3 ms·

Except it makes more sense to depreciate over the useful life of the building (standard: 50 years) which brings you to a more reasonable ~$8k/year/employee cost

by Denzel 9y ago

Except it makes more sense to depreciate over the useful life of the building (standard: 50 years) which brings you to a more reasonable ~$8k/year/employee cost of building use.

dexterdog 9y ago
If Apple is still a thing in 30 years do you think this will still be a cool place to be?
- glhaynes 9y ago
  Apple will almost certainly still be a thing in 30 years. While it's hard to predict anything about fashion that far into the future, there are lots of buildings that are 30 or more years old that are cool places to be.
- Denzel 9y ago
  That's the beautiful thing about depreciation, it doesn't really matter. Depreciation is just a way to see how costs are being allocated over time, more realistically. It allows you to predict how much you have left to recoup on capex projects. The real question (if you believe Apple will close down) is do you believe anyone will be interested in occupying the office space? Remember, the office could house more than one tenet. Or maybe they choose to offload the property in a sale. It's the same principle I use when negotiating gym rental contracts: Schools aren't using their gyms all the time. They have downtime, i.e., they're undersubscribed, so they offer hours for rent at marginal cost.
Someone1234 9y ago
> standard: 50 years According to this study[0] 50 years is the maximum lifespan of a commercial building, not the standard. Over 50% of demolished steel commercial buildings were under 25 years old. [0] PDF: http://cwc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/DurabilityService_Life_E.pdf http://cwc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/DurabilityService_L...
- adventured 9y ago
  There's zero chance that building doesn't last 50 years, whether it's still being used by Apple 50 years from now or not.
  - Someone1234 9y ago
    That isn't what the study I linked to says. Did you read it?
    - valuearb 9y ago
      Yea, that's not much of a study. The authors didn't have enough data to really understand why buildings were getting demolished before 50 years. Defining them as "wood", "concrete" and "steel" is far too broad of categories, for one. A steel warehouse that was put up with the lowest cost bid is easy to demolish and rebuild with better, newer materials/technologies after 40 years or so. A state of the art office building is not. How old is the Empire State Building? Do you think it's getting demolished any time soon? Do you really think building construction techniques and materials of 50 years ago are comparable to the techniques and materials used today, especially on the Apple Campus?
dbbk 9y ago
Tim Cook has explicitly called it a 100 year bet.

by Denzel 9y ago

Except it makes more sense to depreciate over the useful life of the building (standard: 50 years) which brings you to a more reasonable ~$8k/year/employee cost of building use.

dexterdog 9y ago

If Apple is still a thing in 30 years do you think this will still be a cool place to be?

glhaynes 9y ago
Apple will almost certainly still be a thing in 30 years. While it's hard to predict anything about fashion that far into the future, there are lots of buildings that are 30 or more years old that are cool places to be.
Denzel 9y ago
That's the beautiful thing about depreciation, it doesn't really matter. Depreciation is just a way to see how costs are being allocated over time, more realistically. It allows you to predict how much you have left to recoup on capex projects. The real question (if you believe Apple will close down) is do you believe anyone will be interested in occupying the office space? Remember, the office could house more than one tenet. Or maybe they choose to offload the property in a sale. It's the same principle I use when negotiating gym rental contracts: Schools aren't using their gyms all the time. They have downtime, i.e., they're undersubscribed, so they offer hours for rent at marginal cost.

Someone1234 9y ago

> standard: 50 years According to this study[0] 50 years is the maximum lifespan of a commercial building, not the standard. Over 50% of demolished steel commercial buildings were under 25 years old. [0] PDF: http://cwc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/DurabilityService_Life_E.pdf http://cwc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/DurabilityService_L...

adventured 9y ago
There's zero chance that building doesn't last 50 years, whether it's still being used by Apple 50 years from now or not.
- Someone1234 9y ago
  That isn't what the study I linked to says. Did you read it?
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Yea, that's not much of a study. The authors didn't have enough data to really understand why buildings were getting demolished before 50 years. Defining them as "wood", "concrete" and "steel" is far too broad of categories, for one. A steel warehouse that was put up with the lowest cost bid is easy to demolish and rebuild with better, newer materials/technologies after 40 years or so. A state of the art office building is not. How old is the Empire State Building? Do you think it's getting demolished any time soon? Do you really think building construction techniques and materials of 50 years ago are comparable to the techniques and materials used today, especially on the Apple Campus?

dbbk 9y ago

Tim Cook has explicitly called it a 100 year bet.