California clears way for Steve Jobs' 'private Apple spaceship' Apple's giant glass doughnut with apricot groves will be fast-tracked through the planning system, Cupertino City Council announced, smoothing the approval process for its 3 million square foot (278,709m2) Campus 2 building. The move comes six weeks after Apple buried its neighbours in publicity material explaining how great …
What's interesting to me, is that the projected building, in the shape of a giant zero, neatly and accurately sums up Jobs' value as a person, and precisely reflects the sum total of his generosity, both philanthropic and personal, not to mention, additionally, spiritually.
Possibly it is not too late to have the shape altered, just a wee bit, so that it resembles, not a halo, but a toilet seat?
Let's hope so!
@Turtle:
Two problems with your pathetic joke:
1. Bill Gates was no great philanthropist while running Microsoft either; it wasn't until he left the company he helped found that he suddenly found a convenient conscience and started giving away his billions. Steve Jobs never had that chance: he was only 55 when he died last year and had only stepped down as CEO two months earlier on health grounds. It's likely he was undergoing treatment for much of 2011, but it was too little too late.
2. You appear to be fine with the faux-philanthropy of the CEOs at, say, Asus, Acer, HP, Toshiba, Samsung, Dell, etc. who donate a tiny fraction of their money, while giving thousands of jobs to China and India?
At least Apple are employing 13000 Americans in non-menial, high-value jobs. Those jobs pay handsomely, so Cupertino and its community will very definitely benefit from the taxes all those employees (and Apple itself) will be paying. Whereas Apple's rivals remain happy to invest more and more of their money in China and India while keeping their "home" offices stripped of everything but accountants and lawyers.
That's worth a damned sight more to the US' economy than any amount of cheesy giant-cheque press-releases and marketing bullshit costing a tiny fraction of a percent of a corporation's net profits and used to reduce corporate tax liabilities.
(Besides, many charities are far from the goody-two-shoes people seem to think they are. How much of each donation goes on paying the six-figure salaries of their bosses?)
Gates can afford to be philanthropic: he has the time and the money. Jobs never had the time, although we have no idea whether he donated money anonymously. Personally, I'm not sure I care what someone does with the money they worked their arses off to earn. Spend it, give it away, or commission a solid gold Ferrari. It's none of my—or your—fucking business.
Sean
I know your a defender of the faith and the Jobsian sun shines from your arse but rewriting geography is a first, even for someone of your devotion, what operating level have you reached?
Asus, Acer, Toshiba and Samsung are not US companies, they might have US subsiduaries but they are clearly not US companies.
As for tax status of Apple and the people of Cupertino, perhaps you want to read this:
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/apple-pioneered-tax-avoidance-tactics-report-claims-50007785/
"Apple, for example, set up a small office in Reno -- just 200 miles from its Cupertino headquarters -- to collect and invest its profits. Why? Well it wasn't just because Tim Cook loved the biggest little city in the world. It's because Nevada's corporate tax rate is zero, compared to California's 8.84 per cent. "
Apple are also fond of the Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich when it comes to tax "management" in Europe.
iTunes in EMEA is in Luxembourg for the discounted tax as well.
Apple are no better and no worse than the other examples you have cited, after all, that ithingy you wrote your post on was probably made in China!
Some people take a more critical look at the Gate foundation and see that not everything is sunshine and lollipops.
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/the_gates_foundations_leverage.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,2533850.story
Oh look: Person with track record of slagging off Microsoft finds a couple of articles which aren't that hot about the B&MGF. