Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Look Inside Apple’s New Campus

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 440 posts

Re: A Look Inside Apple’s New Campus

#131

Post by csomar »

matsemann wrote: post #36

I'd wish they were a bit more futuristic than having 9000 parking spaces. Why not offer buses from where their employees live or other means of transportation? It's easy to say that most people drive, but that's only because everyone always make that the most convenient mode of transportation. With some effort something else could be even more convenient.

No offense but I hear this a lot "Why not public transportation?" Well, why not a car if people wanted to have a car? With Tesla and new E.V.s hitting the market, the primary reason (pollution) is gone.

Re: A Look Inside Apple’s New Campus

#132

Post by djtriptych »

jonknee wrote: post #112
djtriptych wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember that they're in one of the sunniest places in the US (at least during the summer) and are supposedly 100% self-contained renewable energy. Energy costs are typically, and by far, the lion's share of the operating costs of a major building like this.

There is a difference between sunny and hot. Cupertino has plenty of sunshine, but is not hot so doesn't require a ton of energy for cooling (the building doesn't even have AC!). If they were able to pull this off in say, Phoenix, it would be a lot more of a cost savings. > Jobs hated air-conditioning and especially loathed fans. (He vigilantly tried to keep them out of his computers.) But he also didn’t want people…

Interesting. Still, the sunshine to energy need ratio in Cupertino seems to support low energy costs.

Redwood City, just to the north, is famous for having the "best climate in the world" by WW2 era gov't test.

Re: A Look Inside Apple’s New Campus

#134

Post by theparanoid »

ar15saveslives wrote: post #85
dingo_bat wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really didn't find any pics of the workspace in the article. If it is not much work, can you link to the pic here?

They hid them in slideshows :-) Behold, in new Apple office, depressive windowless cell is called "a pod": https://assets.wired.com/photos/w_1970/wp-content/uploads/20...

Looks like servant quarters from Downtown Abbey.

Re: A Look Inside Apple’s New Campus

#135

Post by justinator »

yazan94 wrote: post #92
justinator wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of firing, are they unable to take care of the child themselves at home? I understand that on-site childcare wouldn't work for everyone, but it could work for some, and be a benefit to them. Other companies DO provide it. There's a on-site cafeteria, correct? Do they worry how people will get lunch if they quit/fired? Reservations in SV/SF can easily take 6-12 months. /s

> In the case of firing, are they unable to take care of the child themselves at home? Yes, they are unable because that would hinder them from getting another job. > I understand that on-site childcare wouldn't work for everyone, but it could work for some, and be a benefit to them. > Other companies DO provide it. Whats the difference between a daycare at your work or at a separate daycare building?

> Yes, they are unable because that would hinder them from getting another job.

They, ultimately, have the responsibility to take care of their children, rather than always handing them off to a someone else - correct?

If these jobs are so incompatible with raising children, what's the point of trying to raise children? Does it now seem wise why they companies of these jobs could provide childcare for the benefit of these employees?

SV sounds like Hell on Earth.

Re: A Look Inside Apple’s New Campus

#136

Post by kylec »

jonknee wrote: post #90
asimpletune wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, how can you say that? There is absolutely nothing but love put into this building. Jobs spent his last years on earth dedicated to it, to every single last detail, because he wanted a home for apple, a real home. It's easy to be cynical, but I think it's hard and therefore admirable to rise above that tendency when something truly beautiful and genuine comes along. Now I don't blame you for feeling that way…

It's still a car focused suburban office park with an open office floor plan... No amount of love is going to change the fundamentals.

Not everyone dislikes "car focused suburban office parks". Many people, myself included, prefer them. I love being able to get in my car and arrive at work in 10 minutes. I love living in an area where I can drive to and park at restaurants, grocery stores, etc.

Re: A Look Inside Apple’s New Campus

#137

Post by chx »

csomar wrote: post #131
matsemann wrote: post #36

I'd wish they were a bit more futuristic than having 9000 parking spaces. Why not offer buses from where their employees live or other means of transportation? It's easy to say that most people drive, but that's only because everyone always make that the most convenient mode of transportation. With some effort something else could be even more convenient.

No offense but I hear this a lot "Why not public transportation?" Well, why not a car if people wanted to have a car? With Tesla and new E.V.s hitting the market, the primary reason (pollution) is gone.

Cars take a lot of space though in the form of roads and parking lots.

Re: A Look Inside Apple’s New Campus

#138

Post by JustSomeNobody »

andrewem wrote: post #117
Someone1234 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a copout. Cupertino demands it because businesses have abused public streets before (e.g. relying on public parking for business purposes); if Apple had gone to Cupertino with an actual plan, they may have allowed fewer spaces, but since Apple didn't and just accepted the requirement it is because Apple has no plans to reduce it.

Agreed, the idea that Apple couldn't possibly have any influence over municipal policies is laughable. They just didn't try.

We usually hate when companies do this. Let's change the wording just a bit and see:

... the idea that Comcast couldn't possibly have any influence over municipal policies is laughable.

Re: A Look Inside Apple’s New Campus

#139

Post by bentruyman »

matsemann wrote: post #36

I'd wish they were a bit more futuristic than having 9000 parking spaces. Why not offer buses from where their employees live or other means of transportation? It's easy to say that most people drive, but that's only because everyone always make that the most convenient mode of transportation. With some effort something else could be even more convenient.

> Why not offer buses from where their employees live or other means of transportation?

Apple, like many other big Bay Area tech companies, has dozens of buses and shuttles that ship people around daily (even all the way up to places like Berkeley).

Re: A Look Inside Apple’s New Campus

#140

Post by macNchz »

mxfh wrote: post #67
matsemann wrote: post #36

I'd wish they were a bit more futuristic than having 9000 parking spaces. Why not offer buses from where their employees live or other means of transportation? It's easy to say that most people drive, but that's only because everyone always make that the most convenient mode of transportation. With some effort something else could be even more convenient.

Apple is building 11,000 parking spaces not because it wants to but because Cupertino, the suburban city where the new headquarters is located, demands it. Cupertino has a requirement for every building. http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21720269-dont-let-peo... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14067658

From the linked article re Cupertino:

> For a fast-food restaurant, the city demands one space for every three seats; for a bowling alley, seven spaces per lane plus one for every worker.

I've read a bunch of articles about the negative externalities of minimum parking requirements, but haven't really seen one explore the why behind these rules. What does it matter to the city if a bowling alley doesn't have enough parking spaces? Wouldn't that just be bad for the bowling alley's business? If it's about ensuring the supply of street parking why not just install meters to make the city money when the bowling alley fails to build sufficient parking?

I'm usually the first to mock this kind of trite 'invisible hand' supply-and-demand explanation, but this really seems like something that would be very well left to the business to figure out.

Post reply on HN