Posted on 08/12/2010 7:59:04 PM PDT by Swordmaker
Apple has entered into an exclusive agreement to utilize amorphous metal alloys with unique atomic structures, allowing products that are stronger, lighter, and resistant to wear and corrosion, AppleInsider has learned.
The metal alloys owned by Liquidmetal Technologies were developed by a research team at the California Institute of Technology, and their amorphous, non-crystalline structure makes them harder than alloys of titanium or aluminum.
Introduced for commercial applications in 2003 through the Delaware-based Liquidmetal corporation, the product has been used to create technology for the U.S. Department of Defense, has been found in medical equipment, and is even used to create sporting goods like tennis raquets and golf clubs.
In a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission last week, Liquidmetal Technologies indicated that it had granted all of its intellectual property assets to Apple. According to the terms of the deal, Apple was awarded "a perpetual, worldwide, fully-paid, exclusive license to commercial such intellectual property in the field of electronic products in exchange for a license fee."
Though the licensing agreement grants Apple exclusive use in consumer electronics, Liquidmetal is still allowed to license its products to other companies for any use outside of markets where Apple competes, meaning its deals with defense contractors, sports equipment manufacturers and medical suppliers are likely to remain intact.
The agreement was made on Aug. 5, and was revealed to the SEC on Monday. It was signed by Larry Buffington, president and CEO of Liquidmetal Technologies.
The company's official website gives examples of where Liquidmetal's products were used in portable electronics in the past. It touts that Liquidmetal alloys are 2.5 times the strength of commonly used titanium alloy and 1.5 times the hardness of stainless steel found in portable electronic devices. The technology is said to allow for thinner, smaller design while offering greater protection for internal components, and giving users a scratch and corrosion resistant exterior.
"As the demand for product 'miniaturization' continues in the electronic casings industry, Liquidmetal alloys enable smaller, thinner and more durable designs," the company's website reads. "Current casings technology is pushed to the limit in supporting these new designs and specifications, especially requirements for larger LCD screens, thinner wall sections and pure metallic surface finishes for products such as mobile phones, PDA's and cameras."
Past devices where Liquidmetal's technology was utilized include the Nokia Vertu smartphone, Sandisk Sansa media player, and Sandisk U3 Smart thumb drives. The product was also used to create strong hinge components for devices like flip smartphones.
Apple's interest in a company like Liquidmetal is no surprise, given its constant desire to create smaller and thinner devices. Apple has also employed a unibody design in its portable computers, beginning in early 2008 with the MacBook Air.
The precision unibody enclosures are milled from a single extruded block of aluminum, allowing devices like the MacBook Pro to become thinner while maintaining a rigid, sturdy frame. Previously, the frames of Apple's notebooks were made from multiple parts. Now, raw aluminum is carved out using CNC, or "computer numerical control" machines.
Actually, I was looking at a linear spring for a solenoid. The high Young's modulus makes it a good candidate for such applications, where linearity of force over displacement is important.
Nobody's put much effort into it yet. Apple has a long history with new materials. I bet you were a LiquidMetal fan until Apple got involved.
Pure BS. LiquidMetal has been around for a decade, they've pushed it all over the place, and no one really has bought off on it. Vertu did, for some of their cell phones (making Apple a Johnny-come-lately to that application), but in terms of bigger uses? Few and far between.
Regular metals don't cast very well due to their crystal structure. There are various methods to overcome many of the problems, most of which involve more time, effort and expense. Apple is not going to intricately investment cast 20+ million consumer products a year.
REALLY? What's your background? It's clear you're not involved in manufacturing or casting of products. The minimum size of details that you can cast with most metals is on the order of 0.5 mils, with wall thicknesses of about 20 mils. LiquidMetal doesn't help that at all. You're well ABOVE the range of crystalline structures (typically 8-10 microns) inside the steel.
You know what you've read on their website, and have nothing to base it on. Other than Apple is using it therefore it must be the Greatest Thing Ever.
