5 ms·

Looks like a cool building, but I wonder how much mental bandwidth designing it took up at Apple. The mac mini needs an update, they need to release a Mac Pro t

Looks like a cool building, but I wonder how much mental bandwidth designing it took up at Apple. The mac mini needs an update, they need to release a Mac Pro that is viable for video pros, and they definitely haven't sold me on their new macbook pros (without mag safe!) Also, where's the Apple equivalent to the Hololens? And what happened to all the rumors about Apple cars and Apple Smart TVs? How are they doing on creating smart home devices? I'm not sure that they really should make cars, or TVs, but they are basically an amazing phone company at this point and that's about it. Maybe, I don't know, build an ad-free search engine and bake it into all your products so that you can give google a run for their money instead of obsessing over a $5 billion building. Edit: I forgot about the Apple watch, which I'm a fan of.

dbmonkey 9y ago
One functional use of the building is that it will attract top employees. I would rather spend ~1/4 of my time in a really nice building than what some competitors use.
- dogruck 9y ago
  Perhaps. Certainly a good building is better than a bad one. Indisputable. But everything has a trade off. I’d trade for higher pay or more commercial projects.
- bla2 9y ago
  Meh, it's still open office. The campus looks nice, but design is how it works.
  - ChuckMcM 9y ago
    They go out of their way to describe the segments as "configurable" with "everything from open plan to individual offices." I makes me wonder if initial reactions caught them by surprise.
  - sbuk 9y ago
    Engineering is how it works, design/architecture is about solving the problem leading to the engineered solution.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ACow_Adonis 9y ago
  To each their own, but for contrasting feedback, I could almost feel my anxiety rising just looking at a big giant corporate open office. I think wired hit on something when they called it a design out of the 1950's. Its a suburban corporate office park. A white, glass, and wood suburban corporate office park, but a suburban corporate office park none the less. Edit: I am witholding my judgement of the actual space until 6 months after its inhabited though, because I'm not sure I can be objective about it at this stage...
- nkkollaw 9y ago
  Lots of employees complained and said they would rather find another job than work in an open space.
- Theodores 9y ago
  Mclaren have a similar type of building albeit on a smaller scale. I would definitely think about giving it a go there, but, then again, would I prefer the Williams team up the road where vision and leadership is not mixed up with impressive building design? I don't know, but I think the McLaren building has worked out nicely for them. Working there might not be to everyone's tastes but they set the standard for how it is done and the rest of the industry took note. Some of the buildings in North Korea are quite amazing and the subway system is a work of art, immaculately clean. Working in the parts they show Westerners should be a true joy with the most pleasant of traffic free commutes. However I would not feel entirely free working in North Korea, being deprived of the Internet would matter to me and I would not feel happy 'cut off'. I imagine working at the wonderful Apple HQ to be slightly cultish in the North Korean way rather than the McLaren way. Perhaps I prefer smaller churches in smaller towns. Or maybe I am more interested in FOSS and computing in general rather than the intricacies of doing things the Apple way. The old SGI building as used by Google, that has things one can criticise but that building has survived the test of time. Many wonderful things have happened in this building but ultimately it is just a building and not a sacred shrine. The Apple building sort of crosses into 'sacred shrine' territory that will always be entwined with the memory of the founding story.
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    I did some work for McLaren a few years ago, it struck me at the time that the building was really a reflection of their own culture. I think it would have been impossible for them not to apply the attention to detail in that building that they did.
Alupis 9y ago
> $5 billion building. Just hoping it doesn't turn into another Sears Tower - an overly extravagant building built by a company at the peak of their existence, only to have markets shift out under them... soon winding up with way too much building for way too much cost.
- revscat 9y ago
  You know, I’m not sure if this is a bad thing. Seemingly indomitable companies prove mortal, but the architecture they leave becomes part of the culture. Apple will not last forever, of course, but architecture... that can last a good deal longer.
- taurath 9y ago
  They have like $200b in cash on hand - even if they stopped making products they’d probably be fine for 10 years (post some layoffs)
  - Alupis 9y ago
    > they’d probably be fine for 10 years It's not uncommon for the land under such buildings to have 100+ year leases. That much money and time put into that much building requires very long terms. Maybe Apple bought the land outright, but I'm certain they're thinking longer-term than 10 years here... as was Sears at the time they built their tower. This also doesn't account for the annual maintenance costs of such a grand building. Apple's sitting on top of a big pile of money today, but that may not be the case 20 years from now (as was the case for Sears)... the maintenance costs will only increase as the building ages.
    - sbuttgereit 9y ago
      They own it. http://www.mercurynews.com/2010/11/24/apple-makes-big-land-purchase-in-cupertino-2/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2010/11/24/apple-makes-big-land-p...
- rtkwe 9y ago
  I'd be more worried if Apple didn't have 256 billion dollars in cash reserves, which is frankly a kind of insane amount. Can't find how much cash Sears had on hand in 1973 but the equivalent to Apple's cash on hand vs building would be 7.6 billion.
Bromskloss 9y ago
How would the ad-free search engine make money?
- touchofevil 9y ago
  It would harm Google's primary revenue source Ad-words. Reducing the revenue of your competition is beneficial since they will have less money to fund their competing products with.
  - mythz 9y ago
    So Apple should invest billions of their profits in a technology they have no experience or skills in and over a decade away from being able to catch up and provide a competitive service against arguably the smartest company in the world whose core competency is search, so they can devalue the Apple brand with a sub par service that has nothing to do with their strengths, absorbs the billions required to develop and maintain the infrastructure (see: Bing), forgo billions of Service revenue their now receiving from Google to provide an ad-free Service that will never be profitable so they can force a worst end-user UX on their Customers? Somehow I don't see this happening.
    - iainmerrick 9y ago
      They already did something similar with Maps. Very rough launch, but now it's pretty good.
      - mythz 9y ago
        Apple invested in Maps so they have control over their destiny of one of the most popular use-cases people use their Smart Phones for as Google was with holding key features like turn-by-turn directions which would've given Android an edge. Apple always wants to be seen as the best, they love to say they offer the best Smart Phone with the best hardware, best OS, Apps, etc. Having a sub-par experience on a core feature would've hurt both their brand and sales. Although it required a significant investment and Apple Maps still isn't as good as Google Maps, end-users still end up with a first-class experience in iOS with their choice of either. This isn't the same as Search, Google wants to provide the best Search service for iOS as possible and is now paying Apple billions for privilege of being the default. Attempting to develop an ad-free Search alternative would dilute their focus, cost them a fortune and their Customers would be worse off for it.
goseeastarwar 9y ago
This is a hilarious question, only because it's normally asked in the context of a startup. Apple could hire a team of people to work on literally anything.
- iainmerrick 9y ago
  Apple already admitted they dropped the ball on the Mac Pro, and promised to fix it. You would think they have enough money to do everything at once, but for whatever reason, it evidently doesn't work that way.
  - wolco 9y ago
    If you sit on the money you can't do everything at once.
omarforgotpwd 9y ago
The building is a factor in talent acquisition and will therefore hopefully theoretically improve their products over time.
- rusk 9y ago
  without data to support it, your theory is merely a hypothesis
frik 9y ago
Apple new HQ looks great, I visited when it was almost finished earlier this year. Some design elements look great, but are probably hard to keep clean, and functionality might suffered a bit, and some elements surface reflect too much sun light. That everyone got a height-adjustable desk is great.

