Never enter a deal with Apple. They're smarter than you, have better lawyers, and you'll get screwed eventually.
Alternatively don't miss agreed upon milestones. Another example: Apple and GT Advanced Sapphire factory.
That's exactly what I was going to say. And this was a pretty big deadline miss. It's now 18 months late, and maybe another 18 months away from completion? Entire tech companies can be birthed and buried in those 3 years.
It took them about 11 years to build the replacement for the World Trade Center, but it took about11 months to build the entire Empire State Building, using far more primitive technology. I think that illustrates the problem that Apple faces today.
To be fair, it wasn’t 11 years of construction for the new World Trade Center. It was about 5 years of sorting through issues with the various competing interests with a stake in the building and then 6 years of actual construction work.
I guess I'm not always fair. Is that a requirement to post messages on this website? Am I going to be banned now?
I think both of these comments underscore how complex it is building these days. It’s not just a quick build. You will always have other interests trying to disrupt or shake down builders for one reason or another.
That’s why Rodney Dangerfield’s Back To School movie was spot on when he had to attend Economics class and educate the professor what other costs go into building.
Apple probably will stay but wants to renegotiate the terms in order to do so. It’s not like commercial landlords are martyrs anyway.
Elon Musk built Tesla Giga Shanghai in less than a year.
His Giga factory in Germany is still waiting for permit approvals.
You can take it from there....
Yep you just proved my point. In China there are no other outside interests except for the government and they don’t give a shit about environmental or long term issues. They just want it built and working. Just like how Foxconn runs things.
In Germany, you have their government, the EU, and their own citizens who make and shape rules and laws and that’s why it takes forever to get a battery factory built.
$5Million for a design? $300,000 for a piece of clear glass?
Apple needs to get fully over its design supercedes function obsession.
It did gain some separation from its obsession with thin and light Macs at the expense of functionality. But it needs to do the same for its stores. They are centers for customers to do their research, obtain education, get quality service and, oh yeh, buy products. But NO customer goes to an Apple store to see the pretty glass front.
Yes, image matters. But, as Porsche has proven: "Form [needs to] follow function"
You have an argument when it comes to design/funciton of products. You have less of an argument when it comes to the retail stores. They function to inspire people with the awe of seamless, transparent spaces that seem to be made of light. Another option: throw out the meme of form follows function completelhy. Form follows culture. Porsche has a culture, Apple has a culture, COMPUSA had a culture.
No, the "function" part comes in when stores are so expensive to build (because of extravagant design) that there are not enough to meet the needs of the customers.
The first goal of a retail marketplace should be to meet the needs of the customers. That's the principle that Apple was built on from its earliest days. If it can't do that then it doesn't matter how pretty it looks.
As I mentioned: the functions of an Apple store are to: educate the customer, provide a base to research products, support the customer and the products, and to sell product. To do that they need to be available to the customer. A handful of very expensive stores do not do that.
By the way, if you think Porsche design is chasing after some "culture", you do not understand Porsche.
In truth, Porsche set such a standard that the "culture" is chasing after Porsche -- just as happened with Apple and its products.
Obviously knows something about the needs of the customer, considering that it runs one of the most profitable chain of stores. I am not sure what you are trying to say here.
$5Million for a design? $300,000 for a piece of clear glass?
Apple needs to get fully over its design supercedes function obsession.
It did gain some separation from its obsession with thin and light Macs at the expense of functionality. But it needs to do the same for its stores. They are centers for customers to do their research, obtain education, get quality service and, oh yeh, buy products. But NO customer goes to an Apple store to see the pretty glass front.
Yes, image matters. But, as Porsche has proven: "Form [needs to] follow function"
You have an argument when it comes to design/funciton of products. You have less of an argument when it comes to the retail stores. They function to inspire people with the awe of seamless, transparent spaces that seem to be made of light. Another option: throw out the meme of form follows function completelhy. Form follows culture. Porsche has a culture, Apple has a culture, COMPUSA had a culture.
No, the "function" part comes in when stores are so expensive to build (because of extravagant design) that there are not enough to meet the needs of the customers.
The first goal of a retail marketplace should be to meet the needs of the customers. That's the principle that Apple was built on from its earliest days. If it can't do that then it doesn't matter how pretty it looks.
As I mentioned: the functions of an Apple store are to: educate the customer, provide a base to research products, support the customer and the products, and to sell product. To do that they need to be available to the customer. A handful of very expensive stores do not do that.
By the way, if you think Porsche design is chasing after some "culture", you do not understand Porsche.
In truth, Porsche set such a standard that the "culture" is chasing after Porsche -- just as happened with Apple and its products.
Obviously knows something about the needs of the customer, considering that it runs one of the most profitable chain of stores. I am not sure what you are trying to say here.
To be honest, I am surprised to see this comment from you. I thought you would be able to relate to his comment, more than anyone else in this forum. If I remember correctly, you are from India (I am from India too) where Apple stores do not exist for any of Apple's customers. There is only 1 in Mumbai which should have opened last year, but it is delayed. And Apple is planning to open another one in Delhi as well. But Apple retail stores are not available, won't be available/accessible for majority of the Apple's customers in India for the foreseeable future.
