This happens quite often when the second estimate is calculated.
In government projects I've always called the first estimate the Politician's Budget. The second estimate is a mix of the Politician's Budget and the real estimate. The third and final actual end cost just follows along the line that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission.
If you read the article closely you'll discover that what they're portraying as a cost "overrun" is actually an expansion of the project's scope. "Cost overruns are to be expected on large construction projects, and the scale of this one has evolved—from an initial plan to accommodate 6,000 employees, to offices for 12,000 or even 13,000 in one place." So the project was intentionally doubled in size to accommodate more people but Businessweek is choosing to characterise it as an overrun, as if it was unintentional.
It's stuff like this that gives CEOs pause in building their US presence. Whether it's in the government or in the private sector, stuff never seems to come in on budget or on time.
A 67% budget balloon, if true, is absolutely ridiculous.
You obviously didn't read the article because it's because of the CEO's wishes that the costs are ballooning. Jobs wanted specific products, wanted it to built in a non-efficient way, wanted it spit and polished, and to higher standards than normal (drywall or wall products had to be 1/32" apart instead of 1/8").
I think he did go a bit overboard, but then, considering they have over a $100 Billion, what's a measly $5 Billion. Banks probably spend that amount or more on alot of their skyscraper headquarters.
Instagram was acquired for $1B. Motorola, $8B. Skype, $12B. A state of the art HQ for the most successful company on the planet is worth every penny.
You forgot the mother of them all: Autonomy by HP for $11B (of which $8.8B was promptly written off; this coming on the heels of $8B in EDS's value being written off by HP in 2008)!
I think the US Dept of Energy has a better track record.....
You obviously didn't read the article because it's because of the CEO's wishes that the costs are ballooning. Jobs wanted specific products, wanted it to built in a non-efficient way, wanted it spit and polished, and to higher standards than normal (drywall or wall products had to be 1/32" apart instead of 1/8").
I think he did go a bit overboard, but then, considering they have over a $100 Billion, what's a measly $5 Billion. Banks probably spend that amount or more on alot of their skyscraper headquarters.
You obviously didn't understand what I wrote.
CEOs come up with investment plans based on estimates of what they think it will cost. Not based on what they think it will cost + 67%.
I'd be fine with them spending yet another two billion if they manage to grab those apartments, get the full plot, and redesign the main building to be the TRUE original vision.
It seems clear to me that Jobs' intimations of his own mortality overlapped somewhere in the conception and design of the new campus - and while it should be a functional structure, its aesthetic overspeccing is a metaphorical pyramid/memorial ("seamless," "all curved," the heartwood of specific maples, the transplantation of mature trees [to look "finished" as soon as built], etc.).
I read a comment somewhere that alluded to some zen/buddhist "circle" completion in reference to the video of Jobs' proposal of the new campus to the Cupertino City Council ( if anyone hasn't seen it) but can't find it, and they had a term for it. Was it this?
I read a comment somewhere that alluded to some zen/buddhist "circle" completion in reference to the video of Jobs' proposal of the new campus to the Cupertino City Council ( if anyone hasn't seen it) but can't find it, and they had a term for it. Was it this?
Shit, man, they haven't started building it yet and the price has supposedly gone up dramatically. Most likely by the time they are done it will be $ 7 billion +.
If I was on the board and this report was true I'd be very very concerned.
Consider that these things often present an incomplete picture. Either proposal would have line items and costs associated with them as well as further detail. I really don't know what changed. I can understand the board being concerned about cost, but the article mentions that they were looking at things to cut.
I would rather they spend the 2 Billion more to adhere to Job's standard. And 12,000 workers are a relatively small size comparing to Google. They have more that that just for engineers.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
This happens quite often when the second estimate is calculated.
In government projects I've always called the first estimate the Politician's Budget. The second estimate is a mix of the Politician's Budget and the real estimate. The third and final actual end cost just follows along the line that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission.
LOL! Amen.
