Photos of Construction Material Hint at Scale of Apple's Spaceship Campus

[shiekh]

... which in the case of this building are insane (1/32" tolerances, etc.). Good luck, guys.

I don't quite understand such tight tolerances; the building needs to be able to flex to accommodate shifts in the ground as it dries or gets wet.

It's not like this problem does not exist for computers as the chips thermally cycle which can fatigue the attaching solder. I lost an iMac and iBook to this problem when the video chip worked loose.

 

[ChrisNH]

Perfect for Segways

Living here in New Hampshire, not far from where the Segway was born, it seems like this is a perfect deployment for a whole bunch of them.

 

[Arran]

I only truely understood the scale of this new campus, after I watched this drone flyover video.

Interesting drone video. Thanks.

 

[jonnysods]

I believe that the number I read was $5 billion.

Wow. Just, wow.

 

[Zab the Fab]

Interesting drone video. Thanks.

Yeah no kidding. It wasn't until I saw that video that I fully understood the scope of this project.
This truely IS a Mothership. Too cool to fly.

 

[SuperCachetes]

In construction, this is what is referred to as a "mockup" wall. I believe MacRumors is familiar with that term...

Required of the contractor in the building specifications, its purpose is to demonstrate to the architect that the fit and finish of all components meets the design criteria, which in the case of this building are insane (1/32" tolerances, etc.). Good luck, guys.

In this case, because it's Apple (and Sir Norman), the priority might be fit-and-finish, but more importantly, mockups are commonly used for envelope testing and for observing detailing with respect to air/water infiltration, i.e. non-glamorous things like flashing and air barriers. Here they may also be looking at light control via the shading devices as well.

1/32" of an inch isn't really a big deal in construction these days. Tight tolerances are especially desirable with external walls to prevent them from looking wavy and shoddy.

You either aren't really "in construction" or must only work on museums. If it's the latter, I'm jealous.

I've designed buildings that cost $1,100 a square foot, and even then we only got down to 1/16". In typical commercial construction "these days," 1/8" is the norm for dimensioning, but 1/2" for joint and structural steel tolerances are more common. Furthermore, governing bodies and industry agencies allow much more than 1/32" tolerance (out of plumb, variation in dimension over 10' etc), precisely because it doesn't look wavy and shoddy up to that point.

 

[66318]

Seems excessive to me. I wouldn't like it as a shareholder.

That's diverting less then one quarters profit to a building that ensures Apple can continue to grow well.

Thankfully Apple never puts shareholders first, they put their customers first. We are starting to see what increased collaboration at Apple can do with iOS 8 and OS X 10.10 for the customers. This building, and that investment of under a quarters worth of profits will continue to help increase that collaboration. And for shareholders, continue to drive up the value of the stock which seems to be doing pretty good these days.

For now, Apple's core talent group is split between a ton of buildings. Their Infinite Loop campus is tiny compared to all the rest of the office buildings they have acquired and filled around Cupertino. The time savings alone for these groups to work together is worth it.

 

[3282868]

I only truely understood the scale of this new campus, after I watched this drone flyover video

I've been entertaining the idea of purchasing such a drone for film, but I've been too busy to dig my teeth into reviews on video quality, reliability, control, etc. May I ask what you used? The quality is stunning!

 

[Zab the Fab]

I've been entertaining the idea of purchasing such a drone for film, but I've been too busy to dig my teeth into reviews on video quality, reliability, control, etc. May I ask what you used? The quality is stunning!

OH. I did not make this video. I was just amazed when I found it.

 

[slu]

Thankfully Apple never puts shareholders first, they put their customers first.

This is 100% false. And if they ever said this there would be a huge backlash. I may think the spending on this campus is excessive, but Apple obviously think this investment is good for shareholder value or they would not do it. I respectfully disagree with that and think a smaller investment would provide the same value. It does not need to be curved glass for example. That is an unnecessary expense being undertaken just because they can.

 

[Zab the Fab]

... but Apple obviously think this investment is good for shareholder value or they would not do it.

You might recall the only time Tim Cook has shown anger in public, was when an analyst asked about the Solar Farms versus Stock Value. Tim Cook boiled as he attempted to keep calm, replying that he would suggest that anyone who felt Apple should not do the right thing, but only what the stock price wants, should GET OUT OF THE STOCK.

Unfortunately I have not seen any video of this leaked, but it was described quite vividly in the press.

I was amused, and proud, of the iBoss.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Seems excessive to me. I wouldn't like it as a shareholder.

How much should a building cost that has to hold 12,000 employees?

Would shareholders prefer Apple to pay rent for enough space to hold 12,000 employees?

They already rent space in dozens of facilities all over Silicon Valley... and that's why they are building their own massive office.

I guess it's a matter of rent vs buy?

 

[66318]

You might recall the only time Tim Cook has shown anger in public, was when an analyst asked about the Solar Farms versus Stock Value.

He also added during that retort that he's not focused on ROI for things like adding accessibility features to the products either.

My wording of using never was probably off a bit. But Apple's general attitude and actions generally show they prioritize customers above stockholders. Under Cook, they have worked to make shareholders a little happier with the dividends and such which is a change from Jobs.

I appreciate the approach Apple has too. I personally think most companies that prioritizes shareholder value are not good long term investments. They are trying to maximize the next quarters results, often while undercutting long term plans. I've bought Apple hardware not only for the quality it provides today, but knowing they are likely going to be around tomorrow when I want to upgrade offering similar, if not better quality.

