Slashdot Mirror


Apple's New Spaceship Campus Gets a Name, Lifts Off In April (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Apple has been building its giant new "spaceship" campus in the company's hometown of Cupertino, California, since December of 2013, and since then fans have paid obsessive attention to the structure. It gets buzzed by drones constantly, and the most popular YouTube videos of the building in progress have amassed well over half-a-million views apiece. The company announced today that the campus will be open to employees starting in April and that the building and environs now have a name: Apple Park. Apple says that moving the 12,000 employees who will work at the campus will take more than six months, and landscaping and construction on some buildings won't be done until the summer. The new campus mostly replaces the university-style Infinite Loop campus Apple has used since 1993, though Apple has said that it will also be keeping the older buildings. The new campus' cost has been estimated at around $5 billion. Apple will also be naming one space on the new campus after its founder and former CEO -- the Steve Jobs Theater will replace the current Town Hall event space that Apple sometimes uses for company meetings and product announcements, and it will open "later this year." The new space will be much larger (it will seat 1,000, compared to roughly 300 for the Town Hall), and the larger space will presumably allow Apple to launch more of its products on its campus rather than having to rent expensive event space in downtown San Francisco. The company is also moving its Worldwide Developers Conference closer to home this year -- it will return to San Jose after many years at the Moscone Center in San Francisco.

106 comments

  1. Not a Spaceship by Misagon · · Score: 3, Funny

    I have said it before: the ring is a massive Reality Distortion Field Generator.

    Apple needs it more than ever, now that Jobs has been dead for five years.

    --
    "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    1. Re:Not a Spaceship by turkeydance · · Score: 1

      maybe giga-VR ?

    2. Re:Not a Spaceship by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      I have said it before: the ring is a massive Reality Distortion Field Generator.

      Apple needs it more than ever, now that Jobs has been dead for five years.

      Actually, you're wrong... on both counts. You see, it's actually a giant Stargate so that Jobs can return from his last super secret project, to build the iShip which is in fact a spaceship. Word is the controls are flat panels and there are zero buttons. There have been some issues with the controls exploding if the ship is damaged but that's the users fault for flying it wrong.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:Not a Spaceship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple needs it more than ever, now that Jobs has been dead for five years.

      It's already operational.

      "Courage" has made Apple an unimaginable amount of money.

    4. Re:Not a Spaceship by jittles · · Score: 1

      I have said it before: the ring is a massive Reality Distortion Field Generator.

      Apple needs it more than ever, now that Jobs has been dead for five years.

      I thought it was Job's mausoleum?

    5. Re:Not a Spaceship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, pretentiousness has made Apple an unimaginable amount of money.

    6. Re:Not a Spaceship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eventually you'll be able to claw everybody back down to your level of imagination. Until then enjoy your Mao jacket!

    7. Re:Not a Spaceship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have said it before: the ring is a massive Reality Distortion Field Generator.

      Apple needs it more than ever, now that Jobs has been dead for five years.

      He's not dead... He's just resting!

      (apologies to a certain parrot of Monty Python fame....)

  2. sign of decline by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't sinking 100s of millions into construction of a new corporate headquarters one the Fucked Company(tm) 6 common signs that a company is about to implode?

    --

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

    1. Re:sign of decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't sinking 100s of millions into construction of a new corporate headquarters one the Fucked Company(tm) 6 common signs that a company is about to implode?

      Not when you look at things like actual facts and statistics.

    2. Re:sign of decline by known_coward_69 · · Score: 4, Informative

      yeah, that $200 BILLION or whatever apple has stashed around the world these days is going to vanish next week and apple will go bankrupt

    3. Re:sign of decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      money can be squandered away pretty quickly---especially since those billions aren't directly controlled by the shareholders (you as a shareholder can't really get access to those billions... but the folks in charge can get bonuses for facilitating stupid acquisitions---the bigger the better).

    4. Re:sign of decline by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Is it a better or a worse sign than spreading many thousands of employees around decrepit buildings which may or may not have costly leases and cause inefficiencies in the workplace?

    5. Re:sign of decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're correct when Apple hasn't released a laptop that supports more than 16 GB of RAM since April 2010. That means they haven't innovated in nearly seven years. I got approval to buy a new laptop over five years ago iff it would support more RAM like about sixty of my other coworkers since we have to run several virtual machines at the same time and damn need that, but Apple hasn't released a laptop yet that supports more RAM and Apple confirmed that they aren't released a new laptop that support more until 2018 at the earliest. We are suffering from Apple's lack of innovation.