Apple moved away from plastic for good reasons
Yeah, they like to be different...
the aesthetics
Sure, it looks different than plastic.
heat conductance
BS. Glass and steel are TERRIBLE conductors of heat; carbon infused plastics - or thin-wall plastics - are better conductors and radiators of heat. Your ignorance is showing...
and strength just isn't there
How much strength is required? There are thin phones made from plastic bodies all the time. The Motorola RAZR for instance, and it didn't have a problem with shattering and breaking.
The reason Apple's using glass and metal has NOTHING to do with engineering and EVERYTHING to do with looks. They talk about engineering reasons, and people like you swallow it up, but real engineers know it's all just fluff to cover up "hey it looks cool".
machining is expensive
Yes, it is. Which is why you can cast those parts if you know what the heck you're doing. Casting the details needed inside a cell phone component, or small portable product is not difficult if you know what the heck you're doing. It's done quite often with laptops and radios.
So Apple is looking for a metal that can be manufactured as cheaply and accurately as a plastic
That's not LiquidMetal. It's as expensive as any other typical casting metal (it's basically a slightly different alloy with a different quenching process), and the license fees are added on top of it. The higher costs - and nothing really special in terms of Young's modulus and overall strength - are the reasons no one else has really started to use it.
That Apple has been playing with this stuff for a couple years and just decided to dump a ton of money on an exclusive license pretty much shows Apple found some great uses for it.
Yes. A large segment of their fanbois will slobber over the "new stuff" and claim "it's the greatest stuff ever!" and give Apple another marketing point.
So what about the fact that Vertu was using this 5 years ago? Does that mean Apple was stupid for the last 5 years, since it's been out and used in cell phones for that long? Was Apple dumb to not use it in all their iPhones? Clearly the ability to BE used in a phone has been around at least as long as the idea of the iPhone...
They did it for a $6,000 phone that was said to be extremely durable because of it. Apple is planning to use this massively where most people can afford it. Companies have used machined metal for consumer electronics, too, like Mobiado. Price? Well, you can buy a "Mobiado" for an average cell phone price from the same places that will sell you a Breitling watch for $100. Nobody did it as the major part of mass-produced consumer electronics before Apple as far as I know.
The minimum size of details that you can cast with most metals is on the order of 0.5 mils, with wall thicknesses of about 20 mils. LiquidMetal doesn't help that at all.
LiquidMetal's alloys help for speed and expense. Most consumer electronics are made using injection molded plastic for a reason -- it's cheap, fast and easy to manufacture complex shapes. Yes, you can get some extremely fine cast metals that usually need only minor finishing. These are not cheap, fast and easy to do. LiquidMetal didn't invent amorphous alloys either, but the founders did invent a way of making them relatively cheaply and in volume.
Yeah, they like to be different...
Turns out that makes for excellent profits compared to the run-of-the-mill competition.
Other than Apple is using it therefore it must be the Greatest Thing Ever.
I'd love to hear your opinion if HTC or Moto had done this. You probably love machined aluminum now that HTC is doing it.
Glass and steel are TERRIBLE conductors of heat
Yet so much better than most plastics.
How much strength is required? There are thin phones made from plastic bodies all the time.
There are many applications where amorphous metals are not a good idea, but consumer electronics practically begs for it. My SanDisk USB drive was virtually indestructible, even even going through the washer and dryer. Otherwise I've cracked, broken and seriously scratched up many consumer electronics plastics. I have destroyed so many, yet my mostly-metal Aiwa tape player from the 80s still works and even survived a war (I once bent the metal lid so that it wouldn't close by dropping it down a concrete stairwell, and simply bent it back with a pair of pliers). Toughness and scratch resistance are two of the properties of Vitreloy. Apple would like products that don't scratch, break, crack or deform easily when you drop them.
The reason Apple's using glass and metal has NOTHING to do with engineering and EVERYTHING to do with looks.
