Other huge companies have failed and left their flagship corporate headquarters behind.
A mixed use center like GM's world headquarters with multiple companies, hotels, etc could continue on should GM leave it. Which GM reportedly was considering.
It still would have been a huge body blow to Detroit but at least there are other tenants there.
A large cluster of office buildings like what exists in the HP park can be viably leased to a bunch of companies. If the total occupancy is only 25% these could be in the newest buildings while the less economically viable ones are demo'd and replace with something else.
With a large single building half the size of the pentagon (pentagon holds 23K employees)?
It's a valid concern for a Post-Jobs Apple. Apple went from sky's the limit in 1984 with Jobs showing the world the first Macintosh to free-falling in 1995 under Spindler.
Here's a reminder of corporate failures from that time period and I'd say the economic situation is worse than mid-90s.
You hope for the best but should plan for the worst. In this building you likely have to gauge the probability that a new single tenant would appear to occupy the building in the kind of environment which sees Apple leaving Cupertino for whatever reason.
I don't see this as a problem at all. If Apple did fail, or not need this after twenty years or so, then it could be sold, and divided up inside and leased, or rented. No big deal.
Fella, I've PUT people in public office. You have no idea who you're talking to.
With that out of the way, I agree this was mild opposition at worst. The council was more or less cowed. But get some perspective: The global economy is sinking. The market's about to crash (yes, again). Anyplace else on Earth would PAY Apple to locate in their community, and pay them well.
Yet Jobs felt compelled to remind these CLOWNS that his company pays taxes, because he's had problems with them before. Apple keeps Cupertino afloat, let's face it. It's not 'tongue in cheek' to ask for free Wi-Fi. It's stupid, tacky, and tasteless.
But hey, tick Jobs off with a 'cute' remark. He has billions of company dollars in the bank and the world at his feet. Go ahead, say something self-serving and stupid. No way he follows through on the veiled threat he felt it was necessary to make about Apple picking up and leaving, right? No way he's thinking about the years-long nightmare he was put through re his personal residence, right? And there's just no way he hears the clock ticking because he does not know if he'll live long enough to see this thing built.... right?
Sure, go ahead. Indulge yourself. Make your cutesy remark. What could happen?
Really? So, big shot, who did you put in office? Don't brag about something you won't go public with. I know NYC politics pretty well, and it's about as tough here as it is anywhere.
Moscone Center is 2M square feet. Moscone West is obviously a smaller segment of that total space
but covers nearly a block and is three stories above ground.
The issue is that Apple doesn't need Moscone West 365 days a year but wants something bigger than that for a week. Whatever the size, it's unlikely that Apple has structured the 1M sq ft of floor space to be a multi-use conference center.
Something the city might like to have for economic stimulus and would be willing to trade tax revenue to get.
The space Apple rents has been described as small, and we can see that from the pictures we get of the WWDC. I don't know why he says they can't find a bigger place. There must be some reason.
Over time, we'll see if an installation like solar will pay off for a company the size of Apple. Homeowners are getting some pretty big tax breaks for something that otherwise wouldn't break even for them for twenty years, which is over the lifetime for such installations.
And what I'm saying, firsthand from researching such things, is that those same tax breaks are available in CA for business as well. (And where do you get this 20-year lifetime figure? Some ongoing installations from the 70s are still operational, having long ago paid themselves back even without today's financial incentives.)
I'll say this again to clarify: I don't think Apple should attempt to build some sort of uber-ecological installation where people drink their own waste products in an effort to be 'green'. (Ok, I'm exaggerating here.) Simply supplementing their electricity with PV panels would be fine, and a big symbolic gesture to others that it is a viable technology. A lot of people look up to Apple for all sorts of things and that's what this would be.
And it's not wasted money. As I've said, with California's current solar incentives a system can pay itself back in under 15 years, and that's at today's electricity rates. After that, it's free goddam electricity! Whether it's only 50 panels or 5000, the same basic economics apply. Yes, Apple will still need alternative energy sources and a connection to the grid, but who doesn't want free electricity in fifteen years?
This is similar to Apple's strategic purchases of components as a hedge against production and cost variations, only applied to their real estate. It may not pay back tomorrow or next week, but once you make the investment it assures a certain future that you wouldn't have otherwise. The US needs this kind of thinking (rather than quarter-to-quarter profits for the sake of executive bonuses), and a company like Apple could be very helpful getting this message across.
