Slashdot Mirror


Cupertino Approves New Apple Spaceship HQ

mrspoonsi writes with news that Apple's plan to raze the old HP headquarters and replace it with some kind of space ship is moving forward. From the article: "A little over two years since Steve Jobs presented his case for it and after the occasional setback, the Cupertino City Council has finally given Apple full approval to go ahead with its futuristic campus. In exchange, Apple has agreed to fork over more money to the city in the form of a reduced sales tax rebate — going forward, Cupertino will only give back 35 percent sales tax instead of the 50 percent it had previously. Indeed, as soon as Apple gets its final permits some time today, it can begin demolishing the former HP headquarters and start building its own."

172 comments

  1. Wow. by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Under the new agreement, that rebate has been reduced to 35 percent, which based on 2012 tax revenues would mean the residents of Cupertino will pay Apple -- which recorded net sales of $156.5 billion during the last fiscal year, and has a cash hoard estimated at $100 billion -- only $4.4 million to stick around. It would have been $6.2 million under the old agreement. That's an extra $1.8 million for Cupertino, a city with only $51.4 million in projected general fund revenues this year, according to figures reported in the Los Angeles Times."

    Really Apple Cupertino gave you a tax break when things where not going well for you. Now you are doing well you are still getting a 4.4 million dollar kickback! Come one and just pay your taxes. You would increase the general fund by around 8%.
    AKA just do the right thing.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Wow. by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      this is truly perplexing.

      what's the rationale behind giving them benefits? would they move away if they didn't? unlikely, really.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, this is what capitalism gets you. Apple are able to choose to move to a different city, so they will let the cities compete to offer the best tax deal.

    3. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, this is what capitalism gets you. Apple are able to choose to move to a different city, so they will let the cities compete to offer the best tax deal.

      No, that's what cronyism gets you. Your straw-man anti-capitalist arguments show you for a fool.

    4. Re:Wow. by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      what's the rationale behind giving them benefits? would they move away if they didn't? unlikely, really

      Exactly. Where else in the USA could they possibly find a lower cost of living?

      Oh yeah, pretty much everywhere. (Median home price? 1.4 mil)

    5. Re:Wow. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Apple are able to choose to move to a different city

      And you actually think they'd do that for a few bucks in taxes? Forget elsewhere in SV - everywhere there is expensive. So they'd jeopardize their enormous revenue stream by moving and losing many of their people, for the sake of a few bucks in taxes? I don't think so, but that's the kind of stuff that idiots and cronies on city councils believe in. Whenever companies threaten the "we'll hold our breath until we turn blue, and move our facilities if you don't give us a tax break" crap, it's almost always one of two cases. Commonly, they have no intention of moving no matter what, but make empty threats to try and save a few bucks. Other times they're going to move no matter what, but play this silly game so they can justify the move.

      This whole thing is particularly absurd when a company has facilities in an expensive area, like SV or Manhattan. If a company didn't think it was advantageous to have a facility in such an area, despite the expense, they'd move no matter what kind of tax break they got. Taxes are far from the only, or even the major expense, in expensive areas. Check out the price of office space in midtown or downtown Manhattan, not to mention the salary differential they have to offer people to work there, and tell me if taxes are a make or break issue.

    6. Re:Wow. by davydagger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think its called "tribute". Its an acknowledgement that apple, not the municipal government is the most powerful entity in city, and they call the shots.

      Thats how corporate America works.

    7. Re:Wow. by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      they're not going to move cross country, but they could easily build their spaceship in sunnyvale or los altos or anywhere. PA and Menlo Park are pretty full-up right now. I couldn't see them in SF, and the whole city is going to burst from Twitter and others, there's no way they could absorb an Apple campus.

    8. Re:Wow. by InsightfulPlusTwo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A few observations:

      The city is not paying Apple anything; it is actually increasing their tax burden from the formerly reduced state. Thus the article, which says "the residents of Cupertino will pay [Apple] only $4.4 million to stick around" is misleading and deliberately inflammatory.

      The agreement was approved unanimously by the board. They think they are getting a good deal by having the world's largest corporation build a giant, permanent, iconic headquarters there and I agree. Any city in America would be happy to have them. Just think of all the tourists who are going to show up from around the world just to see this new building.

      The city gets a lot of benefits from Apple employees living and working there aside from direct taxation, in terms of personal living expenses and a well-educated populace, as mentioned elsewhere in the article.

      They can always renegotiate the tax breaks later if they really need the money.

      --
      I felt bad for the man who had no signature, until I met a man who had no comment.
    9. Re:Wow. by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      what's the rationale behind giving them benefits?

      Politics and business is the primary business of politics

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    10. Re:Wow. by Quila · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let's see, the city gets thousands of Apple employees moved in. Construction alone is expected to net the city almost $40 million. And then there are recurring property taxes for a property that will now be worth billions. The city also gets a shabby built-up area converted to something that is 80% landscaped and environmentally friendly.

    11. Re:Wow. by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      I don't see you volunteering to pay more taxes, why should Apple? If the city is going to offer it, why in the world would they decline it?

    12. Re:Wow. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      More than that, the city is giving Apple less rebates going forward than they are now. Apple is now going to be paying more taxes.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    13. Re:Wow. by N1AK · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The issue with this argument is that it sounds all well and good until you consider it for a few seconds. Apple gets a rebate now that it is a billion dollar company but if a new 'Apple' was starting out today they'd have to pay the full rate of tax. Big companies are pitting cities up against each other in the prisoner dilemma to keep a tax rebate which means that taxes on everything else have to be higher to make up for the discount.

      Apple makes a huge profit margin and pays very little tax. There's no reason at all why society benefits from giving them a rebate they really don't need; in fact it hurts society by increasing tax on others. The only reason they can have a rebate is that they've got big enough they can threaten municipalities with oblivion if they leave which is a pretty shitty situation imo.

    14. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is truly perplexing.

      what's the rationale behind giving them benefits?

      The rationale is that tens of thousands of highly-paid Apple workers come to Cupertino every day. These tens of thousands of employees buy food and goods at Cupertino stores and restaurants. Some of them buy homes in Cupertino and pay property taxes as well. Apple also attracts dozens of smaller suppliers, who also pay taxes. And in the immediate term, building a new headquarters will mean thousands of construction workers will be coming into town every day and buying gas and gatorade for the next few years.

      The article makes it sound like the city is "giving" Apple the tax money that Apple is, in fact, paying to the city of Cupertino.

      would they move away if they didn't? unlikely, really.

      They don't have to move to Elbonia. There are probably a dozen municipalities within five miles that would fall all over themselves to cut a deal for the headquarters of one of the ten biggest companies on Earth. Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, even Mountain View would probably love to get that $4.4 million if Cupertino didn't want it.

      A small percentage of millions of dollars is much better than a large percentage of bupkis.

    15. Re:Wow. by N1AK · · Score: 2

      Apple aren't volunteering to pay more taxes; they are using their size to threaten local government to give them a tax break or face financial collapse if Appele leave. A small business or individual doesn't have the size to get this by threatening so they are forced to pay full tax (which includes making up for Apple's discount). Thus you have an area that is subsidising a massively wealthy company by increased taxation on small businesses.

    16. Re:Wow. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      The issue with this argument is that it sounds all well and good until you consider it for a few seconds. Apple gets a rebate now that it is a billion dollar company but if a new 'Apple' was starting out today they'd have to pay the full rate of tax.

      The argument is still good because, as I stated, SV is expensive no matter what the tax breaks.

    17. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what's the rationale behind giving them benefits? would they move away if they didn't? unlikely, really.

