Replies to post #153930 on Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[Eicheljager]

Maybe. I don't know that BMG is 30x the cost of aluminum, I was just using what was presented. I assume that BMG has a higher density than aluminum, so half the thickness doesn't necessarily correlate to half the weight.

Either way, raw material price comparisons ignore the other 98% of the phone cost; RF transparency, water/dust, bending, necessity to include other materials (glass sandwich), post-production finishing, tool life, new machine costs, scrap rates, scarcity/abundance of CM expertise, tariffs, disparate material bonding/welding, licensing, throughput, etc.

Apple is criticized for not introducing any revolutionary products as of late. They have perfected the existing supply chain. They are incrementally improving what can be done with existing materials. Any revolutionary change is going to require their materials and assembly to be lighter, and stronger, with more complex shapes, tighter tolerances, and fewer production steps. Every additional step introduces a chance for error, additional time, additional cost, more time for testing prototypes, more time for reconfiguration for each new change, less ability to automate. The move to BMG is necessary. At some point, they will need to stop refining their aluminum and stainless production capabilities, and begin the refinement process anew with a more advanced material.

The raw material cost will not be the deciding factor.

[CIMA7]

Where do you get these numbers? $1.00???

As Joshua pointed out, BMG can be half the thickness of aluminum for same strength which reduces each BMG phone to $1.00 for material.