Up here in the Silicon Rainforest, Oregon, too many companies seem to peak about the time they decide to build a massive form over function corporate HQ. I don't think that happens due to companies just reaching a size too big to manage. Rather, I think it makes a statement about the attitudes of the people running the company.
Really, no company ever gets big enough or profitable to stop worrying about expenses. Once opulence becomes important, it's difficult to go back when times get tough.
Let me start by saying the first (and last) Apple product I bought was the original MAC 128. I loved the machine and used it for a great many years. Once it had outlived its usefulness, the x86 PC family was a better buy (when AMD came along that was even better). I think that Apple has done wonderfully, creating and selling products that many people want, this is a wonderful example of corporate success. I am not sure about the practical layout considerations of the HQ but that seems to fit with Apple's quirkiness. Congratulations on an interesting design! I look forward to new and different products in the future.
Mr. Merritt obviously has never worked for a successful company in Silicon Valley. Most, if not all, of those companies need some of their people work very long hours and sacrifice some of their family life for their personal success and for corporate success. They are typically very well rewarded for the sacrifice and do it willingly. I certainly did it willingly and proudly when it was my turn to do it, about a decade or so ago. On the building: it fits well with Apple's philosophy of beautiful, functional, no compromise designs. I am looking forward to see it in 2015.
a circular building seems like an insult to architects everywhere. except from the sky it looks like the most boring thing around. they'll need big signs outside each entrance so you will have any idea your walking in the right place. from the parking lots it will look all the same, a curvy building. you won't even have any idea it's an actual circle, nor what's inside the circle.
not to mention walking around will be a nightmare. the pentagon had major challenges with that, i believe.
10 points for distinctive
2 points for practicality
averaging a 5 out of 10 here.
sad. and there was nothing "veiled" about that threat.
Better put the money into a FAB. Apple is a chip company with more and more IP being transformed from software to system level. Apple's genius is in its vertical integration and its biggest risks and limits come from dependencies on its suppliers FABS. The other side of the same coin is that if the scope of Apple vertical integration can be extended to the clean room there is no telling how far it can be taken.
Excellent article which really highlights the issues of rise and fall of influence, creativity and power, and those of corporate culture and its effect on the broader culture. We need the products which can be provided by such an "engine of creation", but we also need work/life balance in the entire culture, or gadget/spirit balance; artificial/natural environment balance, etc. Your article gets to the heart of much that is critical to life today.
Does this proposed Apple HQ resemble more like modified Pentagon, US DoD HQ, with glass panels?
One query for this structure is what is maximum Richter Scale earthquake can it withstand? How can such huge monolitihc type structure freely oscillate in case of earthquake of 7 or higher magnitude? Do they need to provide space between adjacent arcs for them to freely oscillate in event of earthquake? Without this, damage to structure will be more severe.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.