The video cutoff about 2/3rds of the way through the presentation so I am not sure of everything that was said but I am thinking this was just the formal presentation for public consumption. The more significant issues will need to be dealt with in a more behind the scenes manner. I am thinking there are going to be reports on what this will do to traffic in the area and what kind of enhancements to the streets that will need to happen. Also, I am sure environmental reports on the impact of this having this campus and this many people added to the area. It will be interesting to see how quickly this thing will be approved and then how quickly they can get it built. With all those trees and landscaping, I am sure water usage/drainage will need to be addressed, especially with all the underground parking spaces that will be needed.
Beautiful building. I hope it will happen and happen soon.
The space Apple rents has been described as small, and we can see that from the pictures we get of the WWDC. I don't know why he says they can't find a bigger place. There must be some reason.
Are you talking about the presentation or did I miss some other material? I couldn't find the segment where Steve says that they couldn't find a bigger place.
Its possible that Apple would get a ton of traffic to a campus store. Think of the tourist etc. I'd stop by. The building alone will be a tourist magnet to get snap shots etc
Now whether Apple would want that... doubt it.
Plus, don't want those Google boys and girls snooping around.
I was thinking about a campus store. That could mitigate some of the cost structure, but maybe not, if they require extra security.
Actually, we don't know exactly what Apple is planning. If they can get the city to negate their liability for anyone who gets hurt in the park, the way it's done for most public facilities, then it's possible they may open portions up. But there still would be the security aspect for their own operations. And there would be the need for some security for people in the park, and what would the hours be?
The video cutoff about 2/3rds of the way through the presentation so I am not sure of everything that was said but I am thinking this was just the formal presentation for public consumption.
Beautiful building. I hope it will happen and happen soon.
Neal
That's what I thought as well... for the public's consumption. The threat to move wasn't for council... it was for the public... "Don't interfere or we'll move and then see how well your public infrastructure projects fare over the next few years...".
Yes, the council's questions were quite pedantic... but as Steve implied, he's lived there all his life and he wouldn't do anything to harm the area; that he has the best people in the world working on the project; and that he will work closely with Cupertino to ensure that things are done properly.
And again, as we saw from the meeting, Apple's officials met with members of the council previously, possibly a number of times. And all cities have their own experts, or they hire private firms who do those assessments. No doubt all of this will be worked on.
Remember, this is just a preliminary meeting. The plans haven't yet been done, or submitted. The engineering and social aspects of this can't be properly assessed until plans are submitted. In fact, this hasn't even been approved yet!
The people of Cupertino should be ashamed of their elected officials.
Unfortunately, that's what local politics is like. People stick their necks out and run for office, some out of honest desire to improve their community and others motivated by ego and power, and the end result is usually a mixed bag of nuts. At the town level you'll see this anywhere (at least in the US), since few people take an active interest in this level of politics. And keep in mind that other than for Apple, Cupertino really isn't that big of a place. I bet their next-largest tax base comes from car dealerships.
And what I'm saying, firsthand from researching such things, is that those same tax breaks are available in CA for business as well. (And where do you get this 20-year lifetime figure? Some ongoing installations from the 70s are still operational, having long ago paid themselves back even without today's financial incentives.)
I'll say this again to clarify: I don't think Apple should attempt to build some sort of uber-ecological installation where people drink their own waste products in an effort to be 'green'. (Ok, I'm exaggerating here.) Simply supplementing their electricity with PV panels would be fine, and a big symbolic gesture to others that it is a viable technology. A lot of people look up to Apple for all sorts of things and that's what this would be.
And it's not wasted money. As I've said, with California's current solar incentives a system can pay itself back in under 15 years, and that's at today's electricity rates. After that, it's free goddam electricity! Whether it's only 50 panels or 5000, the same basic economics apply. Yes, Apple will still need alternative energy sources and a connection to the grid, but who doesn't want free electricity in fifteen years?
This is similar to Apple's strategic purchases of components as a hedge against production and cost variations, only applied to their real estate. It may not pay back tomorrow or next week, but once you make the investment it assures a certain future that you wouldn't have otherwise. The US needs this kind of thinking (rather than quarter-to-quarter profits for the sake of executive bonuses), and a company like Apple could be very helpful getting this message across.
I get that figure from the warrantees of most of the manufacturers of the cells. While they may last for a longer time, they may not. Hot water systems last for a shorter time.
