Apple's 'Fanatical' Attention to Detail Revealed in Apple Campus 2 Report

[macs4nw]

With tolerances being the "distance materials may deviate from desired measurement", as the article mentions, why is it an issue to be more exact? If a desired measurement is what's actually desired then coming as close as possible to it would be desirable, right?

I can't argue with that statement. Technically, you are 100% correct, the more precise the measurements are, the better of course. And that would be a good thing if we were talking about delicate electronic equipment.

There's nothing wrong with coming as close as possible to a 'desired measurement', but that by itself is a flexible term and a 'goalpost' that seems to have been moved significantly by Apple.

To request tolerances "far less" than ⅛ of an inch throughout a building complex of that magnitude, aside from being borderline anal, would not only add to overall cost, but would require a more highly skilled workforce, while one would have to scrutinize every inch of the building at very close range to even notice the difference.

At the same time such building practices would be leaving less leeway for normal movement of the structural components of the building, to let it 'breathe'. I'd even venture to say that in the vast majority of cases the difference between tolerances of ⅛ and 1/16 or 1/32 of an inch would, for all intents and purposes, be mostly unnoticeable to the naked eye.

But hey, they've got the resources and are free to spend them anyway they see fit. When you're sitting on $200 billion, what's $5 billion for a spectacular new HQ?

 

[theluggage]

At the same time such building practices would be leaving less leeway for normal movement of the structural components of the building, to let it 'breathe'.

I Am Not An Architect but surely we have two different things here:

- the tolerances to within which measurements match the plan
- intentional gaps and clearances included in the plan to allow for movement, expansion, contraction etc.

E.g. (can't be bothered to make up realistic measurements so don't nitpick) if you have a doorway specced at

doorway: 1000mm +/- 2mm wide, door 990mm +/- 2mm wide (leaving 5mm clearance either side),

you can reduce the tolerances and have a spec of:

doorway: 1000mm +/- 0.5mm wide, door: 990mm +/- 0.5mm

...and still have 5mm clearance either side.

In fact, the old clearance had to assume that, potentially, the door could be up to 2mm too wide and the doorway 2mm too narrow, so with tighter tolerances you can also reduce the designed-in clearances.

 

[BvizioN]

the ONLY ????



hahahahahahahahahaha in you the tunnelvision is strong...

I didn't say the only company YOU know. I said the only one I know. And believe me, I have tried lot of garbage from others, so please keep the tunelvision for yourself.

 

[C DM]

At the same time such building practices would be leaving less leeway for normal movement of the structural components of the building, to let it 'breathe'.

Well, that would depend on the desired measurements and if they already account for that leeway in that desired number. So having less of a tolerance in being more exact in hitting that desired number would simply mean proving the right amount of planned leeway rather than something that is somewhat more or less and potentially different (even if to a lesser degree) throughout.

 

[VTPete]

I just want an anti-glare screen and focus-follows-mouse.

 

[applezulu]

The funniest part of this for me is the dripping irony of it all. Virtually anything published on this site is inevitably followed by commenters falling all over themselves to assert that Apple has lost its way and Steve Jobs' vision has disappeared from the company. Now we have a report of amped-up demands for exactness in the construction of Apple's new headquarters -even for things that will never be seen. This is totally, absolutely and unequivocally the ghost of Steve Jobs being baked into this building, and yet commenters are falling all over themselves to post about how this is a bad idea, and that the demand for exactness will somehow result in something paradoxically lower in quality. That, to me, is hilarious.

P.S. To revisit the seismic issue: The floating foundation is built to attenuate up to four and half feet of movement in any direction. That means that anything less than the big one will not be felt inside the building. That means that, short of the big one, everything above the foundation exists in a more seismically stable environment than buildings atop standard foundations in other parts of the country. That notwithstanding, I'll bet a dollar to a donut that the eventual unveiling of this building will feature a whole host of other remarkable innovations included to address the geological issues inherent in northern Californian life. Finally, should the big one hit and exceed the considerable capacity of the floating foundation, the need to reset some sticky doors will be of little concern compared to the devastation seen throughout the rest of the Bay Area. At the point anyone cares to remark about the sticky doors, (with the exception of commenters on this website) it won't be schadenfreude, it will be an examination of the comparative benefits of spending the resources to over-engineer buildings constructed in seismically active areas.

