. It seems that Apple would want to get this in as many stockings as possible this year so it would make sense to wait until the holidays and buy then.
It isn't the materials alone of the Apple Watch Sport model that is making it $350 - the entry level is priced that way as Apple believes the product is worth that - its value to the user is worth that. They aren't sitting around Cupertino scratching their heads thinking "now what can we change to make it a little bit cheaper - so maybe we could offer it at $329 instead".
Sure they are.
As long as they can keep the margins that they are aiming for, they will try to make and sell the watches as cheaply as possible. That's how they will sell more units and therefore make more profit.
As long as they can keep the margins that they are aiming for, they will try to make and sell the watches as cheaply as possible. That's how they will sell more units and therefore make more profit.
Comments
Adding to that…
In terms of gold, from Wikipedia:
That's not even 70 ft × 70 ft × 70 ft!!! I wonder how much aluminum Apple, alone, has used?
Terrible idea. Adding multiple variations to the internal offerings of the ?Watch will increase costs with no increased benefits to the customer.
Then clearly you think the iPhone 5c was a terrible mistake, as is the iPad mini, or perhaps adding at least three color options for every single mobile device they make ... despite what Apple says in its quarterly reports?
If is presumptuous of you to tell me what I clearly believe when you don't even understand what I wrote. The most that you can infer from my earlier post is that I believe that the addition of the iPhone 5c increased costs over offering only a single line. This would be a fair inference and an accurate one. I will remind you of the old saying:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
The iPhone 6 Plus is Apple's top-of-the-line phone. However, the iPhone 5c is not Apple's only down market offering. In addition to the iPhone 6, Apple also continues to offer the iPhone 5s. Do I believe that any of these units would cost less to manufacture of the others did not exist? Yes, I most certainly do. However, my position of the various model iPhones does not state nor does it imply that I believe that any of them is a mistake. The iPhone 5c [and its siblings] sell well and earn profit for Apple. Apple believes that the iPhone 5c captures sales that it would have missed otherwise if the iPhone 5c were not available. Increased profitable sales are by definition not mistakes.
The economics of the ?Watch are very different than the iPhone. Before I go any further, let me reiterate my earlier point--selling multiple versions of the ?Watch internals will increase manufacturing costs without increasing consumer benefit. There are several dramatic differences between the ?Watch and the iPhone. The first difference is that there are no older versions of the ?Watch that can be offered at reduced price. Another major difference is that the ?Watch internals represent a remarkably small fraction of the device's price. The ?Watch Sport goes for $350. I would estimate that the internals go for about $300 retail each. At $450, the black stainless steel link band sells for $150 more than a complete ?Watch Sport. As for the $17,000 ?Watch Edition, the price of its internals are a rounding error compared to the price of the device.
Here, I am writing only of the ?Watch as an initial sale. However, Apple intends that it will be a platform. Buyers are encouraged to purchase additional bands and other accessories. With each additional purchase, the relative cost of the internals becomes less important.
In fixating on the lowering the price of the ?Watch internals, you are fixating on a relatively minor cost while ignoring the ?Watch as a platform.
Adding to that…
In terms of gold, from Wikipedia:
That's not even 70 ft × 70 ft × 70 ft!!! I wonder how much aluminum Apple, alone, has used?
Yeah, thanks for the link. What scumbags. Ugh.
As to gold and aluminum, there was a link in this thread -- I think it was in this thread; unfortunately I can't find the post now -- to an article concerning the creation of the various cases. Here's the link: http://mashable.com/2015/03/15/apple-watch-how-its-made/
It's really fascinating, and even though what I know about manufacturing and metallurgy could fit inside a thimble, leaving lots of room left over, the author does a great job of explaining things to laymen like me. If you haven't read it yet, I would definitely suggest it. When it comes to the aluminum case, he says some interesting things:
The article is definitely worth reading in its entirety. But your question as to the volume of aluminum Apple alone has used made me think of those quotes.
You clearly don't understand the 5C is still an iPhone, the iPad mini is still an iPad. The fitness tracker you recommend is not an Apple Watch.
In regards to metalurgy and construction here's an amazing article linked from [@]JeffDM[/@].
edit: LOL That's the same article.
Here, I am writing only of the ?Watch as an initial sale....In fixating on the lowering the price of the ?Watch internals, you are fixating on a relatively minor cost while ignoring the ?Watch as a platform.
