Apple’s Trick for Using “As Little Gold As Possible” In Its $17k Watch

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Leave it to Apple to sell a $17,000 watch with "as little gold as possible" in it and make it sound like a feature.

The tech world has spent today salivating over/ridiculing/otherwise kibitzing about Apple's new watch, after CEO Tim Cook finally revealed how much the little bauble would cost at an event today. The answer: anywhere from $349 for the basic design up to between $10,000 and $17,000 for the 18-karat gold version, known as the Apple Watch Edition.
 
lol if someone sues Apple over this because first they would have to admit buying that overpriced "look at me" gadget in the first place.
 
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. :cool:

Magnum-Research-Desert-Eagle-50AE_001.jpg


But even on something that large of a surface area, it doesn't raise the price that much.
 
This gold watch thing is it, apple has officially run out of any creativity. Just throw gold on everything, then it will sell.
 
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. :cool:

Magnum-Research-Desert-Eagle-50AE_001.jpg


But even on something that large of a surface area, it doesn't raise the price that much.

Always wanted one of those
 
tried and true for millennium, it's not an Apple specific notion
 
This gold watch thing is it, apple has officially run out of any creativity. Just throw gold on everything, then it will sell.

I'm a die hard Apple fan, but honestly, looking at the watch I'm thinking if a Steve Jobs Apple would have built something like this. I am leaning towards no. It doesn't even have GPS built in. WTF. Can't track my runs, oh well.
 
one of two things are clear: either it doesn't have GPS because that's the iWatch 1s or if it had GPS this thread would be littered with Apple tracking its customer base 24/7
 
Ok, just my .02 here but it feels like Apple is trying to jump the shark.

1) I'm not against science, but people who work with gold have been around for literally thousands of years. I'm not sure that whatever Apple came up with regarding this new alloy, along with the crafting process, is going to be automatically better than whatever the current industry standard is that everyone else is likely using. Also, how much gold is in this thing? You're mixing it with silver, palladium, etc... if "gold" is a big feature (not just the color, but the material) then stamp that thing with a percentage. You know... like everyone else does when they stamp an ingot.

2) There are two reasons that real gold watches are valuable. First, the metal, obviously. You could always melt it down and get something in trade as it's inherently valuable. Second, and this is the big one, is because they normally stand the test of time extremely well. Whether due to the material just holding up well, or because people tend to take better care of their expensive gold objects... gold watches (Rolex's and such) from the 60's, 70's, 80's, etc are valuable because they're classics and were made extremely well at their time. AND, and this is the big one, are just as functionally useful as watches are today. So... is this $17,000.00 gold Apple Watch edition going to get passed down like a family heirloom someday and be expected to retain its value? Sure, at least a few will be if they're rare, as collectors items. But will they be useful in 20... 30 years? hahaha I really don't see that happening.

So, yeah... this seems to be an idea from Apple for a select few people who would give this as a present (CEO to their execs, mainly). It's like they have so much money, they're just coming up with shit for themselves that only they can afford or even desire as logically it just makes no sense. There's such a divide in this country of the super-rich and the dwindling middle class, and items like this seem to be a glaring example.
 
This reminds me of something I heard on the radio this morning where a company in Dubai (UAE) is selling a dessert that has edible gold flakes for $817. :eek:

Getting back on topic: Apple Watch = rip off. Not to mention the pathetic 18-hour battery life. :rolleyes:
 
18k is defined by mass of gold. Apple has developed a technique for bonding it all with ceramic, which is lighter but covers more surface area. They don't actually use "less" gold but can make a larger object with the same amount of gold relative to the amount of other materials.

I would be surprised if this technique doesn't get used in other jewelry and objects where alloys are used but scratch resistance is of primary concern. Gold's downside has always been its "soft"ness and this is one way to resolve that.
 
Always wanted one of those
I have the Chrome .50AE, awesome conversation piece, but honestly if getting another go with 44 magnum.

The kick is so massive that it beats the crap out of some people on the fifty, and ammo is now three times the price it used to be when I bought it. Luckily I reload my own, otherwise, CHACHING its basically 14 bucks just to empty once into a target. 44 is like 60-70 cents IIRC, less than half.
 
Always wanted one of those

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 :p
 
one of two things are clear: either it doesn't have GPS because that's the iWatch 1s or if it had GPS this thread would be littered with Apple tracking its customer base 24/7

Do you make the same silly excuse with built-in GPS in iPhone?
 
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 :p
Remember, there's a big move in the government right now to "lowest common denominator", which means they have to factor in what a 95 pound female FBI agent is able to fire comfortably.