That aluminum is why Apple laptops are so thin and sturdy. I can apply twisting pressure to the average laptop that's even thicker than a MacBook and it'll creak and twist. Not the MacBook Pro, even at 1" thick with a 17" screen it's solid. In addition, the bodies are machined with all the holes, supports, wire guide channels, etc., that will be needed to drop-in the motherboard and other parts and cables. Contrast with traditional design, requiring separate frame and plastic case parts.
Think of how monocoque revolutionized aircraft. Apple did that for notebooks.
Apple decided to move to glass specifically because field tests of the iPhone, which was originally designed with a plastic screen, resulted in an unacceptable level of scratching on the screen. Apple went even further this generation by using Corning Gorilla Glass (which has been in consumer electronics use since last year). If your favorite manufacturer has lower standards, and will thus accept plastic screens, that's your problem.
It's as expensive as any other typical casting metal
As if the price of the metal were as important as how fast and cheaply it can be accurately formed into complex shapes. Injection molding isn't cheap because the plastic is cheap. Injection molding is cheap because once you have the molds set up you can make millions of complex parts with high tolerances in a relatively short time. Apple wants that, but with metal.
Apple has a long history of inventing new manufacturing methods and materials. It will be interesting to see what happens here. Like I said, they wouldn't be jumping in with this kind of cash if they didn't already have something down. This total exclusive buy-out of their technology for consumer electronics is on the level of a flat-out acquisition, and Apple is notoriously stingy with the money on that level. For reference, Microsoft and Apple are almost the same age, and Microsoft has made almost two hundred acquisitions and stake purchases. Apple is around 30.
Interestingly, when I just looked up those relative investments (I know Apple was stingy, but wanted numbers), I found they bought a stake in Imagination. They make the GPU in the better smartphones and the video decoder in the A4. So now Apple has stakes in ARM and Imagination, plus bought PA Semi and Intrinsity. Not only that but Apple and Intel were battling to see who could buy the most shares of Intrinsity a while back.
What all that means is that despite your desire to portray Apple as a superficial design company, they are obviously bulking up on the hard-core engineering end of the spectrum. You forget that Apple was founded on innovative hardware design with Woz's first Apple I board, which many referred to as a beautiful work of art. To you it's probably boring. To us geeks, the efficiency and simplicity is what makes it beautiful.
Look, you can believe what you want. The science - and the other industries - say you’re believing a line of marketing propaganda from Apple.
Enjoy your hook, line and sinker!
You seriously think I'm just parroting Apple's statements? Believing everything Apple says because they're Apple?
Yes, I do. Show me some objective information showing the benefits of LiquidMetal, something other than the hand-waving platitudes of Apple or on LiquidMetal’s own website.
I’ve listed the density, the Young’s modulus, the tensile strength relative to other metals, and shown it’s nothing special.
Look at the yield strength, the Young’s modulus, or the density in relation to other materials. Look at the minimum cast dimensions. Look at the cost.
Then get back when you’ve learned that LiquidMetal is a lot of hot air...
To restate the context, that's you do believe I'm "just parroting Apple's statements" and "Believing everything Apple says because they're Apple."
Okay. Now the facts. This story is here because someone found out about the license in a LiquidMetal SEC filing. That's it, no other source. There was no Apple statement to parrot, there was no Apple statement to believe. You didn't even read the story. You parrotted the old "Apple fanboi" accusation from a purposeful position of absolute ignorance.
Look at the yield strength, the Young’s modulus, or the density in relation to other materials. Look at the minimum cast dimensions. Look at the cost.
First you thought LiquidMetal was an alloy, when it's a company, and now you seem to think it is one alloy, when it's not. Like other metals, there are various alloys with differing properties.