    6. Re: sign of decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple gave up on innovation over seven years ago. It sucks not being able to upgrade to a laptop that supports more memory.

    7. Re:sign of decline by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm sure the dozens of billions of unpaid back taxes will be up for debate shortly.

    8. Re:sign of decline by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Sometimes. Apple already has their 1 Infinite Loop building and then most of the office buildings nearby along De Anza and a few nearer the middle of town. They're pretty short on space. It makes sense for them to be building a new big building, and the cost difference between building a new boring building and a new shiny building is pretty small. This will let them move a bunch of people who need to collaborate into offices near each other, rather than having them spread across the various De Anza buildings.

      From what people were saying when I was at Apple a couple of weeks ago, it's actually coming a bit too late. The company has grown faster than they expected when they started planning and so rather than being able to move everyone from De Anza into IL2, they're having to identify sets of people who need to collaborate and move them, leaving quite a few behind in De Anza. If your company is growing faster than your ability to build office space to house them, that's generally a good sign (though the insane planning permission situation in the Bay Area means that it happens there a lot more often than you'd expect).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:sign of decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There may be lots of things to criticize about Apple, but their history of acquisitions isn't one of them. Their largest acquisition ever was Beats for about $3 billion. Compare that to Microsoft, Facebook, Google, etc, who throw away ridiculous amounts of money on bad acquisitions (see Nokia, Motorola, etc.). Apple acquisitions tend to be far more targeted.

      I see so many people suggesting that Apple ought to acquire company X, but usually it is a pretty bad idea and as a shareholder, I am quite glad that they don't. A large acquisition takes a huge amount of time away from executives who ought to be concentrating on the core business(es) of the company. Cultural differences between the companies also create lots of problems.

    10. Re:sign of decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple could pay those taxes three times over and still be in the black.

    11. Re: sign of decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lack of RAM greater than 16 is Intel's slowness in delivering a system that can fit a laptop and be energy efficient .

    12. Re:sign of decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      LMGTFY: Google's new HQ

      Or rather - fucking google it yourself.

    13. Re:sign of decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      money can be squandered away pretty quickly---especially since those billions aren't directly controlled by the shareholders (you as a shareholder can't really get access to those billions... but the folks in charge can get bonuses for facilitating stupid acquisitions---the bigger the better).

      Yeah, Apple could do something stupid, maybe buy a failing company like Google.

  3. Re:Thank you Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That my friend is FAKE NEWS. Stop watching Fox. It rots what little brain you have left.

  4. Launching products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big news is that Apple thinks they will still be launching products.

    Apple Park is a failure from the start, just like NASA's Shuttle-C, X-33 and Skylab.

    1. Re:Launching products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple Park is a failure ?????

      Shouldn't that be

      Apple Park will be a failure...

      The spaceship isn't open yet.

    2. Re:Launching products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course. They all pale into insignificance when shadowed by the sheer audacity of your monumental achievements, oh mighty AC. lol, made myself laugh

    3. Re:Launching products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My grandfather invented the transistor.

    4. Re:Launching products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PNP or NPN?

    5. Re:Launching products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FET, not BJT (bipolar junction). n-channel and p-channel are possible, I believe (but have not confirmed) that n-channel was the first described by his paper.

  5. Apple once again late with a product by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have said it before: the ring is a massive Reality Distortion Field Generator.

    As per usual Apple is late to market with an inferior product.

    Apple Haters have been carrying around a small portable reality distortion generators with them for years that allows them to see Apple's growth as retraction. They appear to have a boundless power source and are so strong no reality is able to break through no matter how discordant the internal view becomes!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Apple once again late with a product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww someones sad....

    2. Re:Apple once again late with a product by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      My burn was pretty good but I don't think Apple Haters are capable of any emotions besides burning, raw hatred - pretty sure he (yes all Apple Haters are He) is not sad.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Apple once again late with a product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple's sales and profits have grown with their market share in the mobile [cell] market shrinking. What's so hard to understand about that?

      Perhaps logic on both sides is missing.

    4. Re:Apple once again late with a product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >My burn was pretty good

      Nah, it was too contrived.