dbmonkey 9y ago

One functional use of the building is that it will attract top employees. I would rather spend ~1/4 of my time in a really nice building than what some competitors use.

dogruck 9y ago
Perhaps. Certainly a good building is better than a bad one. Indisputable. But everything has a trade off. I’d trade for higher pay or more commercial projects.
bla2 9y ago
Meh, it's still open office. The campus looks nice, but design is how it works.
- ChuckMcM 9y ago
  They go out of their way to describe the segments as "configurable" with "everything from open plan to individual offices." I makes me wonder if initial reactions caught them by surprise.
- sbuk 9y ago
  Engineering is how it works, design/architecture is about solving the problem leading to the engineered solution.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ACow_Adonis 9y ago
To each their own, but for contrasting feedback, I could almost feel my anxiety rising just looking at a big giant corporate open office. I think wired hit on something when they called it a design out of the 1950's. Its a suburban corporate office park. A white, glass, and wood suburban corporate office park, but a suburban corporate office park none the less. Edit: I am witholding my judgement of the actual space until 6 months after its inhabited though, because I'm not sure I can be objective about it at this stage...
nkkollaw 9y ago
Lots of employees complained and said they would rather find another job than work in an open space.
Theodores 9y ago
Mclaren have a similar type of building albeit on a smaller scale. I would definitely think about giving it a go there, but, then again, would I prefer the Williams team up the road where vision and leadership is not mixed up with impressive building design? I don't know, but I think the McLaren building has worked out nicely for them. Working there might not be to everyone's tastes but they set the standard for how it is done and the rest of the industry took note. Some of the buildings in North Korea are quite amazing and the subway system is a work of art, immaculately clean. Working in the parts they show Westerners should be a true joy with the most pleasant of traffic free commutes. However I would not feel entirely free working in North Korea, being deprived of the Internet would matter to me and I would not feel happy 'cut off'. I imagine working at the wonderful Apple HQ to be slightly cultish in the North Korean way rather than the McLaren way. Perhaps I prefer smaller churches in smaller towns. Or maybe I am more interested in FOSS and computing in general rather than the intricacies of doing things the Apple way. The old SGI building as used by Google, that has things one can criticise but that building has survived the test of time. Many wonderful things have happened in this building but ultimately it is just a building and not a sacred shrine. The Apple building sort of crosses into 'sacred shrine' territory that will always be entwined with the memory of the founding story.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  I did some work for McLaren a few years ago, it struck me at the time that the building was really a reflection of their own culture. I think it would have been impossible for them not to apply the attention to detail in that building that they did.

