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.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?
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?