George's point is - Apple should spend less money on building each store and rather spend that money to build more stores worldwide. For example, Instead of spending $10 million to build each store, they would be better off spending $1 million each on 10X stores. And that way, they would be able to serve much more customers at same cost. I am just making up numbers to make the point, please do not get hung up on those numbers. I agree completely with George on this point.
Never enter a deal with Apple. They're smarter than you, have better lawyers, and you'll get screwed eventually.
Alternatively don't miss agreed upon milestones. Another example: Apple and GT Advanced Sapphire factory.
That's exactly what I was going to say. And this was a pretty big deadline miss. It's now 18 months late, and maybe another 18 months away from completion? Entire tech companies can be birthed and buried in those 3 years.
It took them about 11 years to build the replacement for the World Trade Center, but it took about11 months to build the entire Empire State Building, using far more primitive technology. I think that illustrates the problem that Apple faces today.
To be fair, it wasn’t 11 years of construction for the new World Trade Center. It was about 5 years of sorting through issues with the various competing interests with a stake in the building and then 6 years of actual construction work.
I guess I'm not always fair. Is that a requirement to post messages on this website? Am I going to be banned now?
I think both of these comments underscore how complex it is building these days. It’s not just a quick build. You will always have other interests trying to disrupt or shake down builders for one reason or another.
That’s why Rodney Dangerfield’s Back To School movie was spot on when he had to attend Economics class and educate the professor what other costs go into building.
Apple probably will stay but wants to renegotiate the terms in order to do so. It’s not like commercial landlords are martyrs anyway.
Elon Musk built Tesla Giga Shanghai in less than a year.
His Giga factory in Germany is still waiting for permit approvals.
You can take it from there....
Yep you just proved my point. In China there are no other outside interests except for the government and they don’t give a shit about environmental or long term issues. They just want it built and working. Just like how Foxconn runs things.
In Germany, you have their government, the EU, and their own citizens who make and shape rules and laws and that’s why it takes forever to get a battery factory built.
I don't think the facts support your claim that the government runs everything in China nor that it doesn't "give a shit about environmental or long term issues".
In this case, for instance, the government is not building or running Musk's factory.
Nor have they ignored the environment or long term issues. They did, however, cut through the bullshit: Instead of debating endlessly, they chose the right path, the smart path, and proceeded full steam ahead down that path -- which has enabled them to resolve both environmental and long term issues by enabling Musk to build environmentally clean cars -- while we continue building smoke belching Monster Trucks.
$5Million for a design? $300,000 for a piece of clear glass?
Apple needs to get fully over its design supercedes function obsession.
It did gain some separation from its obsession with thin and light Macs at the expense of functionality. But it needs to do the same for its stores. They are centers for customers to do their research, obtain education, get quality service and, oh yeh, buy products. But NO customer goes to an Apple store to see the pretty glass front.
Yes, image matters. But, as Porsche has proven: "Form [needs to] follow function"
Walmart has great design to sell more products in given space with very low building/design cost, maybe Apple should learn from Walmart.
There was a research few years ago saying Apple sell more value of product per square foot than any store in the US, that included store like Tiffany which sell really expensive rocks. I think it proof apple is doing something right.
$5Million for a design? $300,000 for a piece of clear glass?
Apple needs to get fully over its design supercedes function obsession.
It did gain some separation from its obsession with thin and light Macs at the expense of functionality. But it needs to do the same for its stores. They are centers for customers to do their research, obtain education, get quality service and, oh yeh, buy products. But NO customer goes to an Apple store to see the pretty glass front.
Yes, image matters. But, as Porsche has proven: "Form [needs to] follow function"
Walmart has great design to sell more products in given space with very low building/design cost, maybe Apple should learn from Walmart.
There was a research few years ago saying Apple sell more value of product per square foot than any store in the US, that included store like Tiffany which sell really expensive rocks. I think it proof apple is doing something right.
So, you bounce from $300,000 panes of glass to ultra-cheap. There is, of course, always a middle ground that would allow for more stores for more people.
As for "Apple doing things right": that's only true if you have access to an Apple Store. If you don't, then all the $300,000 panes of glass in world won't fix your problem.
Never enter a deal with Apple. They're smarter than you, have better lawyers, and you'll get screwed eventually.
Alternatively don't miss agreed upon milestones. Another example: Apple and GT Advanced Sapphire factory.
That's exactly what I was going to say. And this was a pretty big deadline miss. It's now 18 months late, and maybe another 18 months away from completion? Entire tech companies can be birthed and buried in those 3 years.
It took them about 11 years to build the replacement for the World Trade Center, but it took about11 months to build the entire Empire State Building, using far more primitive technology. I think that illustrates the problem that Apple faces today.
To be fair, it wasn’t 11 years of construction for the new World Trade Center. It was about 5 years of sorting through issues with the various competing interests with a stake in the building and then 6 years of actual construction work.
I guess I'm not always fair. Is that a requirement to post messages on this website? Am I going to be banned now?
Comments
I am not sure what you are trying to say here.
George's point is - Apple should spend less money on building each store and rather spend that money to build more stores worldwide. For example, Instead of spending $10 million to build each store, they would be better off spending $1 million each on 10X stores. And that way, they would be able to serve much more customers at same cost. I am just making up numbers to make the point, please do not get hung up on those numbers. I agree completely with George on this point.