D
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Apples Trick for Using As Little Gold As Possible In Its $17k Watch
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Actually its not. The penetration power of a .50 cal will penetrate walls, glass, steel, bodies, and keep going. So if you shoot, miss, and the bullet flies through your wall across the street and through the neighbors property, you are liable for any damage it causes.
In home defense purposes, a pump action shotgun is the best. You don't even have to fire it, the sound it makes its quite distinguishable to just about anyone... when you here that wonderful low tone chuck chuck you know trouble is coming soon. Plus the pellets have low penetration and you don't have to aim so well, so while you might do damage to your property, you don't have to worry about killing the neighbors dog while fending yourself.
That really doesn't show how they use less gold. They compress the gold in a forge to make it denser, so they are actually cramming more gold into a smaller space. They might use a smaller volume because it is stronger, but since it is compressed they probably don't really use less, or not enough to matter.
I doubt there is substantially less gold than in these gold watches that average over $40K:
http://www.ablogtowatch.com/top-10-gold-watches/
westrock2000
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 9,386
While I agree with the absurdity of the top end (and even all the tiers to some extent), I think we have to put this in perspective.
ANY of you in here talking about what the money would be better spent on or what kind of quality you should get for that price, I think, are not the target audience.
This product is for people who do not see money as some type of a gauge. The value of money is not as relevant as it is to you and me.
I think this product, and the fact that Apple can get away with selling it, is mostly a reflection of the abundant wealth that some people have. There are enough people in the world who will spend $17,000 on a so called "obsolete" watch that Apple is willing to do it.
This is not a first world luxury, this a 1% luxury (or whatever term you want to use).
Expensive watches have always been around. But this is not a watch. It is an electronic device. And more importantly it is from an electronics company. This is untraditional, and shows a change.
ANY of you in here talking about what the money would be better spent on or what kind of quality you should get for that price, I think, are not the target audience.
This product is for people who do not see money as some type of a gauge. The value of money is not as relevant as it is to you and me.
I think this product, and the fact that Apple can get away with selling it, is mostly a reflection of the abundant wealth that some people have. There are enough people in the world who will spend $17,000 on a so called "obsolete" watch that Apple is willing to do it.
This is not a first world luxury, this a 1% luxury (or whatever term you want to use).
Expensive watches have always been around. But this is not a watch. It is an electronic device. And more importantly it is from an electronics company. This is untraditional, and shows a change.
Actually, gold is measured different than gems in terms of karat. 18k gold means 18/24 part gold, 6/24 part foreign substance. 24k gold being pure gold. The lower the karat, typically the stronger the gold. In Apple's case, they are taking 18k gold and meshing it with other substances.. how much is unknown, but if you were to melt their final product down, you would have LESS than 18k gold depending on how much ceramic to gold is used. This is how they get a stronger than 18k gold.
I suppose an analogy would be if you've ever seen concrete being poured. They sometimes use steel/iron reinforced rods and pour the concrete around those frames. It makes the concrete much stronger than if it did not have the metal frame, but given the volume, there is actually less concrete used as some space is now taken up by the metal rods.
So ultimately, you are getting LESS gold.
As far as watches, an iwatch will be outdated in 2 years. But the market for the high end will most likely be celebrities and those in the entertainment business. The folks that you see spending 50% of their wealth on cars. The watch screams 'Hey, I've got money! So much so that I can burn it on a $17k case for my $400 watch!" Most other folks who wear high end watches probably won't be interested.. They have their Audemar's, Vacheron's, and Pateks which they bought for their prestige and craftsmanship. I mean, what do you think is a better conversation piece.. a watch that takes a single jeweler multiple years to hand craft, or one that is stamped off an assembly line along with thousands of other identical watches but uses less gold to actually make?
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
The mass of gold per unit of mass is the same in all gold alloys of the same karatage.
Well you have to take into consideration if the bullet will then travel through the intruder and through the wall into your kids room?
The Apple Gold watch doesn't use Ceramic. As usual, almost no one commenting on the link actually read/watched it.
It's a Gold/Silver/Copper/Palladium alloy, that is then compressed to make it even more dense/harder.
Damar
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2004
- Messages
- 4,611
Its a simple alloy with ceramic powder mixed in, as has been done many times in the past when you want a low friction scratch resistant material... its patented not because Apple is the first to mix the alloys, but rather the specific ratios are unique, even if they are just 1% different than someone else's. Its clever marketing to make it sound new and innovative. Rolex watches have their own patented alloy, as do all the major jewelry makers, and they also like to call the "new" metal a fancy name just like Zoolander patents Blue Steel, Le Tigre, and Ferrari poses when they kinda look pretty similar and not that much more fancy than the common "duck face".
Regarding "compressing it", I wish other companies would be innovative and come up with these types of metal mixing and compression technology. We could patent this hammering of mixed metals into a die and call it a "forged alloy" and use it in all kinds of everyday household items, like a cheap wrench you buy at Sears. *facepalm*
rotarymotor
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2013
- Messages
- 115
Gold isn't even all that expensive these days, and if they really wanted to wow people they'd use something like the titanium nitride gold finish used on $2000 Desert Eagles. It looks fancy, and its unbelievably durable, as titanium nitride is actually what they coat the tips of tools in that are used to cut metal, since its harder than steel.
But even on something that large of a surface area, it doesn't raise the price that much.
I can definitely confirm this as a set of headers I purchased for a vehicle awhile back had the option to have titanium nitride coating for about $50 more to the cost of the header.
It definitely had a lot more surface area than that desert eagle and when it was heated to exhaust gas temperature range it blued very nicely, even pretty to look at.