    5. Re:Apple once again late with a product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, Steve is dead. He isn't going to let you slobber up his knob.

    6. Re:Apple once again late with a product by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      I have said it before: the ring is a massive Reality Distortion Field Generator.

      As per usual Apple is late to market with an inferior product.

      Apple Haters have been carrying around a small portable reality distortion generators with them for years that allows them to see Apple's growth as retraction. They appear to have a boundless power source and are so strong no reality is able to break through no matter how discordant the internal view becomes!

      So when did YOU turn into an Apple Hater?

      And yes, as with most large-scale construction. Projects, this one is a little late; but INFERIOR?!? Relative to WHAT? The Large Hadron Collider???

    7. Re:Apple once again late with a product by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Not inferior, but perhaps a modern equivalent to the Spruce Goose.

    8. Re:Apple once again late with a product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Best part about being dead is you don't need his permission.

    9. Re:Apple once again late with a product by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Not inferior, but perhaps a modern equivalent to the Spruce Goose.

      I don't see the analogy.

      The Spruce Goose was a technologically-unsound (but it DID fly!) airplane that Howard Huge built as a testament to his ego. It was never really intended to be practical in a commercial sense.

      But when all is said and done, Apple Park is simply an office complex that employs a somewhat unconventional design for its main building (but no more so than many other unconventional-looking buildings around the world), deploying completely off-the-shelf technology for its power-source; but which is, in the end, little different from the scores of conventional commercial buildings I see where I live with a huge back-lot solar-panel-farm to supply some or all of their power.

      BIG difference!

  6. You all laugh now by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

    When the coming zombie hordes simply slide off the smooth exterior of the walls or flow around it like a pebble in a stream, you will be begging to be let inside the true sanctuary city Jobs has built.

    Guess who will be sad *they* didn't spend $40 on IAP that year...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:You all laugh now by swb · · Score: 2

      I always wondered why a slope with an incline that gradually increased to vertical wasn't ever employed in zombie fiction forts. They would shamble forward until their center of mass shifted and then fall back.

      With the right slope contour, you could make it so they fell back pretty far.

      Another option would be a kind of blind curve, where they shamble in and then just shamble away on the other side.

    2. Re:You all laugh now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the mindless zombie hordes that work inside the building. Did they plan for those?

  7. doesn't perceive that big by k6mfw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I drive by this thing every day, it's big but not that big (at least how I perceive it). I read it is the size of the Pentagon (haven't researched or RTFA) but some reason the DOD building appears larger, or is it the shape? Also the Apple Saucer is surrounded by parking garages and walls.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:doesn't perceive that big by Guybrush_T · · Score: 2

      Seems huge to me when I drive by. Easy to spot from a plane too. But I can't compare to Pentagon or DoD.

      Maybe wait for the walls to be removed ...

  8. It should be named "Mos Eisley Spaceport" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."

  9. Call it "Spaceship" - No Need to Pay Taxes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Brilliant. It's not part of any country, I guess, so no tax money gonna be paid anywhere.

    1. Re:Call it "Spaceship" - No Need to Pay Taxes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Cant tax avoid anymore , my ass"

  10. Terrible Name by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's a terrible name for a spaceship. Seriously, "Apple Park"?

    They should change it to something better, like "Very Little Gravitas Indeed".

    1. Re:Terrible Name by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      How about "Unacceptable Behaviour"?

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    2. Re:Terrible Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tribute to Xerox Parc?

    3. Re:Terrible Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww thats adorable. Where jobs ripped of some of his first ideas.

    4. Re:Terrible Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off with that stupid lie. Apple didn't steal anything from Xerox. They licensed their patents, and Xerox was a pre-IPO investor in Apple.

    5. Re: Terrible Name by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Isn't an apple park usually called an orchard?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    6. Re:Terrible Name by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Ripped off as in Xerox made more from the deal with Jobs than the operating costs of PARC for its entire time between founding and Xerox spinning it off? Can I sign up to be ripped off by Apple in this way too please?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:Terrible Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's as though they are reminding us that Jobs is dead. Better names would be...

      Xanadu
      Bedlam
      Queen Anne's Revenge

  11. Built with extra COURAGE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are no doors

    1. Re: Built with extra COURAGE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All building I/O will require a dongle.