A very good work on this which I often reference is this:
Also, while I understand Steve's reluctance as the largest employer and taxpayer in Cupertino to give more (like the free WiFi, although wouldn't ubiquitous WiFi in Cupertino also help Apple?), would it really be such a big deal to open a store in Cupertino? Steve seemed insulted to even be asked. Even if it didn't make a lot of money, sometimes it's worth caving on a few issues. If a big store wouldn't make money, they can open a smaller, mall-type store. And even though Apple pays lots of taxes, there's nothing wrong with Apple also donating to the community. Barons of the past built universities, museums, libraries, parks, etc.
Steve Jobs is a very unusual billionaire. He has presided over a 50fold increase in the value of Apple, but his wealth is still primarily tied to Disney/Pixar - unlike the other IT billionaires he hasn't enriched himself at the expense of his shareholders. Check out the Forbes rich list sometime, it's kind of amazing how low he is on it given he's the CEO of the most successful firm in the industry.
So you can't really compare him to somebody like Andrew Carnegie who spent his working life entirely focused on the bottom line, and then gave away his fortune in essence to atone for it. Jobs doesn't feel that Apple is something he needs to apologize for, so I'm not surprised that he was unamused by the attempt to shake him down.
Art is universal. When something is really beautiful it's really beautiful. You can have your own opinion all you want but it's just that: opinion.
I'm pretty sure your second sentence is opinion. Art may be universal (not sure what that really means), but I don't buy that any particular great piece of art is appreciated universally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Wind is fine, if you can convince communities to allow the very tall, ugly, and dangerous to birds towers, and likely wouldn't work well in that area.
Wind turbines are dangerous to birds only if they're not placed properly, which is a lot rarer now. From what I understand, it's a long-outdated axiom because the siting is done a lot better now, and there are deterrence mechanisms now. But I agree that it's probably not a good location, especially if you're extra sensitive about the skyline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Snitch
Fella, I've PUT people in public office. You have no idea who you're talking to.
Citation, please? You're right, we don't know who you are, but you've never said who you are either. And there's the problem of whether or not you really are who you say you are, verifiability on the internet is non-existent.
Quote:
No way he's thinking about the years-long nightmare he was put through re his personal residence, right?
I thought that had little to do with the council and more about lawsuits from other groups.
Are you talking about the presentation or did I miss some other material? I couldn't find the segment where Steve says that they couldn't find a bigger place.
He said that at the beginning of the WWDC, when he apologized to people for only having space for those there. He didn't say that here, exactly, though he did mention the WWDC, as I recall.
Why is there no mention of solar collectors? For a building of this size, in an area with almost year-round sunshine?
It will power itself by violating the laws of thermodynamics. It's part of the StarDrive, which, while parked on Earth, is disguised as the underground power plant. Then the Earth is threatened by an impact event, the ark will lift up out of the ground and save the 12,000 chosen few, who will repopulate the planet, after Apples competitors have been wiped out.
I'll say this again to clarify: I don't think Apple should attempt to build some sort of uber-ecological installation where people drink their own waste products in an effort to be 'green'. (Ok, I'm exaggerating here.) Simply supplementing their electricity with PV panels would be fine, and a big symbolic gesture to others that it is a viable technology. A lot of people look up to Apple for all sorts of things and that's what this would be.
Heh, interestingly I take the exact opposite view. I think they absolutely should invest in an incredible building, something that sets very high standards for energy efficiency at the same time as setting high standards for temperature comfort, lighting, and yes beauty. Part of the reason that they should is to demonstrate that they can do so profitably, in the same way that they dmonstrate that they can create beautiful products profitably and we don't have to be satisfied with drek.
Greenwashing by applying a few PV panels is exactly what they shouldn't be encouraged to do. It's the equivalent of microsoft applying a few graphical bells to an abomination of an application and calling it 'Visual'.
This building may well represent Jobs last opportunity to fundamentally shape Apple's future, and I expect he'll pull out all the stops to make it beautiful, elegant and efficient - because those are qualities he clearly admires in their own right.
Wind turbines are dangerous to birds only if they're not placed properly, which is a lot rarer now. From what I understand, it's a long-outdated axiom because the siting is done a lot better now, and there are deterrence
Actually, that still one of the concerns. While it's not the worst problem for birds, anything that makes the situation worse needs to be looked into.
Actually, that still one of the concerns. While it's not the worst problem for birds, anything that makes the situation worse needs to be looked into.
Yes, it's a concern, which is why the environmental impact surveys cover that issue thoroughly before going on with the project. Because of that, the problem is now far less significant than people seem to give credit.
