I think Apple always like to refer to the past, to be guided by fundamental beliefs and principles that has been core to Apple since day one.
The Jobs' garage was rectangular on day one.
I get what you and Soli are saying. I just don't like the design of the new campus. Making a statement with architecture, fashion, or other pretentious display is not something that I admire.
I get what you and Soli are saying. I just don't like the design of the new campus. Making a statement with architecture, fashion, or other pretentious display is not something that I admire.
Others have made this mistake in point of view. It's not entirely for others to admire, it's for the people at Apple to do better work at changing the world. it's not a statement, it's more a part of the mental machinery of doing something new.
Others have made this mistake in point of view. It's not entirely for others to admire, it's for the people at Apple to do better work at changing the world. it's not a statement, it's more a part of the mental machinery of doing something new.
I get what you and Soli are saying. I just don't like the design of the new campus. Making a statement with architecture, fashion, or other pretentious display is not something that I admire.
I think it's folly to presume the core goal is to make some sort of "architecture, fashion, or other pretentious" statement. I see it as Apple needing a new HQ (long overdue, really) and wanting to design the best facility possible to stimulate creativity and to encourage a happier work environment. If anything was done to prove something I'd say it's their efforts to make it as green as possible with solar and fuel cell use but I think that's a hard argument to make to say that's entirely self-serving.
I see it as Apple needing a new HQ (long overdue, really) and wanting to design the best facility possible to stimulate creativity and to encourage a happier work environment.
I don't buy it. It is the same as their all glass store landmarks. It is done for the attention. If it was for the benefit of a happier work environment then they should have done something similar in Austin.
I don't buy it. It is the same as their all glass store landmarks. It is done for the attention. If it was for the benefit of a happier work environment then they should have done something similar in Austin.
Why? Austin isn't their HQ and it's housing a fraction of the people. And why can't their HQ be inspiration to their employees across the world? I don't think that to make the HQ design valid that all their other structures have to be glass enclosed donuts. Their data centers are certainly state of the art projects but I don't see why one would expect those to be glass enclosed donuts either.
Your arguments sound like people that have pooh-poohed pretty much everything Apple ever makes. Using glass instead of plastic for a display was foolish over engineering. Using plastic instead of metal was foolish over engineering. Using milled metal instead of pressed metal was over engineering. Caring about the usability of their OSes and apps are pointless waste of time and not for people that use a real OS. The MBA with its expensive but slow CPU and lack of ODD to cut down on size and weight was foolish over engineering. The AIO design of their iMac was pointless over engineering. The internal design of their Mac Pro was foolish over engineering. Et cetera.
If one can't the see the intrinsic function in the form or design in any of those things then no amount of explanation will make it apparent. This is what Apple has always done and why so many don't get it and then suddenly get it.
Your arguments sound like people that have pooh-poohed pretty much everything Apple ever makes.
Right, but rather tailored such that he's pooh-poohing every building ever built. Anywhere. Under any architectural pretense.
I think what he's demanding is a reason this design works best for Apple, why the building needs to look like this. He wants a justification for the shape, otherwise he wants it to be a featureless rectangular prism.
And that's valid, I guess, but even putting no thought into it whatsoever, I can come up with at least three reasons this design works best for Apple, so I don't think this should have even made it to the "write a post complaining about it" stage.
Right, but rather tailored such that he's pooh-poohing every building ever built. Anywhere. Under any architectural pretense.
I think what he's demanding is a reason this design works best for Apple, why the building needs to look like this. He wants a justification for the shape, otherwise he wants it to be a featureless rectangular prism.
And that's valid, I guess, but even putting no thought into it whatsoever, I can come up with at least three reasons this design works best for Apple, so I don't think this should have even made it to the "write a post complaining about it" stage.
Look at the glass cube in NYC. Imagine if that was just a drag cement box atop the store with door to stairs and elevator down into the basement where the store resides? I can't imagine that would help sell their products. It certainly wouldn't stand out and grab the attention of passerby's. Since when have we decided that making something that is beautiful and functional a bad thing? It's a landmark. Do we have to explain why the Empire State Building exists, too? Does its design not have intrinsic value? Would NYC be a better city if all inspirational design were removed?
Didn't they say that the HQ building's circular shape was partly designed as a way to keep Apple's famous internal security ?
That is, to keep some development groups isolated from others, but next to ones they need to be next to?
--
The biggest fun question everyone has, is why doesn't the pool in the middle have the shape of the Apple logo?
I mean, c'mon. Imagine how much free publicity they'd get from ISS photos from space of the Apple campus with the famous apple with a bite shining up from the middle of the circle!
