That's not what 'seamless' means. The previous poster said that Apple claimed the panes were seamless. That's easy. The panes in your windows are probably seamless, too.
No one claimed that the structure as a whole would be seamless. Such a claim would be wrong. There ARE seams - whether the panels are framed or not is an entirely different issue.
You used too many words. The trolls will get confused.
Panes = seamless
Structure = seams
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
- but there is a pretty good reason for marking clear glass when used as a door, or if it is in the direct path of foot traffic. Have you ever walked into a glass door? Fun to watch, perhaps but not really fun to do. I'd imagine Apple would rather fence the cube in than stick fat red stripes and warnings all over it.
Arent they large and thick enough that enough light refracts? Maybe there are some animals that can't tell it's there but I'd think humans would be able to see it just fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408
It does not make any sense whatsoever that Steve Jobs personally owns and had the cube built with his own money.
What was he able to achieve with personal funding that couldn't be achieved using corporate cash? Are his ashes going to be entombed in the floating Apple?
I could see him wanting credit for the idea so choosing to pay for it himself, but you (and paxman on a previous thread) of why he wouldn't have been forced to to get it built.
PS: A guy wants to break it with porcelain caps from spark plugs? Where do these people come from and how can I avoid them?
I liked it better before, as well. The original's panes were like the facets of a diamond, catching the light and making it sparkly. This is lackluster, in comparison.
It does not make any sense whatsoever that Steve Jobs personally owns and had the cube built with his own money.
What was he able to achieve with personal funding that couldn't be achieved using corporate cash? Are his ashes going to be entombed in the floating Apple?
It was probably because Apple's money is not his money. Arbitrarily just replacing the glass to have a cleaner appearance would probably would have been viewed as a waste of company resources and not be approved.
If their must be separate pieces of glass maybe it's a better visual impact for the pieces to also be squares to match the overall structure – even if it means more pieces.
However, without any horizontal seams on its sides, there's a less-obstucted view of the hanging Apple logo.
Arent they large and thick enough that enough light refracts? Maybe there are some animals that can't tell it's there but I'd think humans would be able to see it just fine.
Yes and no. Glass doors are really hard to see. Lots of people can attest to this as is also demonstrated in the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Pr70iTug_k. I think this is partly to do with the fact that you tend to look where you are going, and so see right through the door. A degree of absent mindedness won't help! I think a glass wall is a little different because what is on the other side is not likely to be a continuation of the path you are on.
But there are a lot of people out there with less than perfect eyesight. This is why public glass doors in the UK, and I am sure most other places, are required to have markings to let you know you are about to hit a wall... err, door.
I'm glad they were able to build this in NYC. Because they'd never be able to build it in CA with the seismic standards. Ron Johnson is right about how the building integrates with the GM building in the background. While the new cube is a much cleaner design, it seems to have lost its sense of scale. Maybe that's the point, to diminish the scale of the structure so that it almost isn't there.
It does not make any sense whatsoever that Steve Jobs personally owns and had the cube built with his own money.
What was he able to achieve with personal funding that couldn't be achieved using corporate cash? Are his ashes going to be entombed in the floating Apple?
I think the story is that the Board refused to approve the $ millions necessary to build the original cube, so Steve decided to spend the money himself because he felt so strongly about it.
On one hand, I sort of agree with the Board (assuming the story is accurate) that it was excessive. On the other, that space, especially because it's underground, had always been kind of awful before Apple took it over. Retail there (aside perhaps from the FAO Schwartz store) always failed. It needed focus and a point of interest and they cube provided that and that space is now active and lively 24 hours a day. The cube quickly became iconic and such branding was cheap at the price - it's actually a tourist attraction and people take photos in front of it all the time. Now whether it really needed to be replaced is completely another matter and I wonder whether the replacement would have happened if it was being considered today by Apple's current management team. Hopefully, the glass that came down gets recycled into another structure, Apple's or otherwise.
Frankly, I don't find the interior of Apple stores to be that special anymore. The whole parsons table thing has gotten kind of old for me. But the exteriors of some of their stores (certainly not all) like the Fifth Avenue store and the Lincoln Center store have definitely improved their neighborhoods. And while Apple probably didn't plan it this way, the architecture of the Lincoln Center store fits very well with the renovated Lincoln Center buildings just south of it, where the WNET-13 studios and the cafe with public space reside, which also use large amounts of unframed glass.