  12. You're thinking of elsewhere by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

    No, Apple is not located anywhere near downtown San Francisco.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  13. This is garbage by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    Should have built a tower. That could be reused.

  14. name change? by kiviQr · · Score: 2

    Apple Park - did you mean Orchard?

  15. R&D by rfengr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The R&D building is separate and much, much smaller. That does not bode well.

    1. Re:R&D by swb · · Score: 2

      It doesn't take a lot of facilities and equipment to delete parts from the assembly.

    2. Re:R&D by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I see the didn't have the courage to remove the doors. Doesn't bode well.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:R&D by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't it bode well? They are building miniature electronics, not airliners. What do you think an R&D team needs? Wind tunnels to check the corners of the iPhone have the correct roundness?

    4. Re:R&D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why doesn't it bode well? They are building miniature electronics, not airliners. What do you think an R&D team needs? Wind tunnels to check the corners of the iPhone have the correct roundness?

      How much physical room does it take to do any of the other things that happen at HQ?

      Other than symbolizing the relative insignificance of Apples investment in R&D, this albatross is a monument to the failure of the internet to do, well, anything other than mimic TV and landline.

    5. Re:R&D by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't it bode well? They are building miniature electronics, not airliners. What do you think an R&D team needs? Wind tunnels to check the corners of the iPhone have the correct roundness?

      How much physical room does it take to do any of the other things that happen at HQ?

      Other than symbolizing the relative insignificance of Apples investment in R&D, this albatross is a monument to the failure of the internet to do, well, anything other than mimic TV and landline.

      You need to do some fact checking before you spew your hate.

      Apple spends serious coin on Research and Development; far more than their competition.

    6. Re:R&D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think an R&D team needs?

      Scientists and Engineers - lots of them.

    7. Re:R&D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Apple is primarily a delivery platform for other's media and applications now. Their hardware is just a means to that end.

    8. Re:R&D by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Apple spends serious coin on Research and Development; far more than their competition.

      This is almost true, though the vast majority of Apple's R&D funding is firmly at the D end of the spectrum. IBM used to spend a lot more than Apple on research, though they've cut down a lot. Microsoft still does (around $5bn/year on MSR). These companies and Google (and Oracle, and so on) all throw grants at universities for research, which Apple doesn't. It wasn't until last the last few months that Apple even published any of their research.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:R&D by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Apple spends serious coin on Research and Development; far more than their competition.

      This is almost true, though the vast majority of Apple's R&D funding is firmly at the D end of the spectrum. IBM used to spend a lot more than Apple on research, though they've cut down a lot. Microsoft still does (around $5bn/year on MSR). These companies and Google (and Oracle, and so on) all throw grants at universities for research, which Apple doesn't. It wasn't until last the last few months that Apple even published any of their research.

      Apple does a lot of Research that isn't directly product-oriented, too; a quick look at their patent portfolio will show that. Just because they don't throw money at universities for tax writeoffs doesn't mean that they don't do pure research themselves.

      But if you think that R that is D-oriented doesn't "count", you are nothing but an intellectual effete.

    10. Re:R&D by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Apple does a lot of Research that isn't directly product-oriented, too; a quick look at their patent portfolio will show that.

      Sorry, no. It may not be tied to products that they're currently shipping, but there's a huge spectrum between initial idea and final product, and Apple has far less investment towards the idea end of the spectrum than any of their major competitors. By the time you can patent something, it's already towards the product end (and have you actually looked at the Apple patent portfolio? They patented a more efficient take-away pizza box, for example, which doesn't really tell you anything about pure research spending).

      But if you think that R that is D-oriented doesn't "count", you are nothing but an intellectual effete.

      It doesn't count because it's playing accounting games. The line between development and product is very blurry. Apple classifies a lot of things are R&D that other companies count as product development. This inflates Apple's R&D spending on the balance sheet, but means that you can't really compare. R&D is a pipeline and things always have to start closer to the pure research end. Most of Apple's R&D is building on pure research done by other organisations. This has changed a bit recently (particularly in machine learning), but they're still a long way behind most other big tech companies on research spending. Microsoft, until they restructured MSR a year or so ago, had the opposite problem: they were spending over $5bn/year on research and turning very little of it into products. Neither extreme is particularly healthy for a company. You need the research end to feed the pipeline, but then you need the pipeline from research to product.