Why? Austin isn't their HQ and it's housing a fraction of the people. And why can't their HQ be inspiration to their employees across the world? I don't think that to make the HQ design valid that all their other structures have to be glass enclosed donuts. Their data centers are certainly state of the art projects but I don't see why one would expect those to be glass enclosed donuts either.
1/2 is a fraction, true. 6,500 employees in Austin and 13,000 at the new Campus2
Data center workers actually prefer windowless workplaces. It reminds them of their early days when they lived in a basement.
1/2 is a fraction, true. 6,500 employees in Austin and 13,000 at the new Campus2
I thought it was more like 3,000 but being half is still 6,500 less and it's not their HQ. I'm personally excited about this new structure and can't say I've ever cared when companies I follow relocate or add structures, which include Apple's previous developments. If Apple wants me to relocate there to design and install their network running AppleTalk I'll do it for 30% less than I would charge MS, Google or anyone else just so I can see that building.
The round glass is likely the only thing that has a huge premium for the project, unless they insist on having curved steel beams as well. In terms of form, they need a central "quad" either way, and rectangular would likely be too similar to 1 Infinite Loop. There is also something to be said about working in an inspiring environment.
I worked on a building where the curvature of the exposed steel was "value engineered" out, and it really did destroy the beauty of the form. I say good on Apple for making a statement, although as a shareholder I do hope they try to manage costs a little better.
Look at the glass cube in NYC. Imagine if that was just a drag cement box atop the store with door to stairs and elevator down into the basement where the store resides? I can't imagine that would help sell their products. It certainly wouldn't stand out and grab the attention of passerby's. Since when have we decided that making something that is beautiful and functional a bad thing? It's a landmark. Do we have to explain why the Empire State Building exists, too? Does its design not have intrinsic value? Would NYC be a better city if all inspirational design were removed?
If the glass was so essential to selling their products why are the other 300 or so stores not made of glass? The online store is not made of glass. The few glass stores are only in famous tourist destination cities. Is is not an all or nothing situation so I agree that not all Apple buildings should be exactly the same. I just don't like the round designs or the glass designs. To me they are just superfluous. I like Apple computers and devices just fine. My opinion on the building has nothing to do with Apple. I would feel the same way if were a church or a mall or any other building.
If the glass was so essential to selling their products why are the other 300 or so stores not made of glass? The online store is not made of glass. The few glass stores are only in famous tourist destination cities. Is is not an all or nothing situation so I agree that not all Apple buildings should be exactly the same. I just don't like the round designs or the glass designs. To me they are just superfluous. I like Apple computers and devices just fine. My opinion on the building has nothing to do with Apple. I would feel the same way if were a church or a mall or any other building.
Your statement creates a fallacy of composition and speaks against your argument. It's essential because Apple deemed it so. No one said that every Apple Store, physical or virtual, needs to have a physical glass cube entrance to be successful. That is the flagship among flagships store. It is a landmark building that not only markets itself but markets the success of the Apple Store and Apple.
Your opinion of what is necessary and unnecessary in other things is relevant. Do you think clothes that are more tailored or more colourful than others are unnecessary? Do you think your car's paint job outside of a rust protectant is unnecessary? What about many of the inside details? I seem to recall you owning a Mercedes.
Apple's products have always fallen under the "it's unnecessary" blanket for most people and we know Apple has a history of frugality so I think we need to examine from their PoV why they think a landmark structure is in their longterm interest. Remember when they announced the Apple Stores and the pundits blew off the idea citing Gateway, who had shops with no local products to sell and crap stores in cheap, off the beaten path locations, as proof that Apple would fail? Maybe, just maybe, what you might find to be unnecessary is actually quite necessary for what they are trying to do.
Actually I have a BMW, and a Tahoe both painted grey which are my California cars. In Central America I have a white Tundra. My friend owns a Ferrari but it's black. I really dislike red cars so I am glad he choose black. I prefer more subtle styling which is why I usually dress very similar to how Jobs himself dressed sans the mock turtle neck. It seems odd to me that SJ would have these apparent conflicting design preferences between his simple attire and his over the top architecture. But he was a complex guy I guess.
I say good on Apple for making a statement, although as a shareholder I do hope they try to manage costs a little better.
A lot of people think they own part of a company because they are a shareholder. Actually you probably don't even own the paper the share certificate is printed on. Your broker will go buy a piece of paper for you if you decide you want to frame it on your wall, otherwise he has already sold your share to someone else. The only time a shareholder has any ownership of a company (typical publicly traded) is if the company goes bankrupt and the assets are liquidated. Even then, shareholders are usually left holding worthless paper as the other creditors get paid first.