      They might move to a nearby city. They're already moving to other cities, so I don't think it would be a stretch for them to move their headquarters as well.

      http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_21493863/apple-makes-big-push-into-sunnyvale

    18. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The could move across the planet. I hear property is still relatively cheap in China, and there aren't as many pesky regulations and by-laws to deal with. There is of course the small matter of getting visas for all the employees, but it's amazing how simple such matters become when large piles of money are put on the table.

    19. Re:Wow. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if only it were possible to have a system that discouraged "one big producer" that everyone must depend on and worship, and instead encouraged many smaller, competing producers... oh wait - that's actually how the world is, and it's government interference that allows and creates such monopolies in the first place!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    20. Re: Wow. by sudon't · · Score: 2
      It's not just Apple, not by a long shot. Corporate welfare is really out of control, with states like Texas devoting up to 50% of their budgets to it. Many, many corporations pay no taxes, and even receive land grants, and other freebies. As I read the blurb, the thing that amazed me was that Apple was paying taxes at all.

      http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html?_r=0

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    21. Re:Wow. by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      what's the rationale behind giving them benefits? would they move away if they didn't? unlikely, really.

      Apple is Cupertino's largest taxpayer by far.

      In fact, Apple SPECIFICALLY CHOSE the site for their new building - Cupertino had no land available otherwise (it was land from an old Sun/HP campus, IIRC). So Apple had a choice - it could build its new building in Cupertino, or it could put it somewhere else. Cupertino gives Apple a small tax break (they don't give Apple any money - Apple pays more than that amount in taxes to Cupertino annually) as a thank you for being loyal to Cupertino. And it's likely the board sees that the added revenue from employees being there (from construction and all that to the sheer number of extra employees) to more than make up for the loss (after all, those people need to eat, like to frequent bars, etc. and Apple is likely needing to purchase local service to maintain the building and grounds and all that).

      In fact, any large corporation wanting to put down roots can easily negotiate with the host city on benefits. I would expect Redmond to give Microsoft breaks in exchange for being in Redmond (though Microsoft's campus straddles the border, so there's a building that's actually odd because it has to be built to two different building codes as it straddles Redmond and a neighbouring city).

      Likewise, Mountain View probably gives Google a few breaks as well.

      And these cities are all known because of these big companies - anytime anyone mentions Redmond, well, up comes Microsoft. Cupertino has Apple, and Mountain View has Google.

      Apple may not pull up its roots from Cupertino, but they can certainly decide to build in a neighboring city if they have to. The fact they're choosing Cupertino is really a preference for them - being nostalgic and all that. Hell, given all the difficulties Apple encountered, one may wonder if it was worth all that effort to build in Cupertino and not just build it nearby somewhere else.

    22. Re:Wow. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      But Apple doesn't have to stay anywhere near SV or the state at all. They could move their HQ to a different state like Boeing did. For example, Texas doesn't need to give Apple any deals; the taxes there will be much lower than what they pay in Cupertino even with the rebates.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    23. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perplexing? You really don't understand why they do this?

      Cupertino: "Sorry Apple, we're not giving you any benefits to locate your headquarters here. Fuck you. In fact, we're enacting a special Apple Punitive Clause, where we'll flog Tim Cook and Jony Ive on the town commons once per quarter, and you'll THANK US for the privilege of locating your SHITTY business here, and BEG to pay us more money."

      SomeplaceCheaperAndInNeedofRevenue, NC: "Apple, we'll give you 100% rebate on taxes, property tax credits, and a huge pile of cash, hookers, and blow, if you just agree to continue expanding your operations here. We really need the commerce your highly paid engineers and managers will attract to our town, and since we're not penny-wise and pound-foolish like those chumps in Cupertino, we realize that giving you a small sales tax rebate will net us tens of millions of dollars in ancillary benefits from all of the OTHER income, sales, and property taxes we'll collect after you hire 5,000 new engineers here, and business build up to cater to them."

      Apple: "Gee, maybe we should stop hiring in Cupertino, and expand our North Carolina facility."

      This ain't rocket surgery, friend.

    24. Re:Wow. by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      For Apple 4.4 million is nothing. Yes it is going to increase it's tax burden but it's tax burden is still less than many small companies in the city. Think of it this way. How valuable would the PR be for Apple if they said," when Apple was not doing well the city helped us with tax breaks, we are doing great now so we are giving them back to the city."

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    25. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most Apple employees do NOT live in Cupertino. The problem is Cupertino is a company town and they let themselves be put in this situation. You do not see this with the other surrounding cities other than Mountain View (with Google).

      Nobody will be able to see the building, it will be restricted from street side views by trees and there will be a security fence around the perimeter.

    26. Re:Wow. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The argument is still good because, as I stated, SV is expensive no matter what the tax breaks.

      No it's not, because cost of living is irrelevant. Large companies pull the same shit against cities everywhere, regardless of how expensive living there is. (For example, Atlanta has a low cost of living, but the Atlanta Braves are in the midst of moving out to the suburbs due to this kind of subsidy BS.) If this kind of behavior is wrong anywhere, then it's equally wrong everywhere.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    27. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It was the HP campus, not Sun. It is a combination of old HP (prior to the purchase of Compaq) and Tandem (after purchased by Compaq) buildings.

      They should not build it at all. Silicon Valley does not have a housing problem, it has a zoning problem. The vast majority of these workers are knowledge based and can work from home. Cities should be building more mixed use housing, not catering to the whims of rich businesses.

    28. Re:Wow. by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      In other words, the city should punish Apple more for creating jobs.

      50% sales tax is outrageous by the way. Does anybody think the city earns that? What if the state and the feds want 50%? That would be giving 150% back to the government ...

    29. Re:Wow. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      No it's not, because cost of living is irrelevant.

      First, CoL is relevant because it usually means higher salaries (I could get a raise by moving to SV, even without leaving my current employer). Second, cost of business is affected by leasing or land costs, which vary wildly by location. CoL also tends to ripple through all sorts of services and whatnot that businesses require (everything from cleaning services to ordering takeout for a late night).

      Atlanta has a low cost of living, but the Atlanta Braves are in the midst of moving out to the suburbs due to this kind of subsidy BS.

      What kind of subsidies are you talking about? Baseball stadiums are notorious for subsidies that go way beyond tax breaks. Also, did they want to move out anyway for some reason?

    30. Re:Wow. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      But Apple doesn't have to stay anywhere near SV or the state at all. They could move their HQ to a different state like Boeing did.

      Boeing moved their headquarters for political reasons - by an astounding coincidence they wound up in the congressional district of someone who had a lot of influence on their business. Chicago is also not a place you'd move for low cost. Lastly, they moved some offices - not the airplane design and manufacturing business.

    31. Re:Wow. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Please explain how that applies to Apple.

    32. Re:Wow. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      In other words, the city should punish Apple more for creating jobs.

      Alternatively, Apple should punish the city for giving them a good place to do business? No business is located in SV for its low costs.

      50% sales tax is outrageous by the way.

      Parody, or do you have a problem with reading/math?

    33. Re:Wow. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Thus you have an area that is subsidising a massively wealthy company by increased taxation on small businesses.

      And individuals. But don't you know that everyone should bow and scrape before Apple for being so beneficent as to create all those jobs (some of them in the US)?

    34. Re:Wow. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Boeing moved their HQ for many reasons. They didn't move all of their facilities. They wanted to be in the middle of the continent. They wanted to be closer to their customers (United was HQ in Chicago at the time). But my point still is Apple doesn't have to stay near SV at all. It won't be easy to move but if taxes is the only reason, they can move elsewhere.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    35. Re:Wow. by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      It may be the "right thing" to pay their taxes, but let's face it, they're just walking in Steve's tax-evading footsteps.

