3 ms·
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://leanc
by 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 agoDo 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 agoSpot 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 agoIf 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.