Comments
Other huge companies have failed and left their flagship corporate headquarters behind.
A mixed use center like GM's world headquarters with multiple companies, hotels, etc could continue on should GM leave it. Which GM reportedly was considering.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...-rattner-obama
It still would have been a huge body blow to Detroit but at least there are other tenants there.
A large cluster of office buildings like what exists in the HP park can be viably leased to a bunch of companies. If the total occupancy is only 25% these could be in the newest buildings while the less economically viable ones are demo'd and replace with something else.
With a large single building half the size of the pentagon (pentagon holds 23K employees)?
It's a valid concern for a Post-Jobs Apple. Apple went from sky's the limit in 1984 with Jobs showing the world the first Macintosh to free-falling in 1995 under Spindler.
Here's a reminder of corporate failures from that time period and I'd say the economic situation is worse than mid-90s.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/23/re...abandoned.html
You hope for the best but should plan for the worst. In this building you likely have to gauge the probability that a new single tenant would appear to occupy the building in the kind of environment which sees Apple leaving Cupertino for whatever reason.
I don't see this as a problem at all. If Apple did fail, or not need this after twenty years or so, then it could be sold, and divided up inside and leased, or rented. No big deal.
Fella, I've PUT people in public office. You have no idea who you're talking to.
With that out of the way, I agree this was mild opposition at worst. The council was more or less cowed. But get some perspective: The global economy is sinking. The market's about to crash (yes, again). Anyplace else on Earth would PAY Apple to locate in their community, and pay them well.
Yet Jobs felt compelled to remind these CLOWNS that his company pays taxes, because he's had problems with them before. Apple keeps Cupertino afloat, let's face it. It's not 'tongue in cheek' to ask for free Wi-Fi. It's stupid, tacky, and tasteless.
But hey, tick Jobs off with a 'cute' remark. He has billions of company dollars in the bank and the world at his feet. Go ahead, say something self-serving and stupid. No way he follows through on the veiled threat he felt it was necessary to make about Apple picking up and leaving, right? No way he's thinking about the years-long nightmare he was put through re his personal residence, right? And there's just no way he hears the clock ticking because he does not know if he'll live long enough to see this thing built.... right?
Sure, go ahead. Indulge yourself. Make your cutesy remark. What could happen?
Really? So, big shot, who did you put in office? Don't brag about something you won't go public with. I know NYC politics pretty well, and it's about as tough here as it is anywhere.
Moscone Center is 2M square feet. Moscone West is obviously a smaller segment of that total space
but covers nearly a block and is three stories above ground.
The issue is that Apple doesn't need Moscone West 365 days a year but wants something bigger than that for a week. Whatever the size, it's unlikely that Apple has structured the 1M sq ft of floor space to be a multi-use conference center.
Something the city might like to have for economic stimulus and would be willing to trade tax revenue to get.
The space Apple rents has been described as small, and we can see that from the pictures we get of the WWDC. I don't know why he says they can't find a bigger place. There must be some reason.
Over time, we'll see if an installation like solar will pay off for a company the size of Apple. Homeowners are getting some pretty big tax breaks for something that otherwise wouldn't break even for them for twenty years, which is over the lifetime for such installations.
And what I'm saying, firsthand from researching such things, is that those same tax breaks are available in CA for business as well. (And where do you get this 20-year lifetime figure? Some ongoing installations from the 70s are still operational, having long ago paid themselves back even without today's financial incentives.)
I'll say this again to clarify: I don't think Apple should attempt to build some sort of uber-ecological installation where people drink their own waste products in an effort to be 'green'. (Ok, I'm exaggerating here.) Simply supplementing their electricity with PV panels would be fine, and a big symbolic gesture to others that it is a viable technology. A lot of people look up to Apple for all sorts of things and that's what this would be.
And it's not wasted money. As I've said, with California's current solar incentives a system can pay itself back in under 15 years, and that's at today's electricity rates. After that, it's free goddam electricity! Whether it's only 50 panels or 5000, the same basic economics apply. Yes, Apple will still need alternative energy sources and a connection to the grid, but who doesn't want free electricity in fifteen years?
This is similar to Apple's strategic purchases of components as a hedge against production and cost variations, only applied to their real estate. It may not pay back tomorrow or next week, but once you make the investment it assures a certain future that you wouldn't have otherwise. The US needs this kind of thinking (rather than quarter-to-quarter profits for the sake of executive bonuses), and a company like Apple could be very helpful getting this message across.
