3 ms·

Here are the videos discussed in the article: http://www.apple.com/watch/films/ http://www.apple.com/watch/films/ The interesting thing is, Apple did not show

Here are the videos discussed in the article: http://www.apple.com/watch/films/ http://www.apple.com/watch/films/ The interesting thing is, Apple did not show the Gold video in the event at all. They showed all the other videos.

zxcvgm 12y ago
maybe they wanted to avoid people talking about how they managed to use less gold in the watches. http://leancrew.com/all-this/2015/03/apple-gold/ http://leancrew.com/all-this/2015/03/apple-gold/
- morcheeba 12y ago
  Do you mean like Hublot? http://www.hublot.com/en/craftsmanship/materials http://www.hublot.com/en/craftsmanship/materials stop trolling; they aren't trying to rip you off.
  - jedrek 12y ago
    Spot on. A Rolex submariner weighs about 135g. Let's pretend that all but 35g of it is gold (it's less, but w/e). So we're at 100g of 18k gold. Now, 18k gold is 75% by mass, equal to 75g of 24k gold or $2900. The cheapest, non-gold submariner costs $7500. Buying gold watches to get the gold - or even considering the value of their alloys when buying them - is as dumb as doing the same with computers.
- bidatzi 12y ago
  If you watch the gold video (or read the article), you'll see they're not using anything remotely similar to the process in that MMC patent. It's essentially a conventional alloy, mechanically hardened.
Cookingboy 12y ago
I don't know what you were talking about, I watched the event live and the gold video was definitely shown.
- macintux 12y ago
  I watched it too. They showed aluminum and stainless steel, but no gold.
lifeformed 12y ago
Are there non-Quicktime mirrors? Chrome doesn't even tell me I need Quicktime, the video just doesn't work at all.
- xuki 12y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDAP9OWtQro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDAP9OWtQro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijex5274t_c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijex5274t_c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibklpzKai-o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibklpzKai-o
TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
So I wasn't just imagining it! I thought they'd missed the gold one.

zxcvgm 12y ago

maybe they wanted to avoid people talking about how they managed to use less gold in the watches. http://leancrew.com/all-this/2015/03/apple-gold/ http://leancrew.com/all-this/2015/03/apple-gold/

morcheeba 12y ago
Do you mean like Hublot? http://www.hublot.com/en/craftsmanship/materials http://www.hublot.com/en/craftsmanship/materials stop trolling; they aren't trying to rip you off.
- jedrek 12y ago
  Spot on. A Rolex submariner weighs about 135g. Let's pretend that all but 35g of it is gold (it's less, but w/e). So we're at 100g of 18k gold. Now, 18k gold is 75% by mass, equal to 75g of 24k gold or $2900. The cheapest, non-gold submariner costs $7500. Buying gold watches to get the gold - or even considering the value of their alloys when buying them - is as dumb as doing the same with computers.
bidatzi 12y ago
If you watch the gold video (or read the article), you'll see they're not using anything remotely similar to the process in that MMC patent. It's essentially a conventional alloy, mechanically hardened.

Cookingboy 12y ago

I don't know what you were talking about, I watched the event live and the gold video was definitely shown.

macintux 12y ago
I watched it too. They showed aluminum and stainless steel, but no gold.

lifeformed 12y ago

Are there non-Quicktime mirrors? Chrome doesn't even tell me I need Quicktime, the video just doesn't work at all.

xuki 12y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDAP9OWtQro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDAP9OWtQro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijex5274t_c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijex5274t_c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibklpzKai-o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibklpzKai-o

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago

So I wasn't just imagining it! I thought they'd missed the gold one.