Again you seem to be backpedalling. Your post, which now you didn't even quote yourself how you have asked others to quote you. You have failed to use the very special privilege rules you have established just for you, rather than the quoting standards the rest of us live by.
The beginning of your post reads, "Apple has 2 routes:" not "Apple could possibly go two different ways:" or "These are the extremes Apple could go:", or simply "Don't bother reading as I often post flippant things that even I don't believe." The second option of your post begins with, "...As I said in previous posts, they (sic) may be very little actual "Case" in the Apple watch, just a thin shell around an aluminium? skeleton which holds it all together...Say $100 worth of gold maximum..." You reiterate that not only you feel it will be a tiny amount of gold, but also lead with "...As I said in previous posts,..." indicating your belief is consistent with other posts you've made previously. So are we to assume all those posts previously made were made "flippantly" too, or just everything seven paragraphs (and under) like this one was?
I wish I could quote Julien's post, but you obviously believe in censorship, and have had that post removed. It best summarized your previous opinions on the watch.
Your post was also removed, but not before I saved it. For the brevity of the readers, I will correctly quote portions of it. "...That's out of order and I am going to report you to the mods for this. I don't deny I typed those lines in various postings... Even I don't agree with those lines put into one posting you are quoting for me." Julien's post correctly used ellipses and posted Piggie's quotes verbatim with a dozen or so examples of the tin foil/thin shell theory.
With additional information, your view should evolve on the watch. It's ok to change your view, but at least admit to it. Are you running for political office today in the midterms? You disregard a seven paragraph post you made as "flippant." You at least agree Apple will put more than a tenth of an ounce of gold in their watch. That's a start.
Oh please, just drop it.
I am fed up with your postings about "me" and I'm sure no one else wants to read this boring stuff either.
I don't like the concept, and I'm sure no one else does, of something trawling thru a large selection of old postings, made perhaps from different points of view at different times, in different ways, cutting out individual lines from each posting, and reassembling them all together in a single post to try and make a person look a certain way.
I've never done this, and can't understand why anyone else can be bothered.
So let's just talk about the watch please and drop petty sniping at each other.
It's boring, and no one wants to read it.
Thanks.
Back to the subject, and not sniping at anyone else.
I do accept the image in my head I have had, and that has evolved over time of the Watch, I may well not have expressed in a way that conveyed things well enough for everyone.
I still call what I think the case will be a Gold Shell.
And my Chocolate Egg Analogy for me holds firm as I will show in this image:
http://www.lovefood.com/Images/content/journal/easter-eggs-534x356.jpg
To me that looks like the Render, a shell of a case.
I would call this a gold shell also:
http://i00.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/259458540/18k_gold_watch_case.jpg
It will be interesting how easy the guts, and what the guts are fitted to.
Tray/Frame/Skeleton, same thing different names, can be popped in and out of this Gold shell/case.
Some have suggested it's a quick changeover, we will have to see.
I think we can all accept the sports model being disposable.
The questions been to be about how much the price will ramp up for stainless steel, and of course Gold.
Stainless Steel, itself is near as dammit a zero cost addition for material, but it will be slower to machine and finish due to it's hardness. I understand it has the better back, and better straps, bot of which will bump the costs up.
I'd like to think we'd be looking at $350 for sports, then $499, another $150 for the Stainless, but it's just a guess. It may well alter a lot if you select the strap at time of purchase.
As for the Gold, again, we are just stabbing in the dark.
I think a lot of this will depend more on how Apple decides to sell it, and/or what offers they put in place to make it sell.
As had been mooted a number of times, there may be a special upgrade deal bundled into the gold one, so that people will buy it, as a v1 model, knowing it's not going to be made out of date after a year, so you pay more but you get more long term come back.
If this were just a normal Apple product we'd know, but this time around it's a hard call for the higher ends.
The one scenario I do struggle with is this:
Gold watch comes out, no deal, no special upgrade package.
iFixit tear down, pulls it apart.
Same as the $350 model.
Plus $10 difference for the back material, and upon total strip down and a weigh, they say the gold is worth $1300
But Apple are charging the wild $5000+ numbers.
I really struggle with thinking Apple would want that, as it would spread across the net like wildfire.
say almost $3500 clear profit for Apple over a sports version.
I really really struggle to see that scenario being wanted by Apple.