      You know, the lease-a-new-car-every-6-months-so-he-never-has-to-get-license-plates Steve Jobs?

      Or the "park in the handicap zones when you want to because you're big shit Steve Jobs" and the cops are unlikely to hassle you?

      http://www.policymic.com/articles/7868/apple-icheat-how-the-world-s-biggest-company-also-became-the-most-unethical

      --
      -Styopa
    36. Re:Wow. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      maybe the government shouldnt put themselves in the position where they are beholden to one company. you cant blame the individual company for doing whats in its best interests.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    37. Re:Wow. by zieroh · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, neither of you seem to know jack shit about Cupertino. They have one of (if not the) most enviable school systems in Silicon Valley, which in turn has driven property values through the roof, which in turn generates more money (in the form of property taxes) for the city.

      So how do you think that happened?

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    38. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, cost of living in the bay area is a very odd anomaly. While the cost of renting a home is *incredibly* high, the cost of everything else is actually pretty low!

    39. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just think of all the tourists who are going to show up from around the world just to see this new building.

      Er... You really think the average tourist will take a 1-hour bus ride, back and forth from San Francisco, just to see that building? As far as tourism is concerned, there is no difference between Cupertino and East Buttfuck...

    40. Re:Wow. by InsightfulPlusTwo · · Score: 1

      That's true, but we all know it is quite unlikely. Just look how Apple (and other tech companies) are zealous to reduce their tax burden internationally. Probably they'll close those loopholes one of these days.

      --
      I felt bad for the man who had no signature, until I met a man who had no comment.
    41. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then there are recurring property taxes for a property that will now be worth billions

      In California under Prop 13, property is only re-assessed if it changes hands. I doubt that Apple will pay a penny more in taxes on that land.

    42. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know what you are talking about. Property taxes are constrained by Prop 13, and the assessed value does not equal the sale price of real estate. This is why cities in California turn to sales tax revenue to fill their coffers.

    43. Re:Wow. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      And demolishing an old building and erecting a brand new building, changing the landscape tremendously does not trigger a re-assessment? I don't know CA laws but I would think that would be an automatic re-assessment.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    44. Re:Wow. by sjames · · Score: 1

      That is exactly why our whol economic system cabn never distribute wealth fairly. If you're loaded you get the "because I'm rich" discount but if you're not, you pay full price.

    45. Re:Wow. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. Money attracts more money. The bigger the pile the easier it attracts money out of the smaller piles around you and the harder it is for them to attract money from your pile. Absent government interference and active warfare, the natural end result is one person with all the money and the rest with none.

      Note that in practice, as it approached that condition the 'no active warfare' condition would be broken by villagers with torches and pitchforks.

    46. Re:Wow. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      It won't be easy to move but if taxes is the only reason, they can move elsewhere.

      But taxes aren't the only reason. They almost never are, despite the bleating. Do you really think Apple is stupid enough to lose most of the design teams in they have in SV?

    47. Re:Wow. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      So how do you think that happened?

      Hint: it's not because Apple is there.

    48. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > they don't give Apple any money

      Yes they are. You didn't even read the article. Apple demanded $1.8 million from the city, and they got it. Now the city is going to have to raise our taxes to give that money to Apple. Trust me, the people here are pissed off at Apple and their demand that Asians (which are 2/3 of the population here) are being forced to pay Apple, which is mostly white male, so much damn money. There's a reason the Democrats here are so pissed off about the Republican-style racist warfare going on here. They love to take money from us to give to white males.

    49. Re:Wow. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Even owner occupied residential is reassessed when you add square footage.

      Commercial property was never exempt from reassessment.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    50. Re:Wow. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Where did you pull that from?

      I can't find one true thing in your post.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    51. Re:Wow. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      yeah, but they would have been paying benefits to apple regardless. what was the rationale behind that?

      point being, it's not really that much money even, but it still is significant amount of money for the city. not for apple, but for the city. so little money that for apples spaceship plans it doesn't make much of difference even, so why the fuck give them a break?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    52. Re:Wow. by sjames · · Score: 1

      You must not be terribly observant. Just look at TFA itself. Do you think a middle or lower class individual has enough money that a city will grant them a tax rebate just to get them to stay? Casinos comp the whales, not the people playing penny slots. Restaurants offer the wealthy repeat customer the complementary fine wine. The people who save for a year to eat there get the table by the kitchen door.

      You never hear uttered the phrase 'it takes money to make money'?

      Surprising.

    53. Re:Wow. by Quila · · Score: 1

      Prop 13 allows for reassessment in the cases of property transfer and completed construction. I think the $5 billion spaceship would count as completed construction.

    54. Re:Wow. by Optali · · Score: 1

      Tea baggers complain about taxes...
      As soon as they learn that the taxes go to their beloved Private Companies they will become the most hardcore of the Tax Nazis

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    55. Re:Wow. by Quila · · Score: 1

      Who knows, maybe principle. In any case, the city will get far more than it's negotiated away. Apple is already the biggerst single taxpayer.

  2. YES by clickson · · Score: 0

    Hoping that they will finally fly away?

  3. Wait.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they're building a futuristic structure, employing people in the area, and taking over a building that wasn't being used- and they're bribing the city council to do this with the sales tax thing?

    Fuck, someone with business sense could have them upping the rebates. Apple is getting too fat and lazy for it's own good.

  4. but by Jmac217 · · Score: 1

    Is it really worth it?

    1. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The voters of Cupertino think so? Not sure how else on would determine worth. I've lived in the bay area since 1995. Cupertino has gone from a nice suburb to a VERY wealthy suburb in that time. There's also tourism of all things. I'm not kidding. Tourists actually come to Cupertino just to stand in front of the sign at the Apple campus (the current one) and have their picture taken. Oh and there's an apple store there. Open to the public. On the apple campus. I would assume the sales tax collected there also goes to Cupertino.

      These sorta tax deals always sound ridiculous. Long term though they often play out quite well to the hosting city. Microsoft has a tax deal with the city of Redmond. The city I live in, Mountain View, has given Google all sorts of incentives. It's hard to argue with success.

    2. Re:but by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      The city I live in, Mountain View, has given Google all sorts of incentives. It's hard to argue with success.

      On the contrary, it's easy to argue the counterfactual. If Mountain View hadn't given Google tax breaks, would Google have moved to an inexpensive part of SV? Where is that exactly? Or would they have left SV altogether? There are many reasons companies have facilities in SV, but low cost isn't one of them. All the tax breaks in the world wouldn't make SV a cheap place to do business. If cost saving was their main interest, they'd move no matter what.

      Here in the NY area I see the same thing in Manhattan all the time. Manhattan makes SV look cheap, yet there's loads of business there. Why? Hint: it's not to save on facilities costs.

    3. Re:but by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Is it really worth it?

      To Apple shareholders? Probably not, but that's what companies with too much money do. They get away with it because it's a small part of their income, even if it doesn't do anything but satisfy some egos.

      Walmart is an interesting contrast. Whatever mixed feelings you may have about them, it's interesting to see Walmart's world headquarters. It's a one story brick building that they bought cheap many years ago, and makes most factories look ostentatious. Yet sales reps from all over the world travel to cosmopolitan Bentonville Arkansas, and would probably sell their grandmothers to get into that building.

    4. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Apple store is not same as Apple's retail stores throughout the world; you cannot buy Apple products there. A point of contention with the city council. The products for sale in Cupertino are marketing items such as Apple branded clothing -- shirts, jackets, hats.

