>MMCs are nearly always more expensive than the more conventional materials they are replacing.

Most MMCs replace base metals that cost a few dollars per kilogram. Gold currently trades at ~$37,000/kg. Even comparing against a relatively costly base metal like tungsten, gold is three orders of magnitude more expensive. Spending $100 or even $1000 per kg to halve the density of a given volume of material vastly increases the cost of aluminium, but greatly reduces the cost of gold.

I have absolutely no doubt that Apple could significantly reduce their materials cost by using this process.

One of the underappreciated competitive advantages of Apple is their ability to scale complex industrial processes for consumer products.

Going back to the first iMac, their industrial design work has included developing or scaling new manufacturing techniques. Examples include co-molding white and clear plastic to get the liquid look of the iPod, and of course machining laptop bodies out of aluminum blocks.

If there is a company who could make this work at consumer scale, it's Apple.

> nearly always

Maybe not if you're Apple. It could cost them less to go through a complex yet highly optimized manufacturing process than to buy more gold.

Just what I was thinking. Apple operates at such a ludicrous scale, they can do things that are unimaginable for other manufacturers.

Not necessarily. "Nearly" is a key word. They're saving gold, which is a pretty expensive metal...

...while paying more to produce the composite vs. what they'd pay to make an alloy. Still, I wanted to see what numbers are:

http://www.ebay.com/gds/How-Much-Gold-Is-Really-In-A-Rolex-W...

We see that the golden Rolex has most of the weight in the bracelet and I haven't seen the "full gold" bracelet on the Apple site. The body of the golden Rolex apparently has cca 2 thirds of the golden ounce of pure gold, which is at the moment not more than 700 USD. If Apple can save a half of it, it's around 350 USD saved, not counting the higher expense to make a composite which would reduce the saving.

Now if we accept Gruber's guess that the most expensive watch will be priced in the order of 10 K USD, compared to all the profits per unit, it doesn't seem to be a big percent. But if we factor the expected number of the items sold it's not something that should be ignored. Still I can imagine that they could have simply made a body with the steel "reinforcement" inside and nobody would blink.

I sure expect somebody will properly tear down the Apple Watch Edition to measure the exact amount of gold. If Archimedes managed to do this 2 millenniums ago, why wouldn't we?

Gruber's guess is still just a guess. I'm inclined to side with Marco Arment, who thinks Apple is going for more of a $5k-ish price.

I have the feeling that the gold watch portion will actually be significantly smaller portion of the 5K price (if it is 5k) Something like $999 - $1999. The rest of the price will come in the bands at 2 - 4K each.

They still have to sell the watch itself with their margins however. There's nothing stopping you from buying an aftermarket strap, and if they require you to purchase a strap with the watch -- well then it doesn't matter how they split the price up.

If the bands are forward compatible with future generations, then it becomes more attractive to spend more on the band vs the face.

Archimedes' trick only works if you know the ratio of materials inside ahead of time. Otherwise it could be e.g. some gold + some copper and have the same density as silver.

If you know it's 18k then all you have to do is weigh it to know how much gold there is. Then measuring volume can tell you the density of the rest of the alloy.

Only if the entire mass is 18k gold. Not if the entire mass is 18k gold plus other Try your approach on two cases: 0% gold, with 100% unknown alloy, and 100% watch components.

Like how foods made with "100% fruit" still have other ingredients.

They're saving on the rest of the yellow gold alloy also, which is usually silver and copper, and not that cheap either.

Probably people should be talking about the reduced density of the material, which is really significant. A men's-size 18k gold watch is heavy... too heavy for many people who don't have enormous meat appendages.

In something like a watch, if it looks like gold and has some bulk without corresponding heft, it feels fake.

I have a fairly cheap mechanical watch combined with a Milanese mesh strap. I ordered a bunch of different mesh straps, looking for the right material and closeness of weave - it's hard to tell from online photos. The biggest difference between the one I chose and the ones I discarded was weight. The discarded ones felt like they were made of plastic.

Considering everything that has to be inside, I can't imagine that any Apple Watch of this generation won't feel heavy.

Try on a 18k Omega Constellation watch. The gold warms up to skin temperature so quick it feels like a lambs skin band. As to weight--it's not heavy. Acually, I need to look down to make sure it's still there. As a Horologist, it's by far my favorite watch. It's a simple watch, but it just feels right. My only concern is thiefs notice it more than high end stainless/alloy watches.

Yeah it would be very bad for apple if their top-tier iWatch is easily scratched or damaged.

"Nearly always" adds a lot of ambiguity. Perhaps this is one of the cases in which it is cheaper.