You wrote a lot but gave very few facts, if any, nor clarified your position for me. I can only presume you misunderstood what I wrote.
I'm NOT suggesting Apple rush a plastic watch to market. Only offering one when it makes economic sense. And no, I'm not fixating on the internals at all -- only to the extent they affect the water-resistance rating of the current watch, to address a problem for a not insignificant demographic. I'm suggesting that by offering an identical watch in a lower cost material, without substantial re-engineering costs, and the modification of possibly leaving something OFF the watch on the assembly line (which even if pennies will add up over the 15 million units some are anticipating), will serve the exact same purpose as the iPhone 5c.
You clearly don't understand the 5C is still an iPhone, the iPad mini is still an iPad. The fitness tracker you recommend is not an Apple Watch.
Your stating the obvious has nothing to do with it. And again -- Siri is NOT critical to the success of the ?Watch. The elimination of which does not make it any less an Apple watch than a previous generation iPhone is without Siri. Many people don't use Siri now.
You certainly like to cry innocent to charges that no one made. Nowhere in any of my previous posts did I ever mention a plastic ?Watch.
Well I think we're done here, because that's been my entire point.
Apple don't offer a carbon fiber strap, my friend.
Apple don't offer a carbon fiber strap, my friend.
I think that's the point of this article isn't it? New Casing materials? I would also expect new watch bands to go along with those casing materials as well.
The fashion people Apple went out and recruited can be working on new designs for the ?Watch 365 days a year, and those bands are far easier and quicker to bring to market. My point all along has been that if Apple is going to position this product within the realm of the fashion world, they will have to take similar steps as the current watch industry takes by releasing different models every season. Since that's somewhat impractical for a tech device which needs a considerably longer window for R&D than a watch which uses essentially tried and true mechanisms, the most logical thing they can update are casings and bands, which rumors suggest could happen bi-annually in the Fall and Spring. I still expect subtle changes to the case and bezel designs every year, and maybe major redesign offerings every 18-24mo. (in addition to the previous offerings). The tech may change independently of the design change schedule. And let's face it ... iPhones and iPads make great gifts, but they aren't very personal -- watches are given pretty commonly for Christmas and graduation, make a more intimate gift, and Apple is going to want new models for each those important holidays -- and what better gift for a person who already has an iPhone? In fact, what better way to ensure diversity in the watch community so everyone isn't wearing the exact same black glass square and metal block on their wrists, a homogeny that is otherwise avoided in the watch world ...
I look forward to reading Walt Mossberg's review.
I predict that he won't be sold on the Apple Watch.
No one gives a rat's a$$ what you think troll... The rubbish you speak trolling this forum is certainly a reflection of how you carry yourself in your personal life. Go away.
I would love to see them include options to make the device less expensive...maybe a Polycarbonate Plastic or something. I can't wait for these to be introduced but what makes me nervous is what Apple did in 2007. The iPhone debuted at $599/8 GB, $499/4 GB and like 2 months later Apple made the iPhone $399/8 GB. It seems that Apple would want to get this in as many stockings as possible this year so it would make sense to wait until the holidays and buy then.
It isn't the materials alone of the Apple Watch Sport model that is making it $350 - the entry level is priced that way as Apple believes the product is worth that - its value to the user is worth that. They aren't sitting around Cupertino scratching their heads thinking "now what can we change to make it a little bit cheaper - so maybe we could offer it at $329 instead".
I would love to see them include options to make the device less expensive...maybe a Polycarbonate Plastic or something. I can't wait for these to be introduced but what makes me nervous is what Apple did in 2007. The iPhone debuted at $599/8 GB, $499/4 GB and like 2 months later Apple made the iPhone $399/8 GB. It seems that Apple would want to get this in as many stockings as possible this year so it would make sense to wait until the holidays and buy then.
It isn't the materials alone of the Apple Watch Sport model that is making it $350 - the entry level is priced that way as Apple believes the product is worth that - its value to the user is worth that. They aren't sitting around Cupertino scratching their heads thinking "now what can we change to make it a little bit cheaper - so maybe we could offer it at $329 instead".
Sure they are.
As long as they can keep the margins that they are aiming for, they will try to make and sell the watches as cheaply as possible. That's how they will sell more units and therefore make more profit.