If you read the article closely you'll discover that what they're portraying as a cost "overrun" is actually an expansion of the project's scope. "Cost overruns are to be expected on large construction projects, and the scale of this one has evolved—from an initial plan to accommodate 6,000 employees, to offices for 12,000 or even 13,000 in one place." So the project was intentionally doubled in size to accommodate more people but Businessweek is choosing to characterise it as an overrun, as if it was unintentional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
It's stuff like this that gives CEOs pause in building their US presence. Whether it's in the government or in the private sector, stuff never seems to come in on budget or on time.
A 67% budget balloon, if true, is absolutely ridiculous.
You obviously didn't read the article because it's because of the CEO's wishes that the costs are ballooning. Jobs wanted specific products, wanted it to built in a non-efficient way, wanted it spit and polished, and to higher standards than normal (drywall or wall products had to be 1/32" apart instead of 1/8").
I think he did go a bit overboard, but then, considering they have over a $100 Billion, what's a measly $5 Billion. Banks probably spend that amount or more on alot of their skyscraper headquarters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Instagram was acquired for $1B. Motorola, $8B. Skype, $12B. A state of the art HQ for the most successful company on the planet is worth every penny.
You forgot the mother of them all: Autonomy by HP for $11B (of which $8.8B was promptly written off; this coming on the heels of $8B in EDS's value being written off by HP in 2008)!
I think the US Dept of Energy has a better track record.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard
You obviously didn't read the article because it's because of the CEO's wishes that the costs are ballooning. Jobs wanted specific products, wanted it to built in a non-efficient way, wanted it spit and polished, and to higher standards than normal (drywall or wall products had to be 1/32" apart instead of 1/8").
I think he did go a bit overboard, but then, considering they have over a $100 Billion, what's a measly $5 Billion. Banks probably spend that amount or more on alot of their skyscraper headquarters.
You obviously didn't understand what I wrote.
CEOs come up with investment plans based on estimates of what they think it will cost. Not based on what they think it will cost + 67%.
I'd be fine with them spending yet another two billion if they manage to grab those apartments, get the full plot, and redesign the main building to be the TRUE original vision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics
It seems clear to me that Jobs' intimations of his own mortality overlapped somewhere in the conception and design of the new campus - and while it should be a functional structure, its aesthetic overspeccing is a metaphorical pyramid/memorial ("seamless," "all curved," the heartwood of specific maples, the transplantation of mature trees [to look "finished" as soon as built], etc.).
I read a comment somewhere that alluded to some zen/buddhist "circle" completion in reference to the video of Jobs' proposal of the new campus to the Cupertino City Council (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ens? ?
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa?s?ra_(Buddhism) ?
Originally Posted by 76roea
This "spaceship" campus will be the downfall of Apple. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from this ridiculous expense.
Never having to pay for building rental again
Having the space to expand in the future without building or buying new buildings
Having the entire Cupertino operation together in two, fully-owned complexes a short drive away from each other instead of scattered around the region
Being able to collaborate more easily given that nearly everyone is under one roof
Reclamation of concrete for foliage
Beautification of industrial park and surrounding area
Increased morale from all of the above
Yeah, you certainly know anything at all about what you're saying¡
Wish we could just dump these fools right off the bat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastasleep
I read a comment somewhere that alluded to some zen/buddhist "circle" completion in reference to the video of Jobs' proposal of the new campus to the Cupertino City Council (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ens? ?
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa?s?ra_(Buddhism) ?
Here's the closest I can find — good synopsis of the idea anyway:
http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/29794
Consider that these things often present an incomplete picture. Either proposal would have line items and costs associated with them as well as further detail. I really don't know what changed. I can understand the board being concerned about cost, but the article mentions that they were looking at things to cut.
The REAL reason for the cost over-run?..
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/apple-doughnut-is-giant-ouija-board-2013040564832
A 67% budget balloon, if true, is absolutely ridiculous.
[/quote]
PEANUTS 4 Apple
And of course, the Burj Khalifa was built by Samsung construction. Maybe Apple should hire Samsung Engineering & Construction Group instead.