The gold has nothing to do with the quality of a Rolex. I can promise you that a 60's stainless steal Rolex works just as well, so long as it's sent off for maintenance every 5 years (give or take). Nevertheless, you don't buy a Rolex for it's time keeping ability. If you're looking for accuracy, you'd by a quartz watch (though I suspect this Apple Watch thing will be even more accurate, since the time likely comes from an atomic clock).
None of this means paying 10k (or more) for an iWatch makes sense, but it's not like a stainless steel Rolex for 6 grand make sense either (much less some of the true luxury watches that cost 5 or 6 figures). If you've got money to burn go for it. Those impressed by such things will be impressed.
Clearly most of us will not....but Rolex doesn't impress me either, but they're generally decent looking watches,
This is a watch that should be sold for parts and melted down. I actually think I saw uglier gold watches in the 80's, but I don't know how to describe them. Just the gaudiest shit I've ever seen.
Wizard220
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 6, 2006
- Messages
- 475
Zarathustra[H];1041476007 said:I've never shot one, but I always assumed that the .50 cal AE would give this thing so much recoil to make it tactically useless after the first shot.
Even the 10mm Glock's were too much for the FBI, resulting in Glock creating the .40 Cal S&W variant for them. And since then FBI is considering going down to 9mm.
I can only imagine the Desert Eagle would be practically useful if you found yourself running from a raging rabid bear,moose, rhinoceros or dump truck
Real vice miami bloodiest battle full episode
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MnVbj9ooZo
Red Squirrel
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 9,211
It does not even need to have real gold on it, apple fanbois will still buy it.
If I had that kind of money I could do way more things around the house, all of which would not be obsolete in 8 months. It's mind boggling that people will pay this kind of money just for a "premium" edition of something, just because of the company it's from.
If I had that kind of money I could do way more things around the house, all of which would not be obsolete in 8 months. It's mind boggling that people will pay this kind of money just for a "premium" edition of something, just because of the company it's from.
No it isn't. That article was speculative, written before the watch was released.
Watch the Video that Steve embedded.
It is a Gold/Silver/Copper/Palladium Alloy.
Well that was informative.
What's your next thought provoking comment "Water is wet because water is wet".
MrCaffeineX
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,592
I hadn't seen that video in a while, thanks for getting it stuck in my head again...
As a tech person, I just don't see the market for something like the Apple Watch in general. Sure there is the novelty aspect (they really made the Dick Tracy watch), but aside from that, I fail to see the appeal. Maybe Apple's marketing is failing in this regard because they have not managed to instill a need to own this particular product. That new MacBook on the other hand...
Assuming that the only real market for this watch is for people that like novelty items, I do not see this selling all that well. Of the people that do buy it, I would imagine only a very small (perhaps fraction of a) percentage will go for the all-out bling model. The rest of us can buy a pretty decent car for $17k.
Uber rich people tend to be smart with their money. Why would they buy something for $17K that's going to be technologically outdated in months. They'll prefer to buy something that holds value. How much does the battery replacement cost every 18 months?
BigJayDogg3
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,676
That's like saying running a 6 second 40 is possible because Usain Bolt did it.
Hopefully you live in a state that respects your right to get one.
Tiffany, Luis Vitton(sp), Gucci, Prada and every expensive brand of watch that you've seen or heard about sell common items at ridiculous markups. Every time someone buys a diamond ring at 50% off, they're paying at least a 100% markup over what the store paid (which was marked up at least 100% from what the wholesaler paid).
I wouldn't buy one, but if it's really limited, then it could actually appreciate. And honestly, in a world where people paid 50k (or more) for a Hummer (one of the ugliest vehicles ever made), why not a gold iWatch. The Hummer was exactly the same thing: a status symbol.
A fashion statement that you have terrible taste.
I agree (for now). I don't need one of these watches, but I thought the same of the iPad, and I know a lot of people who love Love LOVE their iPads.
There's no doubt that only fraction will buy the gold version. That's by design. You don't charge 17k for a watch with mass market aspirations.
I don't get the appeal of the laptops. I don't want a laptop with a 12" monitor. Now maybe if they come up with a way to have the monitor fold out to 15-17" that'd be more interesting. i'd take 2x the weight for a bigger screen.
Do you really think the super wealthy give a shit about a watch? If you're that wealthy, 17k is to you as the price of a swatch is to me. There's a reason they're saying it's a limited edition. They limit the numbers and it becomes desirable, because money alone can't buy it (assuming it's truly limited).
My casio battery has so far lasted FIVE THOUSAND times longer than the apple watch battery, and the watch has not been crippled by any IOS updates a couple of years after release. And not only that but they managed to use even less gold than apple. (Zero)
Steve Jobs would have never allowed these stupid golden versions..
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,538
lol
Why not? Apple has always been about aesthetics. If you can get 17k for some watches and 350 (or whatever it costs) for the rest, why would you turn that away? If they don't do it, some other company will do it for them. This is a win win for Apple. Just because we wouldn't buy one of these, doesn't mean they shouldn't sell it.
Not sure why it'd matter. How often are you awake and away from power for 24 hours, but not 25? It's not that I think that the power is long enough, but if you can live with 24, you can probably live with 18.
Many people pull occasional all-nighters. But the point is that people associate 24 hours to a day, and expect a watch to at least last a full day. And from a marketing perspective, it makes much more sense as well to have a watch last at least a a full day.
I understand, but from a practical POV, I don't think it matters. Most people who buy this are probably going to use it in an urban or suburban setting. They'll have power available throughout the day. Of course it also depends how easy it is to charge (and how long it takes to charge it).
With my external battery I can charge an iPhone 6 between 6-7 times, so maybe that's enough to charge the phone and the watch for 4-5 days, but for places where power is limited, I'd probably forgo the watch. It's not like I need to check my email every few minutes