So it really doesn't affect you if Apple uses their cash to do something unrelated to their sales revenues and profits which are pretty much the only things that investment brokers look at when valuing the share price. You own the shares so you can hopefully resell them for a profit later but it has almost nothing to do with the value of the company as we have recently witnessed with the collapse of Apple stock price. The company's assets are still the same but the share price has fallen by some 40 percent.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
I think Apple always like to refer to the past, to be guided by fundamental beliefs and principles that has been core to Apple since day one.
The Jobs' garage was rectangular on day one.
I get what you and Soli are saying. I just don't like the design of the new campus. Making a statement with architecture, fashion, or other pretentious display is not something that I admire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Everything sucks, everything is crap, nothing is worth the price, every action has an ulterior motive, the whole world sucks.
I used to suffer from this myself. It is a poor way to live.
Others have made this mistake in point of view. It's not entirely for others to admire, it's for the people at Apple to do better work at changing the world. it's not a statement, it's more a part of the mental machinery of doing something new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Jonathan Ive could pull his own house right up and move in. He'd be right at home!
I thought he had a British car :
(thanks for the scoopertino link, by the way !)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Others have made this mistake in point of view. It's not entirely for others to admire, it's for the people at Apple to do better work at changing the world. it's not a statement, it's more a part of the mental machinery of doing something new.
The spaceship is real. Now eat your pudding.
Yeah, yeah. I don't think you're getting it.
Since you probably can't get acid where you are, you should eat your mushrooms. Medicine for those who lack Jobsvision.
I think it's folly to presume the core goal is to make some sort of "architecture, fashion, or other pretentious" statement. I see it as Apple needing a new HQ (long overdue, really) and wanting to design the best facility possible to stimulate creativity and to encourage a happier work environment. If anything was done to prove something I'd say it's their efforts to make it as green as possible with solar and fuel cell use but I think that's a hard argument to make to say that's entirely self-serving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I see it as Apple needing a new HQ (long overdue, really) and wanting to design the best facility possible to stimulate creativity and to encourage a happier work environment.
I don't buy it. It is the same as their all glass store landmarks. It is done for the attention. If it was for the benefit of a happier work environment then they should have done something similar in Austin.
Why? Austin isn't their HQ and it's housing a fraction of the people. And why can't their HQ be inspiration to their employees across the world? I don't think that to make the HQ design valid that all their other structures have to be glass enclosed donuts. Their data centers are certainly state of the art projects but I don't see why one would expect those to be glass enclosed donuts either.
Your arguments sound like people that have pooh-poohed pretty much everything Apple ever makes. Using glass instead of plastic for a display was foolish over engineering. Using plastic instead of metal was foolish over engineering. Using milled metal instead of pressed metal was over engineering. Caring about the usability of their OSes and apps are pointless waste of time and not for people that use a real OS. The MBA with its expensive but slow CPU and lack of ODD to cut down on size and weight was foolish over engineering. The AIO design of their iMac was pointless over engineering. The internal design of their Mac Pro was foolish over engineering. Et cetera.
If one can't the see the intrinsic function in the form or design in any of those things then no amount of explanation will make it apparent. This is what Apple has always done and why so many don't get it and then suddenly get it.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Your arguments sound like people that have pooh-poohed pretty much everything Apple ever makes.
Right, but rather tailored such that he's pooh-poohing every building ever built. Anywhere. Under any architectural pretense.
I think what he's demanding is a reason this design works best for Apple, why the building needs to look like this. He wants a justification for the shape, otherwise he wants it to be a featureless rectangular prism.
And that's valid, I guess, but even putting no thought into it whatsoever, I can come up with at least three reasons this design works best for Apple, so I don't think this should have even made it to the "write a post complaining about it" stage.
Look at the glass cube in NYC. Imagine if that was just a drag cement box atop the store with door to stairs and elevator down into the basement where the store resides? I can't imagine that would help sell their products. It certainly wouldn't stand out and grab the attention of passerby's. Since when have we decided that making something that is beautiful and functional a bad thing? It's a landmark. Do we have to explain why the Empire State Building exists, too? Does its design not have intrinsic value? Would NYC be a better city if all inspirational design were removed?
Eh, no.
"Just an office building" would just sit there.
This bastard flies.
Didn't they say that the HQ building's circular shape was partly designed as a way to keep Apple's famous internal security ?
That is, to keep some development groups isolated from others, but next to ones they need to be next to?