      Long term though they often play out quite well to the hosting city.

      Incorrect, it has been known for decades these deals are bad for the host cities, but people never learn.

    5. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll never get into that building. Sales are negotiated nearby in Quonset huts at temporary tables.

  5. Steve Jobs talking about the campus by jones_supa · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's a presentation by Steve Jobs from a couple years ago showing the initial plans for the spaceship campus. According to the video title it's apparently the last recorded Jobs video footage. Good luck to Apple finishing the building during the following years, it's certainly a cool plan.

    1. Re:Steve Jobs talking about the campus by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      You say, "spaceship campus"; I see, "walled garden"... No really, Look again.

    2. Re:Steve Jobs talking about the campus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, really, Look again

    3. Re:Steve Jobs talking about the campus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He says "spaceship campus"; I see nothing capable of interplanetary flight or even just surviving in low earth orbit.

    4. Re:Steve Jobs talking about the campus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about?

      It's in a very low geosynchronous orbit.

    5. Re:Steve Jobs talking about the campus by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      Then it's a pretty good demonstration that a walled garden isn't a bad thing.

    6. Re:Steve Jobs talking about the campus by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Another name for walled garden is "prison".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:Steve Jobs talking about the campus by BasilBrush · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, a walled garden and a prison are different things. It's like you've never seen even photos of wither of them.

      A walled garden is tended by a skilled gardener, encouraging beautiful flowers and strong trees, and making sure the weeds are pulled up as soon as they appear. People come to visit through choice, because it's such a nice place to be, due to the labours of that gardener.

      A prison is stark, uncomfortable and ugly. People are put there against their will. No one would choose to be there.

  6. Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by CajunArson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sign that a company is jumping or is about to jump the shark: Build a huge lavish HQ.

    Although, Google didn't mind when SGI did it.. they got a great deal on the real estate.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sign that a company is jumping or is about to jump the shark: Build a huge lavish HQ.

      Although, Google didn't mind when SGI did it.. they got a great deal on the real estate.

      Similarly, when people build skyscrapers (10+ stories) it's usually a sign that monetary policy is too loose and interest rates are too low.

    2. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by jchawk · · Score: 2

      If it's mostly glass and steel it's probably not as expensive as you think it is. I work for a fortune 200 company and we just completed a new HQ campus. It looks dramatically more expensive then it really cost to build and makes perfect financial sense given trying to lease the amount of space we needed house all the employees.

    3. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by pioneerX · · Score: 2

      One of Parkinson's Laws is that the demise of a corporation follows not long after construction of headquarters.

    4. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by dj245 · · Score: 1

      If it's mostly glass and steel it's probably not as expensive as you think it is. I work for a fortune 200 company and we just completed a new HQ campus. It looks dramatically more expensive then it really cost to build and makes perfect financial sense given trying to lease the amount of space we needed house all the employees.

      Does your HQ have straight walls and 90 degree corners? Because this thing is round as can be. There might be some savings in having 1 round wall section be the same as all the other round wall sections, but building curves are dramatically more expensive than noncurved walls.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    5. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by nojayuk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the ticket price for the building is about $5 billion, it may rise as the project goes ahead -- there's lots of custom curved glass panels and such involved. With 14,000 workers expected to use the building that works out at about 350,000 dollars each. Office space in Cupertino leases at about $35/sq. ft./year so for the proposed upfront cost they could lease 500 square feet for each employee for twenty years and not have to pay for the structural maintenance, landscaping etc.

      It's a pretty way to use up money, I suppose.

    6. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Sign that a company is jumping or is about to jump the shark: Build a huge lavish HQ.

      I get that Apple is sitting on Scrooge McDuck levels of cash and building the new HQ isn't that big of a deal for them.

      What astonishes me is that they have all this cash and they don't seem to be inventing anything new or creating any new markets. That's the bigger sign of distress at the company.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 1

      "[...]they don't seem to be inventing anything new or creating any new markets."

      Isn't this what people have been saying about Apple for the last 30+ years or so?

    8. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      What astonishes me is that they have all this cash and they don't seem to be inventing anything new or creating any new markets. That's the bigger sign of distress at the company.

      As opposed to........... ? Which other consumer product company that invents something new ever year?

      Creating consumer products is a matter of evolving and innovating, not inventing. And Apple is one of best in the world at it right now.

    9. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What astonishes me is that they have all this cash and they don't seem to be inventing anything new or creating any new markets.

      This is Apple. They're not known for being open about what they're working on.

      (In fact, there are two persistent rumors about what Apple is working on: a wearable "smart watch" thing, and a "smart TV" (Those probably sound pretty underwhelming, just like building an MP3 player did in 2001, a Blackberry competitor did in 2007 and a Tablet PC did in 2010. But it seems to work for them.)

    10. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by Camembert · · Score: 1

      Why so cynical? I think it looks great, it will likely be talked about for many decades to come, just like Calatrava's designs. As headquarters go, this is impressive.

    11. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Office space in Cupertino leases at about $35/sq. ft./year so for the proposed upfront cost they could lease 500 square feet for each employee for twenty years and not have to pay for the structural maintenance, landscaping etc.

      True. But the lowered cost of leasing comes with the increased costs of having employees scattered all over hell and back.

    12. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1977 Apple II
      1984 Macintosh
      1998 iMac
      2001 iPod
      2007 iPhone
      2010 iPad

      Apple never invented a new category/market every single fucking year. Apple haters are soooo boring. No idea what they are talking about. Most companies do no even invent a single new device category in their entire existance. Apple did it multiple times and yet the fucktards moan that a "miracle" is not happening every year.

      What's wrong you??

    13. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      A conventional Todos-Santos style glass brick would cost half the price or less of the current design, be easier to heat and cool, use less ground footprint and it would be more convenient to get around in with elevators, walkways etc. even with the same floor space per drone.

      It's amazing what you can do with other people's money though, isn't it?

    14. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's public knowledge what one of the most secretive companies in the entirety of human history is working on.

    15. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by Macrat · · Score: 1

      Sign that a company is jumping or is about to jump the shark: Build a huge lavish HQ.

      Although, Google didn't mind when SGI did it.. they got a great deal on the real estate.

      Apple actually has revenue and cash in the bank.

      What do you say about a small company like LinkedIn putting up brand new buildings instead of just moving into existing vacant buildings in the area.

    16. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is probably one of the few ways a giant corporation gives any money back today since they hide it offshore and through loopholes. Construction jobs and side businesses supporting them need to milk as much as they can.

    17. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Not really. The hard part is making the form. Once it's made right - how many sections do you want?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    18. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Isn't this what people have been saying about Apple for the last 30+ years or so?

      People who haven't noticed the iPod or iPhone, I guess. The iPhone was launched, what, seven years ago?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    19. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      As opposed to........... ? Which other consumer product company that invents something new ever year?

      Lots of companies do, but the point is that Apple is as large as a hundred smaller consumer products companies, and they haven't really done anything very unique in about seven years. If people want to make an argument that the iPad isn't just a big iPhone, fine (it is, but fine), but by their size alone, they should have several new and interesting products each year - unless their size itself is a hindrance to innovation.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    20. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 1

      And the iPod was launched, what, six or seven years before the iPhone? And we all remember the reaction to it here...

      People nowadays expect Apple to 'invent' something revolutionary every goddamn year and say stuff like "they don't seem to be inventing anything new or creating any new markets". My point is, they weren't that busy with it before either. And they very rarely invent in the proper sense of the word, even though they do innovate.

    21. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      And the iPod was launched, what, six or seven years before the iPhone?