Beautiful building. I hope it will happen and happen soon.
Neal
The space Apple rents has been described as small, and we can see that from the pictures we get of the WWDC. I don't know why he says they can't find a bigger place. There must be some reason.
Are you talking about the presentation or did I miss some other material? I couldn't find the segment where Steve says that they couldn't find a bigger place.
Its possible that Apple would get a ton of traffic to a campus store. Think of the tourist etc. I'd stop by.
Now whether Apple would want that... doubt it.
Plus, don't want those Google boys and girls snooping around.
I was thinking about a campus store. That could mitigate some of the cost structure, but maybe not, if they require extra security.
Actually, we don't know exactly what Apple is planning. If they can get the city to negate their liability for anyone who gets hurt in the park, the way it's done for most public facilities, then it's possible they may open portions up. But there still would be the security aspect for their own operations. And there would be the need for some security for people in the park, and what would the hours be?
The video cutoff about 2/3rds of the way through the presentation so I am not sure of everything that was said but I am thinking this was just the formal presentation for public consumption.
Beautiful building. I hope it will happen and happen soon.
Neal
That's what I thought as well... for the public's consumption. The threat to move wasn't for council... it was for the public... "Don't interfere or we'll move and then see how well your public infrastructure projects fare over the next few years...".
I also hope it happens and soon.
Yes, the council's questions were quite pedantic... but as Steve implied, he's lived there all his life and he wouldn't do anything to harm the area; that he has the best people in the world working on the project; and that he will work closely with Cupertino to ensure that things are done properly.
And again, as we saw from the meeting, Apple's officials met with members of the council previously, possibly a number of times. And all cities have their own experts, or they hire private firms who do those assessments. No doubt all of this will be worked on.
Remember, this is just a preliminary meeting. The plans haven't yet been done, or submitted. The engineering and social aspects of this can't be properly assessed until plans are submitted. In fact, this hasn't even been approved yet!
So Apple are building their own particle accelerator?
This is exactly what modern companies should be doing...
Do you own a modern company?
The people of Cupertino should be ashamed of their elected officials.
Unfortunately, that's what local politics is like. People stick their necks out and run for office, some out of honest desire to improve their community and others motivated by ego and power, and the end result is usually a mixed bag of nuts. At the town level you'll see this anywhere (at least in the US), since few people take an active interest in this level of politics. And keep in mind that other than for Apple, Cupertino really isn't that big of a place. I bet their next-largest tax base comes from car dealerships.
And what I'm saying, firsthand from researching such things, is that those same tax breaks are available in CA for business as well. (And where do you get this 20-year lifetime figure? Some ongoing installations from the 70s are still operational, having long ago paid themselves back even without today's financial incentives.)
I'll say this again to clarify: I don't think Apple should attempt to build some sort of uber-ecological installation where people drink their own waste products in an effort to be 'green'. (Ok, I'm exaggerating here.) Simply supplementing their electricity with PV panels would be fine, and a big symbolic gesture to others that it is a viable technology. A lot of people look up to Apple for all sorts of things and that's what this would be.
And it's not wasted money. As I've said, with California's current solar incentives a system can pay itself back in under 15 years, and that's at today's electricity rates. After that, it's free goddam electricity! Whether it's only 50 panels or 5000, the same basic economics apply. Yes, Apple will still need alternative energy sources and a connection to the grid, but who doesn't want free electricity in fifteen years?
This is similar to Apple's strategic purchases of components as a hedge against production and cost variations, only applied to their real estate. It may not pay back tomorrow or next week, but once you make the investment it assures a certain future that you wouldn't have otherwise. The US needs this kind of thinking (rather than quarter-to-quarter profits for the sake of executive bonuses), and a company like Apple could be very helpful getting this message across.
I get that figure from the warrantees of most of the manufacturers of the cells. While they may last for a longer time, they may not. Hot water systems last for a shorter time.
A very good work on this which I often reference is this:
http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS05-09.pdf
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for environmental work. But I'm not so sure it really would pay for Apple right now, and I'm not big on symbolic gestures.
Also, while I understand Steve's reluctance as the largest employer and taxpayer in Cupertino to give more (like the free WiFi, although wouldn't ubiquitous WiFi in Cupertino also help Apple?), would it really be such a big deal to open a store in Cupertino? Steve seemed insulted to even be asked. Even if it didn't make a lot of money, sometimes it's worth caving on a few issues. If a big store wouldn't make money, they can open a smaller, mall-type store. And even though Apple pays lots of taxes, there's nothing wrong with Apple also donating to the community. Barons of the past built universities, museums, libraries, parks, etc.
