ajq@mace.cc.purdue.edu (John O'Malley) (10/24/89)
This is perhaps a silly question, but why does a cash-rich company like Apple rent space in 50 different buildings around Cupertino? Why doesn't Apple just build one or two big buildings and move everyone into one place? In the long run, wouldn't that offer tremendous advantages and actually save them money? Just curious. -John --- John O'Malley / Macintosh / Purdue University / (317) ajq@mace.cc.purdue.edu / Specialist / Computing Center / 494-1787
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/24/89)
>Why doesn't Apple just build one or two big buildings and move everyone >into one place? In the long run, wouldn't that offer tremendous advantages >and actually save them money? Well, I'm certainly not an Apple spokesman on this, but here's why I think this is a bad idea: 1) There is simply no space to build really large buildings in the Cupertino area. 2) Cupertino doesn't have the infrastructure to support skyscrapers (which would be the kind of building necessary for this) and doesn't want it, either (I don't blame them...) 3) To build enough really large buildings to handle the 8,000 or so people we have, we'd have to leave Cupertino and go to some other area. Apple's roots are here, we don't want to leave.... 4) Really large buildings tend to be unfriendly, sterile places to work. Not fun. I've worked in skyscrapers (in Los Angeles). No thanks. The reason Apple does what it does is because it puts the environment of it's people and area above pure efficiency. And many of those 'efficiencies' are, in my mind, false ones -- sure, you can cut down on things like security guards and hallway square footage, but you also turn the company from a series of close, intimate groups of people working together into a large, faceless conglomerate where you're in a building with 1,000 other people and know none of them. Huge buildings go against the enviroment that makes Apple special. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Trust Mama Nature to remind us just how important things like sci.aquaria's name really is in the scheme of things.
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (10/26/89)
In article <35875@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >Why doesn't Apple just build one or two big buildings and move everyone > >into one place? In the long run, wouldn't that offer tremendous advantages > >and actually save them money? > > Well, I'm certainly not an Apple spokesman on this, but here's why I think > this is a bad idea: > [...good reasons why one building is a bad idea...] And, you might add, since Apple (like some othr companies) isn't a static entity, a single structure perfectly matching Apple's needs today would be a very bad match by the time it was finished. Building a structure that met some projected future need would not be cost effective now...and likely wouldn't be in the future either, given the accuracy of your typical projections of future growth. I'm sure you could think of some other places that fit this model, right Chuq? :} ------------ "...I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization." - Petronius Arbiter, 210 B.C.
pakhtar@hpisod2.HP.COM (Pervaze Akhtar) (10/27/89)
One might also point out the obvious... What if a natural disaster made the "one" single Apple building unusable? Finding alternate office space for a 8,000 people would seriously hinder their ability to do business.
usenet@convex.UUCP (news access account) (10/27/89)
literally shook to death wasn't so great -- and maybe even centrally locate
such that distribution costs would go down....
From: jarrett@argos.uucp (Mark Jarrett)
Path: argos!jarrett
Sorry -- I just couldn't resist!
Disclaimer: My opinions, only...not the opinions of any company, corporation,
etc. so keep your lawyers busy in divorce court, where they
belong....
MJ