Also a pistol's recoil is directly proportional to how heavy it is, all else equal. My Kahr PM9 9mm kicks like a mule, because its a tiny subcompact carry pistol. But the same round on my Beretta 92FS Brigadier Inox has virtually no kick at all. The DEagle intentionally carries a large solid mass of steel at the front, and is just generally huge, but yes that's still a lot of powder.

This guy shows it can be done though, firing 5 shots of .50AE from a DEagle in 0.8 seconds all on target with no practice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULysvxSYfoU

That's 1500ftlbs of muzzle energy x5 = 7,500 ftlbs in under a second delivered on target, so if he had fired all 7 shots, that's be close to the energy of a fifty cal BMG sniper rifle, the ones that you hear about tearing people in half.
 
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.

Sounds like .50 is ideal for home defense then. If you get lucky it'll obliterate the intruder so he's no longer around to sue. But more likely you want to avoid the liability so the boom will scare him off for good or the kick will uppercut KO him long enough for cops to come haul him away.
 
18k is defined by mass of gold. Apple has developed a technique for bonding it all with ceramic, which is lighter but covers more surface area. They don't actually use "less" gold but can make a larger object with the same amount of gold relative to the amount of other materials.

I would be surprised if this technique doesn't get used in other jewelry and objects where alloys are used but scratch resistance is of primary concern. Gold's downside has always been its "soft"ness and this is one way to resolve that.

You're neglecting the other half. Because it's so much harder the casing can be massively thinner, they can save a lot of gold by doing that. The case won't have to be any thicker than the Aluminum one, possibly they can even get away with thinner.

This product is stupid as hell. A Rolex, as overpriced as they are, is likely to last a person a lifetime. This will be outdated next year. I'm sure they'll sucker people in with the first version (Those ones with bags of cash to spare or who are terrible with money and fill up their credit lines). But fatigue will set in a lot quicker than it did for the iPhone.
 
you guys talking about the longevity of these watches are coming across like you don't know people who buy watches in this price range

anyone I have known to own a rolex or other collectible has many, not one, and they cycle through them like cuff links. sure a rolex *can* last someone a lifetime but that's not the same as saying one wears a rolex every day for life because that's just not the way watches are worn--they're accessories.
 
you guys talking about the longevity of these watches are coming across like you don't know people who buy watches in this price range

anyone I have known to own a rolex or other collectible has many, not one, and they cycle through them like cuff links. sure a rolex *can* last someone a lifetime but that's not the same as saying one wears a rolex every day for life because that's just not the way watches are worn--they're accessories.
Of course it will end up being obsolete crap in no time, but when you're spending $17K, it should have a finish that is second to none and scratchproof, with the same super scratch resistant material they use on rolex faces and what not.

It shouldn't just be some $100 electronic gadget that is expensive for the sake of being expensive.
 
you guys talking about the longevity of these watches are coming across like you don't know people who buy watches in this price range

anyone I have known to own a rolex or other collectible has many, not one, and they cycle through them like cuff links. sure a rolex *can* last someone a lifetime but that's not the same as saying one wears a rolex every day for life because that's just not the way watches are worn--they're accessories.

The difference that YOU don't seem to get is that Rolex's or other expensive watches don't become obsolete after a year. A $10000 Apple Watch will be practically worthless in a year or two when the next iteration comes out.
:rolleyes:
 
The difference that YOU don't seem to get is that Rolex's or other expensive watches don't become obsolete after a year. A $10000 Apple Watch will be practically worthless in a year or two when the next iteration comes out.
:rolleyes:
yes, they do. you're wrong. they are accessories. just like other fashion devices they fall in and out of favor seasonally.

there are only a *couple* watches that actually hold their value. go spend some time on a collectible site
 
yes, they do. you're wrong. they are accessories. just like other fashion devices they fall in and out of favor seasonally.

there are only a *couple* watches that actually hold their value. go spend some time on a collectible site

Guess I've never heard of a high end watch being reference to as a fashion accessory. I've always thought of them as jewelry. In any case not a problem for me,
 
Smart watch marketing is evolving faster than smart phone. Compared to the competition Apple Watch is already obsolete since it's not stand-alone capable untethered from phone and doesn't have built-in calling, SMS, cellular data, GPS and short ~2 hour screen-on time.
 
Remember, there's a big move in the government right now to "lowest common denominator", which means they have to factor in what a 95 pound female FBI agent is able to fire comfortably.

Also a pistol's recoil is directly proportional to how heavy it is, all else equal. My Kahr PM9 9mm kicks like a mule, because its a tiny subcompact carry pistol. But the same round on my Beretta 92FS Brigadier Inox has virtually no kick at all. The DEagle intentionally carries a large solid mass of steel at the front, and is just generally huge, but yes that's still a lot of powder.