 

[IJ Reilly]

And that is based on what exactly? Why might it not be the other way around or, for example, that the architect was discussing another aspect/meaning of tolerance that wasn't the one that was in question?

So you think it's plausible that the architect didn't know how to talk about architecture, but the writer of the article did? If you want to believe something like that, I'm sure nothing I can say will stop you.

 

[C DM]

So you think it's plausible that the architect didn't know how to talk about architecture, but the writer of the article did? If you want to believe something like that, I'm sure nothing I can say will stop you.

Or, as I mentioned, that the architect was talking about a different aspect of tolerances than the one that is in question in relation to what Apple has been doing/requesting. Given that there are different aspects of what tolerance can relate to, and different ones are referred to in the article, at the very least it seems that only an assumption can be made as to which one is really in play. Those assumptions can differ with potentially more than one being plausible given the information at hand.

 

[macs4nw]

Well, that would depend on the desired measurements and if they already account for that leeway in that desired number. So having less of a tolerance in being more exact in hitting that desired number would simply mean proving the right amount of planned leeway rather than something that is somewhat more or less and potentially different (even if to a lesser degree) throughout.

I Am Not An Architect but surely we have two different things here:

- the tolerances to within which measurements match the plan
- intentional gaps and clearances included in the plan to allow for movement, expansion, contraction etc.

E.g. (can't be bothered to make up realistic measurements so don't nitpick) if you have a doorway specced at

doorway: 1000mm +/- 2mm wide, door 990mm +/- 2mm wide (leaving 5mm clearance either side),

you can reduce the tolerances and have a spec of:

doorway: 1000mm +/- 0.5mm wide, door: 990mm +/- 0.5mm

...and still have 5mm clearance either side.

In fact, the old clearance had to assume that, potentially, the door could be up to 2mm too wide and the doorway 2mm too narrow, so with tighter tolerances you can also reduce the designed-in clearances.

No argument or nit-picking with that. Maybe what has crept in here is confusion between measurements and tolerances. My --perhaps mistaken-- takeaway from the article was that Apple, to the chagrin of contractors, had tightened up clearance measurements to unrealistic levels from contractors' perspectives, to achieve a near-flawless fit-and-finish. That would indeed be asking for trouble on any soil.

Merely tightening up tolerances, of measurements that were already adjusted for local conditions and topography, though potentially an expensive proposition, would be an expected thing from Apple, albeit frustrating for the trades, hence the many "clashes with construction realities".

At any rate, once finished, this will be a one-of-a-kind marvel that will have no peers for years to come.

 

[theluggage]

My --perhaps mistaken-- takeaway from the article was that Apple, to the chagrin of contractors, had tightened up clearance measurements to unrealistic levels from contractors' perspectives, to achieve a near-flawless fit-and-finish.

Apple's design experts may be a bit obsessed with thin computers and removing ports, but they're not stupid. I'd also assume that the California (!) building codes have one or two things to say about designing buildings to allow for earth movement...

But as I said, if you demand more accurate measurement, that might allow you to safely cut down on some gaps.

That said, I work in a building that got architecture awards, and the liftshafts still fill with water when it rains...

 

[Flight Plan]

Of course the same person responsible for fixing bugs in iOS is also in charge of supervising construction of the new campus.

Stop discouraging people. Of course, you're right. The people who deign their software and hardware are not the same people who are involved in the campus.

But that doesn't mean he's wrong. In fact, he's right to draw attention to this inconsistent behavior. Apple's attention to minute building features is terribly picky and they are really not requiring the same of their product engineers. If Apple doesn't care to make a real and true enthusiast's version of the Mac Book Pro, then what business do they have to specify the precise molecular structure of their damned doorknobs?

I say Apple is being a bunch of doorknobs. Fix your products!