--
The biggest fun question everyone has, is why doesn't the pool in the middle have the shape of the Apple logo?
I mean, c'mon. Imagine how much free publicity they'd get from ISS photos from space of the Apple campus with the famous apple with a bite shining up from the middle of the circle!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Why? Austin isn't their HQ and it's housing a fraction of the people. And why can't their HQ be inspiration to their employees across the world? I don't think that to make the HQ design valid that all their other structures have to be glass enclosed donuts. Their data centers are certainly state of the art projects but I don't see why one would expect those to be glass enclosed donuts either.
1/2 is a fraction, true. 6,500 employees in Austin and 13,000 at the new Campus2
Data center workers actually prefer windowless workplaces. It reminds them of their early days when they lived in a basement.
I thought it was more like 3,000 but being half is still 6,500 less and it's not their HQ. I'm personally excited about this new structure and can't say I've ever cared when companies I follow relocate or add structures, which include Apple's previous developments. If Apple wants me to relocate there to design and install their network running AppleTalk I'll do it for 30% less than I would charge MS, Google or anyone else just so I can see that building.
I worked on a building where the curvature of the exposed steel was "value engineered" out, and it really did destroy the beauty of the form. I say good on Apple for making a statement, although as a shareholder I do hope they try to manage costs a little better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Look at the glass cube in NYC. Imagine if that was just a drag cement box atop the store with door to stairs and elevator down into the basement where the store resides? I can't imagine that would help sell their products. It certainly wouldn't stand out and grab the attention of passerby's. Since when have we decided that making something that is beautiful and functional a bad thing? It's a landmark. Do we have to explain why the Empire State Building exists, too? Does its design not have intrinsic value? Would NYC be a better city if all inspirational design were removed?
If the glass was so essential to selling their products why are the other 300 or so stores not made of glass? The online store is not made of glass. The few glass stores are only in famous tourist destination cities. Is is not an all or nothing situation so I agree that not all Apple buildings should be exactly the same. I just don't like the round designs or the glass designs. To me they are just superfluous. I like Apple computers and devices just fine. My opinion on the building has nothing to do with Apple. I would feel the same way if were a church or a mall or any other building.
Your statement creates a fallacy of composition and speaks against your argument. It's essential because Apple deemed it so. No one said that every Apple Store, physical or virtual, needs to have a physical glass cube entrance to be successful. That is the flagship among flagships store. It is a landmark building that not only markets itself but markets the success of the Apple Store and Apple.
Your opinion of what is necessary and unnecessary in other things is relevant. Do you think clothes that are more tailored or more colourful than others are unnecessary? Do you think your car's paint job outside of a rust protectant is unnecessary? What about many of the inside details? I seem to recall you owning a Mercedes.
Apple's products have always fallen under the "it's unnecessary" blanket for most people and we know Apple has a history of frugality so I think we need to examine from their PoV why they think a landmark structure is in their longterm interest. Remember when they announced the Apple Stores and the pundits blew off the idea citing Gateway, who had shops with no local products to sell and crap stores in cheap, off the beaten path locations, as proof that Apple would fail? Maybe, just maybe, what you might find to be unnecessary is actually quite necessary for what they are trying to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I seem to recall you owning a Mercedes.
Actually I have a BMW, and a Tahoe both painted grey which are my California cars. In Central America I have a white Tundra. My friend owns a Ferrari but it's black. I really dislike red cars so I am glad he choose black. I prefer more subtle styling which is why I usually dress very similar to how Jobs himself dressed sans the mock turtle neck. It seems odd to me that SJ would have these apparent conflicting design preferences between his simple attire and his over the top architecture. But he was a complex guy I guess.
Edit: I meant Tahoe not Suburban.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh
I say good on Apple for making a statement, although as a shareholder I do hope they try to manage costs a little better.
A lot of people think they own part of a company because they are a shareholder. Actually you probably don't even own the paper the share certificate is printed on. Your broker will go buy a piece of paper for you if you decide you want to frame it on your wall, otherwise he has already sold your share to someone else. The only time a shareholder has any ownership of a company (typical publicly traded) is if the company goes bankrupt and the assets are liquidated. Even then, shareholders are usually left holding worthless paper as the other creditors get paid first.
So it really doesn't affect you if Apple uses their cash to do something unrelated to their sales revenues and profits which are pretty much the only things that investment brokers look at when valuing the share price. You own the shares so you can hopefully resell them for a profit later but it has almost nothing to do with the value of the company as we have recently witnessed with the collapse of Apple stock price. The company's assets are still the same but the share price has fallen by some 40 percent.