This guy shows it can be done though, firing 5 shots of .50AE from a DEagle in 0.8 seconds all on target with no practice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULysvxSYfoU

That's 1500ftlbs of muzzle energy x5 = 7,500 ftlbs in under a second delivered on target, so if he had fired all 7 shots, that's be close to the energy of a fifty cal BMG sniper rifle, the ones that you hear about tearing people in half.

Fair enough,

I don't own any weapons myself, and I have no desire to do so, but if I had to arm myself for self defense, I would by far prefer something light, easy to handle, low recoil, small caliber with a massive magazine capacity.

I did get a chance to fire the FN FiveSeven at a range once, and it felt great, and I was able to produce pretty tight patterns, which really surprised me, as while I am not too bad with rifles, I am usually garbage with pistols.

I feel like "stopping power" is an often overblown argument. You don't need to deal a fatal blow, just stop someone from attacking.
 
Guess I've never heard of a high end watch being reference to as a fashion accessory. I've always thought of them as jewelry. In any case not a problem for me,
you're making a distinction between jewelry and fashion accessories? :confused:
 
you're making a distinction between jewelry and fashion accessories? :confused:

A $200 watch is a fashion accessory. A $10,000 watch is a fashion statement. A statement that I guess you're saying is outmoded by the version of the OS that statement can support. At any rate an interesting phenomenon out of my price range.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041476093 said:
I feel like "stopping power" is an often overblown argument. You don't need to deal a fatal blow, just stop someone from attacking.
I'm so bad at dragging this thread off topic, but those are generally the same thing. Someone wounded and pumped up on adrenaline can still kill you, like that soldier that was shot three times by a cop, but he didn't even notice and was still firing back without even flinching at the officer, then got in his car and raced off, only to bleed out miles down the road. Probably didn't even know he was shot until he was driving away. To stop someone quickly, you pretty much need to hit the nervous system or use such a large/powerful caliber as to cause massive body channel wounds that cause them to instantly drop (5-rounds of big blooming hollow point .50AE does that, heh)... but too heavy to carry.
 
Give me a real professional timepiece such as a $10k Breitling that is a piece of engineering and I will use the other $7k to build a kick ass PC. Of course if I had $17k, I would likely use it to pay down some of my student loans.
 
"... hand polished ... by highly skilled jewelry artisans ..."
 
A $200 watch is a fashion accessory. A $10,000 watch is a fashion statement. A statement that I guess you're saying is outmoded by the version of the OS that statement can support. At any rate an interesting phenomenon out of my price range.
To the extent that a high dollar item becomes expendable and consumptive, that is regarded as a feature to someone willing to spend $20,000 dollars on an item like this.

That's precisely my point, anyway, that to people without that kind of disposable capital such a large expenditure has to be understood as an investment or else it's simply sunk money. But to someone where it's not even a full day's salary or a month's interest accruing from a trust, it's just a consumable like anything else: wine, dinner, theater, vehicles etc.

This ad also points out something about skilled jewelers putting the movement together. Have we seen the source of the movement yet? It may in fact be something quit extraordinary or "worth it" depending on where the movement is sourced. It's the movement, after all, not the brand necessarily that determines the quality and value of a timepiece.
 
after watching that vid the only thing that popped into my head was the old adage you cant polish a turd. if this watch thing is even remotely successful, the apocalypse is nigh
 
The fact that Apple Watch is Made in China classifies it as an accessory rather than fine jewelry Made in Switzerland. Only one stand the test of time.
 
after watching that vid the only thing that popped into my head was the old adage you cant polish a turd. if this watch thing is even remotely successful, the apocalypse is nigh
The liberal media will ensure it is. They simply can't stop talking about this, and I don't mean commercials, I mean they give this thing so much free publicity its just insane.

A lot of the hardcore Apple fanatic mac users are the type that went into radio, news, movies, TV, etc., and the majority of people simply aren't very technically competent.

If you tell them that a device is the best thing since sliced bread and talk about it enough to hype it up, a lot of people will buy it. That's just the way it goes. Its not necessarily even that they are dumb, but simply that knowing anything about electronics just isn't their niche.

So all Apple has to ensure with that much hype is that they don't overly piss off the owners, so they keep the product very simple to use so the user doesn't feel stupid, and they can continue to just pump out generic overpriced crap in a pretty box and charge a fortune for it.

I mean think about it, with the right marketing you can get people to pay $5 for a bottle of water.
 
“the molecules in Apple gold are closer together, making it twice as hard as standard gold.”

Good God I laughed so hard.
 
The trick to using less gold is to use less gold. That's really what they said they're doing in the video.
 
Back
Top