As for the new campus, that was Jobs' last big project he helped with. I doubt they are sitting there at Apple today going "we need to cut costs on a building one of our founders helped work on to appease shareholders". Not when they have hundreds of billions in the bank and the cost of this building is a single digit percentage of that.

 

[IJ Reilly]

How much should a building cost that has to hold 12,000 employees?

Would shareholders prefer Apple to pay rent for enough space to hold 12,000 employees?

They already rent space in dozens of facilities all over Silicon Valley... and that's why they are building their own massive office.

I guess it's a matter of rent vs buy?

It isn't a matter of rent vs. buy; it's a question of functional vs. extravagant. Many aspects of this building make no practical sense, and its cost per square foot is over the moon, which is where the building seems to be designed to be viewed.

----------

As for the new campus, that was Jobs' last big project he helped with. I doubt they are sitting there at Apple today going "we need to cut costs on a building one of our founders helped work on to appease shareholders". Not when they have hundreds of billions in the bank and the cost of this building is a single digit percentage of that.

It's pretty clear that this building is all about Steve, but a legacy to a founder is entirely the wrong rationale for the design and construction of a corporate campus. It isn't a matter of appeasing the stockholders. It is much more a matter of the design being extravagant, and what that says about how major decisions are being made. As a longtime stockholder I can only hope this project is a one-off, and isn't the start of a trend.

 

[smithrh]

I will mention here that I've worked for two (at the time) Fortune 50 companies which went on major, almost ridiculous building programs.

One in particular realized they didn't have enough room to house all of their employees plus all of the new employees that they were going to need in the next 20 years. This was true - we were horribly understaffed and people were working out of broom closets and meeting rooms. This was also right before the "work from home" movement, so it was a big problem. Things were going great financially, so the money spent looked like a wise move. We were a Wall Street darling at the time, couldn't do anything wrong.

Vast tracts of land were purchased.

Several very very large buildings were constructed - a couple would compare to Apple's new campus in size (but not shape).

Then, fairly rapidly - but still over the course of a few years - the company made some mis-steps and internal bad decision-making (or lack of making decisions) was exposed. The public and Wall Street went from backers to detractors. The stock price plunged, market share dwindled.

Those buildings that were built? I can't think of a single one still standing or used by the company. They were either sold off, abandoned or simply leveled as they couldn't be sold (management built a few of these monuments in the middle of nowhere. Funny thing, people don't want to commute 90 minutes each way...).

Overall the number of employees went from a (brief) high of 175,000 to around 8500 today.

Now, I don't think Apple's management is on the same level as that company - but there are parallels here which probably have people a bit nervous.

 

[Zab the Fab]

They were even more nervous when Apple started creating the Apple Store chain, in the middle of most others shutting them down.

Apple Inc. - a parallel universe for the rest of us. Laws of gravity do not apply.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I will mention here that I've worked for two (at the time) Fortune 50 companies which went on major, almost ridiculous building programs.

One in particular realized they didn't have enough room to house all of their employees plus all of the new employees that they were going to need in the next 20 years. This was true - we were horribly understaffed and people were working out of broom closets and meeting rooms. This was also right before the "work from home" movement, so it was a big problem. Things were going great financially, so the money spent looked like a wise move. We were a Wall Street darling at the time, couldn't do anything wrong.

Vast tracts of land were purchased.

Several very very large buildings were constructed - a couple would compare to Apple's new campus in size (but not shape).

Then, fairly rapidly - but still over the course of a few years - the company made some mis-steps and internal bad decision-making (or lack of making decisions) was exposed. The public and Wall Street went from backers to detractors. The stock price plunged, market share dwindled.

Those buildings that were built? I can't think of a single one still standing or used by the company. They were either sold off, abandoned or simply leveled as they couldn't be sold (management built a few of these monuments in the middle of nowhere. Funny thing, people don't want to commute 90 minutes each way...).

Overall the number of employees went from a (brief) high of 175,000 to around 8500 today.

Now, I don't think Apple's management is on the same level as that company - but there are parallels here which probably have people a bit nervous.

In these cases, the construction of large and costly corporate HQs did not in themselves cause the companies to fail or downsize. Those were the result of market issues and poor business decisions. Apple was able to buy a bunch of tear-downs from HP because HP isn't the company it once was, but I'm sure HP thought they'd need those buildings forever. Apple needs the space for their current employees and future businesses, clearly, but the building they are creating is of more symbolic than practical value. If it needs to be expanded or adapted for different business conditions 30 years from now, how is that going to work? The ring plan is perhaps the most inextensible conceivable. Even as corporate image it doesn't really work. Nobody who doesn't have business there or can fly over it is even going to see it. It has so many obvious problems we have to know that it was conceived as an act of corporate egotism, and that kind of thing hardly ever works out well in the long run.

----------

They were even more nervous when Apple started creating the Apple Store chain, in the middle of most others shutting them down.

Apple Inc. - a parallel universe for the rest of us. Laws of gravity do not apply.

Ah, but they do. The stores had to make money, which they do, by the bucket full, and that is how their success is measured. The corporate HQ is entirely different. The king builds a palace to make him happy, to show the world how great and power he is. That decision transcends business, and whenever a business makes expensive commitments that don't seem to have any payoff, then you have to worry at least a little.