      Disclaimer: I work in a university and collaborate with Apple, Google, and Microsoft on several projects.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:R&D by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Apple does a lot of Research that isn't directly product-oriented, too; a quick look at their patent portfolio will show that.

      Sorry, no. It may not be tied to products that they're currently shipping, but there's a huge spectrum between initial idea and final product, and Apple has far less investment towards the idea end of the spectrum than any of their major competitors. By the time you can patent something, it's already towards the product end (and have you actually looked at the Apple patent portfolio? They patented a more efficient take-away pizza box, for example, which doesn't really tell you anything about pure research spending).

      But if you think that R that is D-oriented doesn't "count", you are nothing but an intellectual effete.

      It doesn't count because it's playing accounting games. The line between development and product is very blurry. Apple classifies a lot of things are R&D that other companies count as product development. This inflates Apple's R&D spending on the balance sheet, but means that you can't really compare. R&D is a pipeline and things always have to start closer to the pure research end. Most of Apple's R&D is building on pure research done by other organisations. This has changed a bit recently (particularly in machine learning), but they're still a long way behind most other big tech companies on research spending. Microsoft, until they restructured MSR a year or so ago, had the opposite problem: they were spending over $5bn/year on research and turning very little of it into products. Neither extreme is particularly healthy for a company. You need the research end to feed the pipeline, but then you need the pipeline from research to product.

      Disclaimer: I work in a university and collaborate with Apple, Google, and Microsoft on several projects.

      Everything is fine and dandy until your "Disclaimer", which clearly alludes to the fact that Apple DOES, in fact, grant money to Universities for Research projects.

      I just used the handy reference of Apple's Patent Portfolio to point out that Apple does do "pure Research". And they do. You point out the Pizza Box; so f-ing what? That certainly wasn't "Product" oriented (at least not in the sense that Apple would go into the Pizza-Box business), and in fact was about creating a box that had significantly-higher post-consumer recycled content, while retaining structural integrity. Another recent Patent of this sort was for their Modular Apple Store Displays. Again, they felt it was unique enough to protect; but Apple isn't going into the office-furniture business. Again, so what?

      But there are a LOT of "grey area" patents, that likely aren't really intended for actual "D"; but are framed as possible improvements or alternatives for methods and technologies being used in their current products, such as these in the past year: http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

      http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

      http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

      http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

      http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...

    12. Re:R&D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You actually believe Apple is "playing accounting games" by doing R&D that results in actual products instead of bullshit abortions like Project Ara and Google Glass?

  16. It's ring shaped because they make no more towers by sandbagger · · Score: 3, Informative

    More's the pity.

    I want a full-sized Mac Pro tower with two ethernet ports, room for at least four drives and PCI cards. The iPad Pro may be great for people who live entirely in Google docs, but not for the rest of us.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
  17. Expanse is on tonight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There isn't a campus nearby named Eros is there?

  18. am disappoint by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    It hardly looks anything like an 80's rock album cover.
    ELO, Boston, Kansas and Journey did it better, stardust.

    --

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

    1. Re:am disappoint by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      It hardly looks anything like an 80's rock album cover. ELO, Boston, Kansas and Journey did it better, stardust.

      That's because all they had to do was a 12 inch airbrush painting.

    2. Re:am disappoint by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I wondered why big posters of them were so blurry. Clearly it's because they'd been enlarde by a factor of 2 or 3..

      It also explains why the posters became even worse after CDs came out.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:am disappoint by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      I wondered why big posters of them were so blurry. Clearly it's because they'd been enlarde by a factor of 2 or 3..

      It also explains why the posters became even worse after CDs came out.

      And who knows if they even went back to the original artwork and optically-enlarged them? That would have been the best way to preserve any detail...

  19. Interesting to mull over effect of shapes. by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    I was also mulling this over in relation to the movie World War Z where (spoiler) zombies piled up against a wall until they got over the top...

    Even against an angled wall that would work after a while I imagine, as you packed in enough tipped over zombies. But against curved and angled wall it seems like it would take much longer to work as most of the mindlessly piling on zombies would slide to the sides, or possibly even the force of new incoming zombies pushing the zombies up against the surface of the curve to either side. It would be really interesting to simulate.

    I think you are right hat against Walking Dead zombies, it would tip them over and they wouldn't be able to exert any significant force on the wall. Indeed a pack of them would be helping to hold up a wall canted outward!