Steve Jobs is a very unusual billionaire. He has presided over a 50fold increase in the value of Apple, but his wealth is still primarily tied to Disney/Pixar - unlike the other IT billionaires he hasn't enriched himself at the expense of his shareholders. Check out the Forbes rich list sometime, it's kind of amazing how low he is on it given he's the CEO of the most successful firm in the industry.
So you can't really compare him to somebody like Andrew Carnegie who spent his working life entirely focused on the bottom line, and then gave away his fortune in essence to atone for it. Jobs doesn't feel that Apple is something he needs to apologize for, so I'm not surprised that he was unamused by the attempt to shake him down.
Art is universal. When something is really beautiful it's really beautiful. You can have your own opinion all you want but it's just that: opinion.
I'm pretty sure your second sentence is opinion. Art may be universal (not sure what that really means), but I don't buy that any particular great piece of art is appreciated universally.
Wind is fine, if you can convince communities to allow the very tall, ugly, and dangerous to birds towers, and likely wouldn't work well in that area.
Wind turbines are dangerous to birds only if they're not placed properly, which is a lot rarer now. From what I understand, it's a long-outdated axiom because the siting is done a lot better now, and there are deterrence mechanisms now. But I agree that it's probably not a good location, especially if you're extra sensitive about the skyline.
Fella, I've PUT people in public office. You have no idea who you're talking to.
Citation, please? You're right, we don't know who you are, but you've never said who you are either. And there's the problem of whether or not you really are who you say you are, verifiability on the internet is non-existent.
No way he's thinking about the years-long nightmare he was put through re his personal residence, right?
I thought that had little to do with the council and more about lawsuits from other groups.
Steve: "Oh, one more thing. The building doesn't just look like a spaceship. It IS a spaceship. Suck on that Elon!"
Seriously, it is a very nice looking campus. I wish more companies would pay that much attention to nature when they built.
Are you talking about the presentation or did I miss some other material? I couldn't find the segment where Steve says that they couldn't find a bigger place.
He said that at the beginning of the WWDC, when he apologized to people for only having space for those there. He didn't say that here, exactly, though he did mention the WWDC, as I recall.
Why is there no mention of solar collectors? For a building of this size, in an area with almost year-round sunshine?
It will power itself by violating the laws of thermodynamics. It's part of the StarDrive, which, while parked on Earth, is disguised as the underground power plant. Then the Earth is threatened by an impact event, the ark will lift up out of the ground and save the 12,000 chosen few, who will repopulate the planet, after Apples competitors have been wiped out.
I'll say this again to clarify: I don't think Apple should attempt to build some sort of uber-ecological installation where people drink their own waste products in an effort to be 'green'. (Ok, I'm exaggerating here.) Simply supplementing their electricity with PV panels would be fine, and a big symbolic gesture to others that it is a viable technology. A lot of people look up to Apple for all sorts of things and that's what this would be.
Heh, interestingly I take the exact opposite view. I think they absolutely should invest in an incredible building, something that sets very high standards for energy efficiency at the same time as setting high standards for temperature comfort, lighting, and yes beauty. Part of the reason that they should is to demonstrate that they can do so profitably, in the same way that they dmonstrate that they can create beautiful products profitably and we don't have to be satisfied with drek.
Greenwashing by applying a few PV panels is exactly what they shouldn't be encouraged to do. It's the equivalent of microsoft applying a few graphical bells to an abomination of an application and calling it 'Visual'.
This building may well represent Jobs last opportunity to fundamentally shape Apple's future, and I expect he'll pull out all the stops to make it beautiful, elegant and efficient - because those are qualities he clearly admires in their own right.
Wind turbines are dangerous to birds only if they're not placed properly, which is a lot rarer now. From what I understand, it's a long-outdated axiom because the siting is done a lot better now, and there are deterrence
Actually, that still one of the concerns. While it's not the worst problem for birds, anything that makes the situation worse needs to be looked into.
Actually, that still one of the concerns. While it's not the worst problem for birds, anything that makes the situation worse needs to be looked into.
Yes, it's a concern, which is why the environmental impact surveys cover that issue thoroughly before going on with the project. Because of that, the problem is now far less significant than people seem to give credit.