      At a time when Apple was struggling to make a profit, much less being the largest capitalized company in the world.

      And we all remember the reaction to it here...

      Hey, I bought one - I had firewire devices everywhere.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    22. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      Lots of companies do

      I note the lack of any specific examples. As I expected.

      On the plus side I see you've changed "inventing" to "innovation". For sure Apple innovates more than most, and possibly all, consumer product companies.

      Again, if you disagree, give examples. How often do Samsung, Sony and Acer for example come up with radically new products.

    23. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I note the lack of any specific examples. As I expected.

      OK, if I have to tell you what the tech market looks like, here's a few off the top of my head:

      Occulus Rift
      Raspberry Pi
      Steam Machine
      Lytro
      Sol Tablet
      Wilocity
      PicoP
      Fitbit
      CubeX
      Zigbee
      Nest

      If you put all of those companies together, their combined market cap probably doesn't even meet 5% of Apple's. Why isn't Apple taking 10% of its cash and inventing like mad?

      Back in the day, Apple had the Advanced Technology Group that would pioneer such brand-new things and get them ready so that the productions side of the house could bring them to market. Nowadays, Apple occasionally buys a startup to integrate into existing products.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    24. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      Occulus Rift
      Raspberry Pi
      Steam Machine
      Lytro
      Sol Tablet
      Wilocity
      PicoP
      Fitbit
      CubeX
      Zigbee
      Nest

      If you put all of those companies together, their combined market cap probably doesn't even meet 5% of Apple's

      Sorry, these are all interesting and I guess successful small companies, but specialist. You can't cherry pick a bunch of successful one trick ponies, with smallish markets, and then ask why multinational hasn't got a stable of such ponies. It doesn't work like that.

      Take Nest as a company with a product that seems quite Apple like. OK, but it's a tiny market, and would still be a tiny market had Apple done it. Far smaller than Apple TV.

      Again I note that you have failed to find a company that innovates more than Apple. You have a bunch of companies with pretty much a single product. Apple isn't lacking, you have unrealistic expectations.

      Apple had the Advanced Technology Group

      Which existed from 1986 to 1997. Pretty much the years Apple was failing. And you think that's a better idea than what Apple do now?

      Nowadays, Apple occasionally buys a startup to integrate into existing products.

      Sure. And it works well.

    25. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      1) They are spending money locally instead of banking it off shore. (expect the new CEO to ruin Apple in the same vein of other corps; "investing" money in casino games instead of the real economy.)

      2) You can't just put money into things and expect faster results or new inventions - like it was a linear correlation.

      3) Free advertizing to promote themselves; the whole innovator image thing helps them. That isn't cheap; and it lasts longer than an ad campaign. Plus it may help attract and retain the kind of employees they need; it adds to the subculture / tribalism that some like to promote in a business (see Pixar.) You can't put simplistic metrics on this sort of thing other than to look at successful creative companies.

      4) Cupertino is in CA. They have no weather in CA except fire. If there is anywhere on earth all-glass can be done...

      5) Urban sprawl and waste of land is sooo American. Since they are doing it anyway and the city wouldn't allow them to go against the culture they may as well aim for the 1950's utopia futurism where everybody is in the center of their own park-like land... but still lack the flying cars that make up for the wasted space.

    26. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      You can't cherry pick a bunch of successful one trick ponies, with smallish markets, and then ask why multinational hasn't got a stable of such ponies. It doesn't work like that.

      Which basically describes the mp3 player market before the iPod. Productizing these sorts of formerly-niche products is what Apple is really good at.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    27. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by bananaquackmoo · · Score: 1

      Are you sure there is curved glass involved? When is a circle's circumference not a circle? When its drawn in 3D on a computer screen is one perfect example. Long and straight lengths of something can be made to look like anything. The same goes for approximating the area under a curve in calculus, it can be done with lines.

    28. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      Jobs said.... "There is not a straight piece of glass in this building. It's all curved. We've used our experience making retail buildings all over the world now, and we know how to make the biggest pieces of glass in the world for architectural use. And, we want to make the glass specifically for this building here. We can make it curve all the way around the building ...It's pretty cool."

      Excerpted from an International Business Times report on the new building. Ka-ching!

    29. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which would lead one to wonder why Apple wants to build such an iconic campus that is already not large enough and will require an additional campus to be built shortly after.

    30. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      Tell that to Pixar.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    31. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Fire season is over. The mudslides put them out. (stolen from Carson).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    32. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Which basically describes the mp3 player market before the iPod.

      By saying that, you're accepting that Apple didn't invent when it came up with the iPod. It improved on products that other companies already did. And Apple knew there was a mass-market for the company that did it right, as there had already been mass markets for the older tech versions: the Walkman and the DiscMan.

      Apple throws away most of the products they consider. They make a new product category when they see that there is big latent demand for a product, but it's being poorly served by the products currently in the market, and where they think Apple can bring something new to the category. That describes the iPod perfectly. And the iPhone. And the iPad. But it's not an opportunity that comes up every year.

      When they don't get those 3 conditions in place, they end up with something that isn't a great success, such as the Apple TV, or the Boombox.

    33. Re:Apple has JUMPED THE SHARK by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      but it's being poorly served by the products currently in the market,

      Not just existing products on the market - look at the Mac vs. PARC Alto. Apple did a tremendous amount of inventing to get from one to the other. Andy Herchfeld's overlapping windows in QuickDraw, the WIMP interface work. And then Apple did the productizing, advertising, distribution, service, documentation, etc..

      If you're trying to get me to say that Apple should pull a new invention out of the air based on nothing that anybody has ever done before - that's not the way invention ever works.

      I will say that if Apple hadn't done the iPod, those same ASICS and controllers might have been put together by another company in a few years' time as the application became more obvious. But that doesn't mean that Apple didn't effectively create a new business by being in the right place at the right time.

      My only argument is that there are more opportunities available like that that Apple isn't exploiting - there's not a natural limitation to technological advances of one product every three years or whatever - and as a larger company they should be creating more of those businesses than they used to. The ones that Apple doesn't do will be done by other companies a few years later, to the missed-opportunity detriment of Apple's shareholders.

      I'm not an overall fan of Steve Jobs, but he did seem to know how to take some risks and that seems to be currently lacking at Apple. Confucius say, "fortune favors the bold".

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  7. nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It is the pentagon, but thinner and with rounded corners.

    1. Re:nothing new by jonbryce · · Score: 2

      It looks more like GCHQ, the UK equivalent of the NSA.

    2. Re:nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Queue the court case in DOD v. Apple, aka. the "Fighter Jocks versus Space Cadets".

      DOD wins round 1, Apple appeals. Apple wins on appeal, DOD gets a stay and appeals in a higher court. Despite early interest, all onlookers eventually lose interest. Court case drags on for 10 years until the only people who care are lawyers getting rich.

      In the interests of building something, Apple installs cosmetic panels on the exterior. As the judgements reverse repeatedly, those panels are uninstalled and reinstalled, over and over. Eventually the panels are regarded as a distinct architectural feature in their own right. The design architects never accept this.

      By 2050 cosmetic panels have morphed into 'dynamic exterior design skins' and it is fashionable for every exotic building to have them. No one notices that old houses used to have something similar, called 'shutters'. In 2100's, a brilliant but controversial architect points out that DEDS are just elaborate shutters. That architect is hailed as a genius and is soon awarded the Nobel Prize of architecture.

      The genius architect promptly turns their back on DEDS and is reviled as a retrograde troglodyte. No one cares except the architectural community.

  8. maybe some earth themes like orchards etc... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    apple a day sort of stuff during the hard times anyway

  9. Oh goody... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does that mean they'll be leaving earth sometime soon?

