Don't just say "Metal" cos i know that much, but what is the back cover of the iPod made out of? Does anybody have any specifics?
Cheers in advance
Cheers in advance
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPod 5.5g ipod back cover material
- Thread starter bigbadnewill
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yep thats exactly what it is... and the chrome is the reason it scrathes so badly... owell
omg no its not, chrome comes from chromium, then it is fixated to the steel using electrolytic deposition....Read about it!
To begin with, no where in the article does it mention that steel is used as the base material. Secondly, my post was regarding the base material of which the chromium-based plating bonds to, not the actual chrome finish.
Moreover, aluminum is the most-commonly used material in which chromium is involved, aside from stainless steel applications. In this article regarding chromium's applications, it is clearly stated that chromium is used in the process of anodizing aluminum.
While this may be a separate process, it is related to the material in which the backs of iPods are constructed from.
In closing, you may want to read a post correctly before you go commenting on it. You might also want to leave the "omg" part out of your future posts, for it makes you seem as if you are a hot-headed, know-it-all adolescent. While I don't mean any offense by saying this, it may sound odd because the expression in itself is typically used when the person saying it is, in fact, a hot-headed, know-it-all adolescent.
yes i misunderstood your post slightly, but chrome can plated to steel and aluminum and the back of an ipod is steel plated with chrome, and chrome is most often plated to steel...and yes chromic acid plays a part in one of the 3 ways of growing oxidized aluminum on to the surface of an aluminum part or product then also making it porous giving it its teaxture (thus creating anodized aluminum), please tell me something i didnt know....The OP was asking about the "chromed steel" backs of the 1G, 2G, 3G, 4G,5G and the 1st gen nano, not the anodized aluminum surfaces of the mini and 2nd gen nano... the first poster gave the correct answer thats all there is to it.
oh and your link that you provided dosnt work, FYI
oh and your link that you provided dosnt work, FYI
If Apple used steel instead of aluminum in their iPods, it would add unnecessary weight to the total package. Granted, the use of steel in the back is not the greatest source of weight, but as Apple seems to produce generally lightweight devices, they would want to save as much weight off the design as possible. This is why I honestly find it hard to believe that the iPod back would have a steel base.
As for the link, I think most internet users would have been capable to opening it, as it simply included an additional "http://". You could have easily opened it by removing that first http:// from your browser's URL bar. As it turns out, a missing quotation mark which was expected at the end of the link was missing. I fixed this, so you can actually visit the article.
idk why i didnt provide this link earlier, it shows in depth the specks of the 5G, read through and maybe now you will be convinced that the backing is actually steel...link
and yes the link not working was stupidity on my part a tad, but i think i would expect a link to open without first deleting the http:// from the URL bar...
and yes the link not working was stupidity on my part a tad, but i think i would expect a link to open without first deleting the http:// from the URL bar...
I used a different acronym, FWI, not FYI. FYI means "for your information," whereas FWI means "for whatever interest." In this context, I was using it to state that what I was saying wasn't critical information, just something that could be of interest.
Well, there are a whole slew of acronyms out there. The problem is that some of them have multiple meanings.
Oh a whole ounce. Maybe Steve is hinting you need to work out more.
Don't blame the guy and get smart because you screwed up your link. Most internet users would've been capable of making a working link.
Oh a whole ounce. Maybe Steve is hinting you need to work out more.
Don't blame the guy and get smart because you screwed up your link. Most internet users would've been capable of making a working link.
Hey, that ounce can be the difference between the iPod weighing your shirt pocket down and it riding comfortably there. Excuse me if I thought Apple might have considered that during their design process.
Secondly, a single missing set of quotation marks shouldn't botch an entire URL. I routinely post on several different forums using different forum software, and vB is the only one to have ever botched an URL because of that. It's also a problem since certain platforms like the pair of ", while others don't. As a result, it sometimes gets mixed-up when you have to put the quotation marks and when you don't.
As for your comment about being "smart," that's not what I was doing. I was only pointing out that vB added an extra 'http://' to the URL, and it would've been relatively easy to recognize that was the problem. You also have to remember that we are on a technology-related board. If I were posting to a non-tech board, I wouldn't have made that comment, as it is reasonably safe to say that most people on tech boards know the format of an URL.
I apologize if I offended anyone with that. I just thought that MR users would be more knowledgeable.