Looks less "iconic" IMO. Maybe I would think differently if I was standing next to it.
Side note: the term "iconic" is way over used these days. But since it has been used constantly for the original design I use the term for comparison purposes.
That's not what 'seamless' means. The previous poster said that Apple claimed the panes were seamless. That's easy. The panes in your windows are probably seamless, too.
No one claimed that the structure as a whole would be seamless. Such a claim would be wrong. There ARE seams - whether the panels are framed or not is an entirely different issue.
I believe we were talking about the vertical wall panels.
My understanding of "seamless glass panels" is that the panels are held at the top and that there are no connectors holding them together down the sides. Similar to the seamless glass panels used in hockey arenas today vs the older 'framed' panels of yesteryear.
Get over yourself. You never lined up dominoes and knocked em down? You never built a house of cards and knocked it over? You never built a sandcastle and then smashed it?
Learn to lighten up and have some fun. Relax and that stick might slide out!
They didn't say it was a seamless cube, but that it was made up if larger panes of seamless glass. Often glass cast that large has contiguous imperfections people perceive as seams, even those imperfections aren't actually seams.
Making LARGE panels of optically unblemished tempered glass is not easy and the panels of the cube look to be 24'+ long, 8'+ wide. Most everyone else would be happy with panels 1/3 that size with wavy optical blemishes in them, then hide the blemishes with lighting control or limiting the nominal standing distances you can look through the glass.
Get over yourself. You never lined up dominoes and knocked em down? You never built a house of cards and knocked it over? You never built a sandcastle and then smashed it?
Learn to lighten up and have some fun. Relax and that stick might slide out!
Dude, he was joking, alright? Geez... Get some help.
Comments
That's not what 'seamless' means. The previous poster said that Apple claimed the panes were seamless. That's easy. The panes in your windows are probably seamless, too.
No one claimed that the structure as a whole would be seamless. Such a claim would be wrong. There ARE seams - whether the panels are framed or not is an entirely different issue.
You used too many words. The trolls will get confused.
Panes = seamless
Structure = seams
It hurts to walk into a glass door. Specially when you are naked
Arent they large and thick enough that enough light refracts? Maybe there are some animals that can't tell it's there but I'd think humans would be able to see it just fine.
It does not make any sense whatsoever that Steve Jobs personally owns and had the cube built with his own money.
What was he able to achieve with personal funding that couldn't be achieved using corporate cash? Are his ashes going to be entombed in the floating Apple?
I could see him wanting credit for the idea so choosing to pay for it himself, but you (and paxman on a previous thread) of why he wouldn't have been forced to to get it built.
PS: A guy wants to break it with porcelain caps from spark plugs? Where do these people come from and how can I avoid them?
+1 Totally agree. I liked it better before.
I liked it better before, as well. The original's panes were like the facets of a diamond, catching the light and making it sparkly. This is lackluster, in comparison.
It does not make any sense whatsoever that Steve Jobs personally owns and had the cube built with his own money.
What was he able to achieve with personal funding that couldn't be achieved using corporate cash? Are his ashes going to be entombed in the floating Apple?
It was probably because Apple's money is not his money. Arbitrarily just replacing the glass to have a cleaner appearance would probably would have been viewed as a waste of company resources and not be approved.
However, without any horizontal seams on its sides, there's a less-obstucted view of the hanging Apple logo.
Arent they large and thick enough that enough light refracts? Maybe there are some animals that can't tell it's there but I'd think humans would be able to see it just fine.
Yes and no. Glass doors are really hard to see. Lots of people can attest to this as is also demonstrated in the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Pr70iTug_k. I think this is partly to do with the fact that you tend to look where you are going, and so see right through the door. A degree of absent mindedness won't help! I think a glass wall is a little different because what is on the other side is not likely to be a continuation of the path you are on.
But there are a lot of people out there with less than perfect eyesight. This is why public glass doors in the UK, and I am sure most other places, are required to have markings to let you know you are about to hit a wall... err, door.
No, it's not hard to tell what words mean - unless you're a troll.
The panes are clearly seamless. The cube (or even each individual face) is not.