  10. Not a spaceship at all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, my first impression of the architecture was a 1970s-style multi-platter removable disk pack. How trendy is that?

  11. No they would not move away! by Dareth · · Score: 5, Funny

    They are building a space ship so they can "fly away" if the city doesn't cooperate. Read the bloody article!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:No they would not move away! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are building a space ship so they can "fly away" if the city doesn't cooperate.

      They don't need to fly. They can walk. The next city (Sunnyvale) is about 200 meters from their current headquarters. Both Santa Clara and San Jose are within three miles.

      Apple is in a strong negotiating position. Personally, I think courts should strike down these special tax deals as a violation of the equal protection clause. For the cities, it is a prisoner's dilemma anyway, and they would better off if the practice was made illegal.

    2. Re: No they would not move away! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Damn Terrans, always moving their buildings around when the going gets tough!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:No they would not move away! by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I think courts should strike down these special tax deals as a violation of the equal protection clause.

      Considering the courts have said it's perfectly legal for the government to force people to hand over their money to private companies or have the money extracted from their bank accounts, I can't see a scenario where these same courts would say it's illegal for a community to put taxpayers on the hook for the lost taxes.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    4. Re:No they would not move away! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      What does the equal protection clause have anything to do to whether a city can negotiate deals with individuals or corporations?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:No they would not move away! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Companies will still flee, it's just that voting with their feet is their only option. Who wants to plan when the local government can lie out its ass, then jack up taxes on you to just under what would drive you away? With no way to get the city to contract with you over certain tax rates...

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    6. Re:No they would not move away! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > equal protection...deals with individuals or corporation

      Because the city is taking money at gun point from one group to give to another. That doesn't much sound like they're treating the two parties equally. In the city where I'm from, the city stole several houses from their owners to give to Boeing. My great-aunt was shaken-up for years after having cops with machine guns in black uniforms and masks crash through her sliding glass door. Is this the sort of unequal treatment you're defending?

      A more recent equivalent action is the federal government forcing you to give money to one of a select few insurance companies. At least in that horrible case every person is being treated equally horribly.

    7. Re:No they would not move away! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The city is always free to say "no" to a deal. The city is not entitled to the deal of their choice from every corporation. That has nothing to do with equal protection. Equal protection applies to how governments treats individuals and that they cannot discriminate on the basis of race, sex, age, sexual preference, etc. It says nothing that if a city wants to attract a business they can't offer one business a better deal than another. As long as the preference has nothing to do with the above criteria. This is the same for any business. If I own a business and one vendor wants is offering a better deal or a more strategic deal than another vendor I'm free to select that vendor.

      So far nothing in your posts suggests your situations are remotely similar to Apple's situation. Apple owns the land already but they want tax incentives before they start construction.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:No they would not move away! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Equal protection applies to how governments treats individuals

      One group of individuals wants a city to use its police to take money at gun point from another group and give it to them, and you call that equal protection?

    9. Re:No they would not move away! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      What are you smoking? There is no gun. Apple wants tax incentives to stay in Cupertino. Every business wants tax incentives. Every individual does. Based on Apple's size and the amount of tax revenue that will be offset by the construction, increase in tax base, etc, Cupertino has voted to allow Apple to get a tax break because they believe it is a better long term deal for the city. They can just say no and lose out on taxes. As is their choice. As is their right. That is not a gun. That is not a hostage situation. It is just business. Your mischaracterization of the situation and injection of emotion does nothing to add to the discussion.

      Also your clear lack of understanding of what equal protection means does not help. Equal protection means that Cupertino cannot discriminate on the basis of creed, color, age, sex, religious affiliation, etc. If the Pat Robertson or Louis Farrakhan wants to move their HQ to Cupertino, the city can't block either just because they don't' like their religious views. That is equal protection.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    10. Re:No they would not move away! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There is no gun.

      Don't pay your taxes and see what happens. Apple wants the city to take money at gun point from people that live in the city to give to Apply. That is morally wrong.

      > discriminate on the basis of creed, color, age, sex, religious affiliation, etc

      Now you're just making-up crap. The clause:

      "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

      There is nothing about creed, color, age, sex, religious affiliation, etc. like you claim in your boldface lie. It gives equal protection to all people, not just like to everyone except for white males in your lie. The courts have ruled that the clause does protect white males so that proves you wrong.

    11. Re:No they would not move away! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "cannot discriminate on the basis of creed, color, age, sex, religious affiliation, etc."

      You are very confused and seem to be thinking of the Civil Rights Act rather than the equal protection clause. Equal protection, like the name implies, provides equal protection. It doesn't as you claim, demand for unequal protection because of your race.

      One position you are missing is the disparate impact argument. Because Apple has convinced Cupertino to help their mostly white male employees at the expense of the citizens of Cupertino which are 63.3% Asian, as of the 2010 census, which is illegal. Forcing Asians at the threat of taking their homes and businesses to enrich a small group of white males is morally and legally wrong. Us Asians in this town are very angry that we have to give money to the largest company in the world in order to be allowed to keep the homes we own. This city has already use a SWAT team to eject one Asian family that refused to pay. Example more Asian families to end-up homeless because of Apple.

    12. Re:No they would not move away! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Don't pay your taxes and see what happens.

      Again, what are you smoking? I live in a city. I pay taxes. If I don't like the amount I have to pay, I can file a protest. If I don't like it all, I can move. Equal Protection has nothing to do as to whether I pay taxes. Equal protection means that the city cannot treat me differently than any other individual on the basis mentioned previously.

      Apple wants the city to take money at gun point from people that live in the city to give to Apply. That is morally wrong.

      Again, what are you smoking? There is no "taking". Apple pays taxes like every corporation. If Apple didn't have the incentives, Apple would pay more. That's as idiotic as saying a favored customer is "stealing" from a retailer when the retailer offers that customer a preferred customer discount.

      Also, Apple will be paying more than they have in previous years as the new deal with Cupertino raises their tax rate. Please use some logic.

      Now you're just making-up crap. The clause:

      There this thing called google or wikipedia you can use:

      equal protection of the law n. the right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts, and to be treated equally by the law and courts, both in procedures and in the substance of the law. It is akin to the right to due process of law, but in particular applies to equal treatment as an element of fundamental fairness. The most famous case on the subject is Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) in which Chief Justice Earl Warren, for a unanimous Supreme Court, ruled that "separate but equal" educational facilities for blacks was inherently unequal and unconstitutional since the segregated school system did not give all students equal rights under the law. It will also apply to other inequalities such as differentials in pay for the same work or unequal taxation. The principle is stated in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution: "No State shall..deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

      A primary motivation for this clause was to validate and perpetuate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of white citizens. As a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War.

      Equal protection is primarily used for the protection of the civil rights of citizens from their governments, especially the state governments and to a lesser extent, the federal government. At best, the Equal Protection clause can be invoked if a business feels that they've been discriminated in some way by the city of Cupertino or the state of California. NOWHERE in the equal protection clause does it say anything about Cupertino not being able to offer tax incentives to businesses.

      There is nothing about creed, color, age, sex, religious affiliation, etc. like you claim in your boldface lie. It gives equal protection to all people, not just like to everyone except for white males in your lie. The courts have ruled that the clause does protect white males so that proves you wrong.

      Have you been living in the America in the last 150 years since the passage of the 14th Amendment? Are you aware that there is this body called the Supreme Court which interprets how laws are to be applied? Over the last 150 years, Equal Protection has been applied against other forms of discrimination because time

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    13. Re:No they would not move away! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      You are very confused and seem to be thinking of the Civil Rights Act rather than the equal protection clause. Equal protection, like the name implies, provides equal protection. It doesn't as you claim, demand for unequal protection because of your race.