But okay, let's look up the Young's modulus. Vitreloy-1 is about 95-105 GPa. That's much better than the currently used aluminum, and right at the bottom end of traditional titanium alloys. Sounds great for something that can be produced cheaply in bulk like thermoplastics. If Young's modulous is SO IMPORTANT to you, then bitch about Apple not using carbon nanotubes. I'd love to see the manufacturing cost on those items. However, if it ever gets cheap enough to manufacture nanotubes, I'm sure Apple will will be looking into it. And then you'll be talking about how bad nanotubes are.
More important than that in consumer electronics applications would be fracture toughness, how resistant is it to resisting the spreading of cracks (such as when dropped). These alloys can get a fracture toughness equal to steel and titanium alloys. Again, the point is you get these properties in something that can be injection molded.
Cost? Hmmm, which is cheaper for long runs, investment casting, CNC milling or injection molding? I'd have to go with the injection molding by far. Cost of materials? That's LiquidMetal's contribution, they found a way to make amorphous metals cheaply, and Apple now has the license to it.
LiquidMetal is a lot of hot air...
Not as hot as other metals, another benefit for low-cost mass production.
Time will tell. The others almost always copy Apple's manufacturing and designs. But Apple finally found a way to stop the copiers. In a couple years when they want to copy Apple's use of Vitreloy, they're going to run up against Apple's exclusive and perpetual rights to the technology in consumer electronics. Too bad.
Good analysis, Anti. That is about what I saw as well but you said it better.
This reminds me of the story about the two hikers who, while on an excursion in Northern Canada, are accosted by a pack of wolves... as they run from the wolves, one suddenly stops and pulls out a pair of running shoes from his, and takes the times to put them on, as the wolves are catching up... The other says, panting, "You think a pair of running shoes are going to help you out run a pack of wolves ... that's insane! You're wasting time and resources to put them on!" The guy says, as he velcros the running shoes closed, "To survive, I don't have to outrun the wolves, I just have to outrun YOU!"
Apple doesn't have to make the STRONGEST casing for their laptops and iPhones possible... they just have to make STRONGER casings that meet their chosen criteria which other laptop and phone makers will not be able to meet. That's what PugetSoundSoldier doesn't understand.
LiquidMetal's amorphous alloys meet those criteria, much to PugetSoundSoldier's dismay. Despite a Young's Modulus number of 96... it's still 30 points higher than the Aluminum they are currently using. It's simply better. It's harder. It's easier to cast. It's lighter. It's stronger. It's more elastic. It's more scratch resistant. It's a hell of a lot better than the plastics many of the other makers are using. So what if it's not as good as some hypothetical material they COULD use to make their case.
Apple will be able to make a casing with similar exterior dimensions that is equally strong that provides MORE interior room for placement of more components including higher battery density for longer operational life than their competition. They will be able to do this with a material that will come out of the mould with minimal finish machining required, and minimal polishing necessary, that is resistive to corrosion and also is esthetically pleasing, that ALSO provides a marketing edge with the public. That will be a distinct advantage in the race away from the ravening wolves of the market. All they have to do is run faster than their competition. Apple is good at that. Now, they have a competitive edge they OWN... perpetually...
Apple is putting on some LiquidMetal running shoes. PugetSoundSoldier is realizing that.
He never ceases to amaze me. When Apple (some future day) does the first optical memory or quantum computing, I bet he will naysay THAT too. But we all know the truth of the matter... He is negative on ALL things Apple without repentance.
Even today, he sees NO value in the more advanced and protective cases Apple uses. Yet, the stock market does. Investors do. Banks do. Users do. He does not. Tell me who is out of touch with reality?
He would say, ALL of us are duped and wrong. “look at Android’s marketshare”. I am looking and so is everyone else. At GOOGLE and VERIZON trying to monopolize the web with their so called Net Neutrality.
Yet not a single person here has any hard, technical facts related to the material. Nada. I’ve actually used it, and found it to be “meh”, like most of the rest of the industries.