From: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...lass_cube.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple
"By using larger, seamless pieces of glass, we're using just 15 panes instead of 90."
I'm glad that they are not using those smaller, seam-filled pieces of glass, but instead, are using larger, seamless pieces of glass.
It all makes perfect sense.
After all, my response was to the contention the "The panes are seamless. Which simply means they are not framed or connected to each other. "
The old cube did not have panes which were either framed or connected to each other, so that too must have had seamless panes.
Skip
...so that too must have had seamless panes.
I think someone may have caught on.
The manager of each store should wear long white robes and carry a staff with a miniature replica of the glass cube on the top.
Hey Prof! Congratulations on the most obscure reference I've ever seen here!
If I remember my Future History correctly that will happen The Day After Tomorrow.
Don't let the sub-sonics get you down.
It does not make any sense whatsoever that Steve Jobs personally owns and had the cube built with his own money.
What was he able to achieve with personal funding that couldn't be achieved using corporate cash? Are his ashes going to be entombed in the floating Apple?
I think the story is that the Board refused to approve the $ millions necessary to build the original cube, so Steve decided to spend the money himself because he felt so strongly about it.
On one hand, I sort of agree with the Board (assuming the story is accurate) that it was excessive. On the other, that space, especially because it's underground, had always been kind of awful before Apple took it over. Retail there (aside perhaps from the FAO Schwartz store) always failed. It needed focus and a point of interest and they cube provided that and that space is now active and lively 24 hours a day. The cube quickly became iconic and such branding was cheap at the price - it's actually a tourist attraction and people take photos in front of it all the time. Now whether it really needed to be replaced is completely another matter and I wonder whether the replacement would have happened if it was being considered today by Apple's current management team. Hopefully, the glass that came down gets recycled into another structure, Apple's or otherwise.
Frankly, I don't find the interior of Apple stores to be that special anymore. The whole parsons table thing has gotten kind of old for me. But the exteriors of some of their stores (certainly not all) like the Fifth Avenue store and the Lincoln Center store have definitely improved their neighborhoods. And while Apple probably didn't plan it this way, the architecture of the Lincoln Center store fits very well with the renovated Lincoln Center buildings just south of it, where the WNET-13 studios and the cafe with public space reside, which also use large amounts of unframed glass.
Side note: the term "iconic" is way over used these days. But since it has been used constantly for the original design I use the term for comparison purposes.
Looks less "iconic" IMO. Maybe I would think differently if I was standing next to it.
I imagine if it were technically possible to build a glass entrance very similar to this, Steve probably would have --
That's not what 'seamless' means. The previous poster said that Apple claimed the panes were seamless. That's easy. The panes in your windows are probably seamless, too.
No one claimed that the structure as a whole would be seamless. Such a claim would be wrong. There ARE seams - whether the panels are framed or not is an entirely different issue.
I believe we were talking about the vertical wall panels.
My understanding of "seamless glass panels" is that the panels are held at the top and that there are no connectors holding them together down the sides. Similar to the seamless glass panels used in hockey arenas today vs the older 'framed' panels of yesteryear.
Seek help.
Get over yourself. You never lined up dominoes and knocked em down? You never built a house of cards and knocked it over? You never built a sandcastle and then smashed it?
Learn to lighten up and have some fun. Relax and that stick might slide out!
From: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...lass_cube.html
Looks like there are still seams visible.
They didn't say it was a seamless cube, but that it was made up if larger panes of seamless glass. Often glass cast that large has contiguous imperfections people perceive as seams, even those imperfections aren't actually seams.
Making LARGE panels of optically unblemished tempered glass is not easy and the panels of the cube look to be 24'+ long, 8'+ wide. Most everyone else would be happy with panels 1/3 that size with wavy optical blemishes in them, then hide the blemishes with lighting control or limiting the nominal standing distances you can look through the glass.
I think it look cool before with all the panels. Kinda of gave it a sparkly look.
I thought it was cool but visually cluttered.
Get over yourself. You never lined up dominoes and knocked em down? You never built a house of cards and knocked it over? You never built a sandcastle and then smashed it?
Learn to lighten up and have some fun. Relax and that stick might slide out!
Dude, he was joking, alright? Geez... Get some help.