      Please read up on Equal Protection Clause.

      The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      One position you are missing is the disparate impact argument. Because Apple has convinced Cupertino to help their mostly white male employees at the expense of the citizens of Cupertino which are 63.3% Asian, as of the 2010 census, which is illegal.

      What the hell are you talking about?

      Forcing Asians at the threat of taking their homes and businesses to enrich a small group of white males is morally and legally wrong.

      Again, what the hell are you talking about? Apple bought the land from HP and others in secret to avoid raising rates..

      Us Asians in this town are very angry that we have to give money to the largest company in the world in order to be allowed to keep the homes we own.

      Again, you are making absolutely no sense.

      This city has already use a SWAT team to eject one Asian family that refused to pay. Example more Asian families to end-up homeless because of Apple.

      Context please. Apple bought the land from a number of different owners.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    14. Re:No they would not move away! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Apple pays taxes like every corporation.

      No. Apple has demanded that the city use the force of guns to take money from other businesses to give to them. Just see what happens if you don't pay your taxes. Just this week I read about a group of cops in San Mateo (not far from Apple) breaking windows and pointing guns at children because the family objected the city's giving money to xtians to support hate. Do you really support pointing guns at people to take money from them to give to Apple? In any moral person's view, that is robbery.

      I quoted the equal protection clause. It has nothing in it to support your lies. Equal protection means equal protection. What Apple is demanding is not that different than the county where I grew-up that pointed guns at my family and put us in prison because we were Asian. The USOC, that you so casually misquote, supported the cops in that case. That is why Apple's hatecrime against Asians stings so badly. You people deprived us of property and liberty. Now yet again you are using guns to take our money. The US concentration camps they forced us into are horrible. How can you support such a thing?

    15. Re:No they would not move away! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      No. Apple has demanded that the city use the force of guns to take money from other businesses to give to them.

      [Citation Needed] That's a rather bold claim to make without any support.

      Just see what happens if you don't pay your taxes.

      So let me understand you correctly: So if you don't pay your taxes, you expect nothing to happen to you There are no consequences to not paying taxes. What world do you live in where there are no consequences?

      Just this week I read about a group of cops in San Mateo (not far from Apple) breaking windows and pointing guns at children because the family objected the city's giving money to xtians to support hate.

      [Citation Needed]. And it was Apple's fault that cops in San Mateo might have done something, how? Please show me how Apple was in any way involved with what San Mateo does.

      Do you really support pointing guns at people to take money from them to give to Apple? In any moral person's view, that is robbery.

      Do you personally blame Barack Obama for your health care coverage (or lack of). Please get some perspective. Unless you have proof that Apple has actually done something, I think you've been reading one too many conspiracy stories.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    16. Re:No they would not move away! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By "fly away" I assume you mean have all of their followers commit suicide so that they can "join" the UFO flying behind some comet. Seems about right for Apple, really.

    17. Re:No they would not move away! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does the equal protection clause have anything to do to whether a city can negotiate deals with individuals or corporations?

      Apple has asked for and been granted a special tax dispensation.

      If the ice cream store asks for the same special tax dispensation, and the city refuses, are they not treating these two businesses unequally under the law?

  12. We've got to build a Death Star by Leejjon · · Score: 0

    The world is fucking turning to shit The earth don't stand a chance Hurricane typhoon will destroy the city We've got to clean up the skies and recycle We've got to stop the overpopulation But most important of all We've got to build a Death Star Tenacious D predicted this!

    1. Re:We've got to build a Death Star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever you're smoking, either stop or take a more.

  13. give me, if not Pastafarians, at least Raelians by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Looks like the MindHead world headquarters.
    Shouldn't they all already have put on their purple Nikes and drank their poisoned Kool-Aid and burned the place down when their Master ascended?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  14. WARN: There is another system by RDW · · Score: 3, Funny

    Here in the UK we cut out the middleman, and just buy these flying saucer tech headquarters directly from taxpayers' money:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Communications_Headquarters

    Then they spy on us.

    1. Re:WARN: There is another system by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      holy shit what kind of freaky building is that?? If you're business is surreptitious spying, wouldn't you want to keep it on the down low? that place looks like Dr Evil or SCEPTRE works there.

    2. Re:WARN: There is another system by bugs2squash · · Score: 2

      no more freaky looking than the pentagon. And when the kids go out to recess they can't be seen from the road.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    3. Re:WARN: There is another system by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      fair enough. they are truly sister agencies. it would be cool if they were on exactly opposite sides of the globe, and there was a secret project to realign the magnetic poles so the magnetic axis passed through both buildings. ...profit!

    4. Re:WARN: There is another system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're business is surreptitious spying

      Get your GED, son.

    5. Re:WARN: There is another system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That place looks like he anus that the intergalactic spacemen will put the probe when they want to understand government.

    6. Re:WARN: There is another system by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Here in the UK we cut out the middleman, and just buy these flying saucer tech headquarters directly from taxpayers' money:

      You fools! You're supposed to get an extraterrestrial government to pay for flying saucers.

  15. So, the want to work... by ClosedEyesSeeing · · Score: 1

    in a giant TRON identity disk?

  16. Ozymandias by grepppo · · Score: 1

    Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!

  17. First floating city corporation by Carnivore24 · · Score: 1

    Once built it will lift off and roam the Earth, hovering over the oceans, able to evade all tax laws.

    1. Re:First floating city corporation by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      That is interesting. Yea Yea Sealand I a know....

      But Apple certainly does have the financial resources it would take to build their own island in international waters, floating or fixed to the sea floor in some way.

      What is stopping them from 'building' their own country?

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  18. a few hundred meters for $80 million? YES! by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Might they move a few hundred meters across city lines to save $4 million X 20 years = $80 million. Yes!

    This is very visible where I live, in Bryan / College Station, Texas. A large portion of both cities is within a mile of the border between them. Driving through the area, it's obvious which city has traditionally been friendly to businesses and which hasn't. The College Station side has new towers being built a couple hundred feet from the empty, decaying buildings in Bryan. A few years ago Bryan figured it out and is now attracting new investment. The downtown Bryan area has switched from hookers and gangs to restaurants and boutiques, but most of the city is still suffering from the fact that businesses preferred College Station for so many years.

    1. Re:a few hundred meters for $80 million? YES! by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      You're talking about two cities right next to each other, where apparently there's no shortage of land or office space (else College Station would fill up and you'd then get more stuff in Bryan). I'll also guess that that area is not someplace like SV or Manhattan where businesses flock for reasons much more important to them than cost (else there'd be nothing in SV or Manhattan).

  19. Beautiful, but somewhat disappointing by CBM · · Score: 2

    The actual design of the building is beautiful and marvelous.

    But I have to say that the entire design of the campus is a little disappointing. The buildings on campus are completely isolated from the rest of the city of Cupertino. The campus will be separated by a new security wall/fence surrounding the perimeter that will prevent all unauthorized entry, and most of the buildings will be hidden behind substantial landscaping. The plan also demolishes a city street that will disturb local automotive and bicycle routes.

    Apple workers will get to appreciate the beauty of the architecture, and the calmness of the natural park-like setting, but the public will have to gaze from a distance.