You Apple Faithful go ahead with your lies and attacks on me, that’s OK, I’m used to it. You can live with your delusions. The rest of the world has checked out LiquidMetal (including Vertu, the cell phone maker), played a bit with it, and decided it brings nothing new to the table other than a cool name and additional cost.
We've provided nothing BUT hard technical facts with links to the data. You've spoken only ex-cathedra with no links or proof of anything that we've disputed with further links and data. No matter WHAT Apple does, you are opposed and denigrate it. Not ONCE have you said anything positive.
You Apple Faithful go ahead with your lies and attacks on me, that’s OK, I’m used to it. You can live with your delusions. The rest of the world has checked out LiquidMetal (including Vertu, the cell phone maker), played a bit with it, and decided it brings nothing new to the table other than a cool name and additional cost.
More ad hominem attacks on Apple users from you, Puget, calling us "Apple Faithful" and "delusional." Those are fighting words and they are not acceptable here. You are deliberately trying to get a rise out of us. Sorry. Not gonna happen. There are no lies or attacks on YOU. You read into discussion, what is NOT THERE. Give it a rest.
Look, I thought we had this all ironed out. If you can’t help yourself from being an a-hole on this topic, just stay the hell off the Apple threads. Your posting privileges are at stake.
Don’t bother replying. I’m in no mood to argue about it.
Sorry mate my response was directed towards someone who mentioned Rearden Metal. The whole premise was how the leeches of society deemed that Hank Rearden (who invented through massive investment of R&D) shouldn’t have the sole capability to use the metal. They (Government and leeches) then forced him to give the patent to other companies so they could compete.
Nothing aggravates me greater. A company should have sole ownership of any creation they invent, and only if they CHOOSE should that be allowed to be created by another. In this case Apple is doing something I consider brilliant and very forward looking. It’s not free, it’s cost them a load of money... but it will pay dividends... I’m sure of that.
Cheers,
Remember General Dynamics during the Johnson years. They got the contract for our new swing fighter but couldn’t build it. Solutio government ordered those that could build it but didn’t get the contract to teach them how. Gotta love those years.
I guess all those numbers just flew by you, just like the fact that there have been no Apple press releases concerning this.
The rest of the world has checked out LiquidMetal (including Vertu, the cell phone maker), played a bit with it, and decided it brings nothing new to the table
For $6,000 a pop, they don't need to worry about the cost savings of Vitreloy. They played with it, and probably found that their margins on a $6,000 phone can support working titanium with traditional methods. Titanium is definitely better, that's not in dispute. Vitreloy answers the question of how to get near-titanium results in something that costs much less than $6,000.
If in the end Apple can pump out metal phone and notebook cases at near the cost and volume of plastics, others will be very worried.
That's actually counter to the intent of the Founders. To them works of the mind belonged to everybody. For example, Jefferson said:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.There is no "sole ownership" of any ideas such as inventions. However, they realized as a practical matter that it might be good to give a limited monopoly to those ideas in order that people can profit off them enough to encourage them to have more ideas. That's why the Constitution says:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.Copyrights and patents are not granted for the enrichment of the authors and inventors. They are allowed for the good of us all. If the government thinks the people are better served by nationalizing a patent, then so be it. However, to do so would undermine the constitutional intent for patents and copyrights, since people in fear of their ideas being nationalized might not want to publicize them anymore. But then again, the government has already blown away the constitutional intent anyway. Jefferson feared exactly what has happened, while Madison thought we the people could keep it from happening.
Taken as a general warning against government theft, the Rearden Metal case is valid. But to be specific to the idea of patents, Rand apparently hadn't studied the Constitution.
The design competition for the Jeep in the late 30s was won by the American Bantam Car Company. But Bantam couldn’t produce the volume, so the government had Willys finalize the design. So that more could be produced, Willys licensed the design to the government, which gave it to Ford.
I don’t know if Bantam was ever compensated for the initial design that contributed to the Willys production, or for its contribution to the design licensed to Ford, but Willys got the trademark for “Jeep” after the war instead of Bantam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.