Alupis 9y ago

> $5 billion building. Just hoping it doesn't turn into another Sears Tower - an overly extravagant building built by a company at the peak of their existence, only to have markets shift out under them... soon winding up with way too much building for way too much cost.

revscat 9y ago
You know, I’m not sure if this is a bad thing. Seemingly indomitable companies prove mortal, but the architecture they leave becomes part of the culture. Apple will not last forever, of course, but architecture... that can last a good deal longer.
taurath 9y ago
They have like $200b in cash on hand - even if they stopped making products they’d probably be fine for 10 years (post some layoffs)
- Alupis 9y ago
  > they’d probably be fine for 10 years It's not uncommon for the land under such buildings to have 100+ year leases. That much money and time put into that much building requires very long terms. Maybe Apple bought the land outright, but I'm certain they're thinking longer-term than 10 years here... as was Sears at the time they built their tower. This also doesn't account for the annual maintenance costs of such a grand building. Apple's sitting on top of a big pile of money today, but that may not be the case 20 years from now (as was the case for Sears)... the maintenance costs will only increase as the building ages.
  - sbuttgereit 9y ago
    They own it. http://www.mercurynews.com/2010/11/24/apple-makes-big-land-purchase-in-cupertino-2/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2010/11/24/apple-makes-big-land-p...
rtkwe 9y ago
I'd be more worried if Apple didn't have 256 billion dollars in cash reserves, which is frankly a kind of insane amount. Can't find how much cash Sears had on hand in 1973 but the equivalent to Apple's cash on hand vs building would be 7.6 billion.

Bromskloss 9y ago

How would the ad-free search engine make money?

touchofevil 9y ago
It would harm Google's primary revenue source Ad-words. Reducing the revenue of your competition is beneficial since they will have less money to fund their competing products with.
- mythz 9y ago
  So Apple should invest billions of their profits in a technology they have no experience or skills in and over a decade away from being able to catch up and provide a competitive service against arguably the smartest company in the world whose core competency is search, so they can devalue the Apple brand with a sub par service that has nothing to do with their strengths, absorbs the billions required to develop and maintain the infrastructure (see: Bing), forgo billions of Service revenue their now receiving from Google to provide an ad-free Service that will never be profitable so they can force a worst end-user UX on their Customers? Somehow I don't see this happening.
  - iainmerrick 9y ago
    They already did something similar with Maps. Very rough launch, but now it's pretty good.
    - mythz 9y ago
      Apple invested in Maps so they have control over their destiny of one of the most popular use-cases people use their Smart Phones for as Google was with holding key features like turn-by-turn directions which would've given Android an edge. Apple always wants to be seen as the best, they love to say they offer the best Smart Phone with the best hardware, best OS, Apps, etc. Having a sub-par experience on a core feature would've hurt both their brand and sales. Although it required a significant investment and Apple Maps still isn't as good as Google Maps, end-users still end up with a first-class experience in iOS with their choice of either. This isn't the same as Search, Google wants to provide the best Search service for iOS as possible and is now paying Apple billions for privilege of being the default. Attempting to develop an ad-free Search alternative would dilute their focus, cost them a fortune and their Customers would be worse off for it.

goseeastarwar 9y ago

This is a hilarious question, only because it's normally asked in the context of a startup. Apple could hire a team of people to work on literally anything.

iainmerrick 9y ago
Apple already admitted they dropped the ball on the Mac Pro, and promised to fix it. You would think they have enough money to do everything at once, but for whatever reason, it evidently doesn't work that way.
- wolco 9y ago
  If you sit on the money you can't do everything at once.

omarforgotpwd 9y ago

The building is a factor in talent acquisition and will therefore hopefully theoretically improve their products over time.

rusk 9y ago
without data to support it, your theory is merely a hypothesis

frik 9y ago

Apple new HQ looks great, I visited when it was almost finished earlier this year. Some design elements look great, but are probably hard to keep clean, and functionality might suffered a bit, and some elements surface reflect too much sun light. That everyone got a height-adjustable desk is great.