    I think Apple had a chance here to integrate the campus more closely with the city, and the city had an opportunity to ask for more of a community feeling than an ivory tower feeling. What if the park-like portions of the campus were an actual public park? The public could appreciate the architectural wonder and feel that the campus was at least a little bit a part of their city. What if the campus had more walking-friendly routes to and from the rest of the city, to encourage interaction between workers and local businesses? Facebook did this, by basically buying a little mini-city (http://mediagallery.usatoday.com/Inside+Facebook%27s+headquarters/G3949) which integrates work and life elements. You'd get a better city, quite frankly.

    1. Re:Beautiful, but somewhat disappointing by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      What if the campus had more walking-friendly routes to and from the rest of the city, to encourage interaction between workers and local businesses? Facebook did this, by basically buying a little mini-city

      Facebook HQ is a bunch of office buildings surrounded by car parks, off an expressway. There's no through route to anywhere for the general public. Nor anything resembling a park.

  20. Not HP headquarters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was an HP campus, but it wasn't HP headquarters, which is in Palo Alto.

  21. does that mean commuting on Homestead... by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    ...will be really bad? Other day southbound 280 in Cupertino area had couple accidents so I took Homestead and it was worse. I imagine Stevens Creek was terrible as well. I heard Apple has 10,000 employees scattered about in numerous buildings throughout Cupertino but here they will be gathered in one location. Agg, traffic in that area may be so bad cars will not work, faster to walk.

    But then I remember back in 20th century when HP was ran by Bill and Dave, and those buildings slated for the chute had the best engineers ever working in them. Test equipment that was premium, much of that stuff from back then still sells high value even when it is all beat up with 20 year old cal stickers.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  22. It's a moonshot by rainer_d · · Score: 1
    I believe Apple should be lauded for trying to build "The best office building in the world".
    If the building comes out as expected, it will be a landmark like the Empire State Building (or the (collapsed) World Trade Center (before it collapsed)).

    Yes, it could all be had cheaper - but OTOH, it's still better than paying out huge bonuses to the execs or buying more corporate jets. There are a thousand ways to waste money. This way, at least the public gets something in return.

    --
    Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    1. Re:It's a moonshot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > World Trade Center (before it collapsed)

      Don't you mean knocked down? Or are you one of those truthers? You hate Bush so you just want him to be responsible for causing them to fall. You people are nuts.

    2. Re:It's a moonshot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > World Trade Center (before it collapsed)

      Don't you mean knocked down? Or are you one of those truthers? You hate Bush so you just want him to be responsible for causing them to fall. You people are nuts.

      No he means collapsed after being damaged by a Airplane impact and subsequent fire.

  23. Some tax revenue better than none by sjbe · · Score: 2

    what's the rationale behind giving them benefits? would they move away if they didn't? unlikely, really.

    Actually it would be relatively easy for Apple to relocate. They don't have to go across the country though they probably could if needed. They could just go to the next town over. The rationale is that some tax revenue is better than no tax revenue. Furthermore there is additional tax and income benefit to other local businesses like restaurants, hotels, etc.

    1. Re:Some tax revenue better than none by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The next town over? Where would you like them to build their campus in Sunnyvale or Santa Clara? San Jose is out unless we are talking the southern part of the city. Hell, at that point you might as well consider Morgan Hill and Gilroy. The problem is Apple is building out, rather than up, on 176 acres. The company would have to move to the East Bay, it is the only place with comparable amounts of commercially zoned acreage.

      Compare this to Google's new campus, over 42 acres, which is leased federal land from NASA.

  24. Cost of living not really a big factor by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Exactly. Where else in the USA could they possibly find a lower cost of living?

    Not really a big consideration. As long as the employees can get to work the company doesn't really need to care much. The company gets tax benefits because if Apple moves out of Cupertino (which they easily could do) then Cupertino gets zero tax revenue and might even lose additional spillover revenues from restaurants, hotels, etc. Last time I checked some revenue is better than no revenue.

  25. Why is this interesting? by kaka.mala.vachva · · Score: 1

    Why is this news for geeks? Is there something technically advanced in their new building? Why should we care? Or is the word "Apple" enough to warrant front page on Slashdot?

    1. Re:Why is this interesting? by tsa · · Score: 1

      If you don't understand that you are not a geek.

      --

      -- Cheers!

  26. Edifice Complex by sjbe · · Score: 1

    One of Parkinson's Laws is that the demise of a corporation follows not long after construction of headquarters.

    It's called having an edifice complex.

  27. Cupertino let Apple walk all over them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone catch the fact that Apple is truncating Pruneridge Avenue for this? Traffic around that site is going to be a mess...

  28. Proposed Name? by peter.kingsbury · · Score: 1

    iCentrifuge

    1. Re:Proposed Name? by molesdad · · Score: 1

      iSore

      --
      If the shoe fits, it's ugly.
  29. The law of large numbers by sjbe · · Score: 1

    What astonishes me is that they have all this cash and they don't seem to be inventing anything new or creating any new markets. That's the bigger sign of distress at the company.

    No new markets? For crying out loud the iPad was released just 3 years ago. That for all practical purposes created the tablet market as we know it today. It's absurd that anyone should really expect Apple to create completely new multi-billion dollar businesses from scratch every year or they are somehow in danger of going out of business. I'm pretty sure you have no idea how difficult it is to productively invest a cash hoard the size of the one Apple has. It's virtually impossible.

    When you get to the size of Apple or Google or Microsoft there simply aren't that many investments you can make that will move the needle. Apple made something like $156 billion in revenue in 2012. Apple's trailing twelve month growth rate is 9.2% which is effectively the same thing as creating a $14 billion company from scratch. FYI a company with $14 billion in revenue would be in the top 200 companies in the Fortune 500. That means Apple *grew* by the entire size of eBay last year. How easy do you think that is to do? What business do you think Apple should do that is going to generate $14 billion in the next year?

    1. Re:The law of large numbers by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure you have no idea how difficult it is to productively invest a cash hoard the size of the one Apple has. It's virtually impossible.

      Which is why they should be using the money for R&D to bring new products to market - that's where the ROI always is in technology.

      What business do you think Apple should do that is going to generate $14 billion in the next year?

      The only way to grow at that kind of rate is to create new businesses. So, one should expect that Apple would be doing just that, as much as it can. But, perhaps it's too big to do so anymore.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  30. Re:STFU statist by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    I give up - real post or parody? Oh, what's the difference, we statists love stealing and make no bones about it.

  31. Better Deal than Other Cities! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the city isn't getting hurt at all (per poster above). It could be much worse: Chicago gave 42 Million in tax breaks to Boeing to move its corporate head quarters. What did they get for that? About 200 employees working downtown (on Upper Wacker IIRC). Maybe bragging rights is worth it but I think I'd rather have the manufacturing headquarters with 1000's of jobs (I think Libertyville has plenty of nice manufacturing space since Motorola abandoned it for China).

  32. Death Star shaped like an Apple by pouar · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one picturing their spacehip like this?

    --
    while :;do if windows sucks;then mv windows /dev/null;pacman -Sy linux;fi;done
  33. Truly Orwellian statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Apple has agreed to fork over more money to the city in the form of a reduced sales tax rebate"

    This is the sound of America becoming a third world country.

  34. Slightly off topic by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    We call a business complex a "campus", and we call a school a "plant".
    That, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with the country.

  35. Meetup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meetup is the world's largest network of local groups. Meetup makes it easy for anyone to organize a local group or find one of the thousands already meeting up face-to-face. More than 9,000 groups get together in local communities each day, each one with the goal of improving themselves or their communities.For more info , please visit http://www.meetup.com/

  36. The beginning of the end? by tsa · · Score: 1

    Many corporations who built a big new headquarters were gone within 5 years. Let's hope at that this does not happen to Apple.

    --

    -- Cheers!