    A new innovation for Zombie movies could be some kind of "stiction" zombie, that could attach to a surface, chemically bond, then pull instead of mindlessly ramming...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Interesting to mull over effect of shapes. by swb · · Score: 1

      You can't really compete with the concept of WWZ zombies -- they're just too fast and aggressive, but I think nearly every other invocation of them would fall away from an elliptical wall.

      The other low-tech zombie fighting tool I've always wanted to see employed is a good old demining flail. These look like tanks with a combine attached on front, only the combine part is steel weights the size of melons attached to chains. They rotate and pound the ground to set off any mines.

      https://youtu.be/wf6CsvAffHo?t...

      If you raised the flail assembly so it just spun in the air, you could literally drive into zombie hoards at low speed and just pulp them.

      My guess is that a similar apparatus on a smaller scale could probably be adapted to nearly any vehicle, probably even improvised from hydraulic sweeper attachments for Bobcats.

  20. Naming it after a south korean? by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Which member of the Park family, is Apple?

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Naming it after a south korean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like all things apple the building is probably 75% Samsung parts.

  21. the name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple Court, right? cuz its the core headquarters, yeah?

  22. Depends on what the definition of "is" is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple Park is a failure, as in it has the qualities of literal failure. Not that it is currently failing and there could be potentially some way to change its state.

  23. any architects or architect students comment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was under the impression that modern architectural aesthetics had moved away from all-glass buildings since it turns out that they're not as energy efficient as was claimed back in the 70's and 80's. They are, I believe, cheaper to build than typical concrete and steel structures. Anyway, roundness not withstanding, this building and the theatre already look a little dated to me.

  24. $1,800 per square foot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, about a 10 fold cost overrun. That's one very expensive office building.

  25. The donut hole? by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    The R&D park is the Donut hole.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  26. Let's search for a name by OpenSourced · · Score: 1

    Its an annular campus. Think, think...

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    1. Re:Let's search for a name by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 2

      Its an annular campus. Think, think...

      Ringworld.

    2. Re:Let's search for a name by putaro · · Score: 1

      Goatse?

    3. Re:Let's search for a name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rimmer world

      A Hole

  27. Was Orchard trademarked? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Or iOrchard?

  28. The building is not as important... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as the number of Americans it has working in it.

  29. The real audacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You posting requirements of an individual on slashdot to have accomplishments that exceed that of an organization of thousands of engineers is a pretty high bar.

  30. Nope. It's "The Donut". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has always been "The Donut". It will always be "The Donut".

    <homer> Mmmmm... Forbidden Donut... <drool> </homer>

  31. Missed Opportunity... by Timothy2.0 · · Score: 1

    Looks like they missed the chance to call it the "Apple Orchard".

    You'd think a company so focused on marketing could come up with something snappier than "Apple Park".

    Hell, even "The Apple Core" would've been better...

  32. No. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    Isn't sinking 100s of millions into construction of a new corporate headquarters one the Fucked Company(tm) 6 common signs that a company is about to implode?

    No.

    Not if those 5 Billion come from the 240 billion in cash that you have accumulated in earnings but selling product with revenues up to north of 30% (iPhone raw earnings are between 200$ and 250$ per device. Which is why Huawei, Google and Co. cry themselves to sleep at night.). Then 5 Billion for an attempt to build the worlds best office building is a nice neat little extra for the crew.

    If you're a startup running on high burnrate spending other peoples money with no income to show for though, that's an entirely different story.
    Then building a flashy new building is usually a sign that things are going to turn south soon after. I just finished reading "Boo Hoo", a first hand account of the 'rise' and fall of boo.com of the hayday of Dotbomb times. That is a prime example of what your talking about. Apple is just about the exact opposite of that.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  33. I heard the light bulbs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...aren't user replaceable.

  34. instead of the Donut, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    call it the "Glory Hole" .

  35. They're off the rails. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the best name they could come up with?

    "Apple Park" is a sure sign that Apple has succumbed to the safe, banal, uninspiring, corporate-y bullshit that nearly did them in the last time Jobs left.

    They'll be releasing a PowerBook 5300 redux any day now.

  36. Re:Nope. It's "The Donut". by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    IL1 is also a donut. Referring to the donut doesn't differentiate between IL1 and IL2.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  37. Not "Apple Orchard"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel that this was a huge miss....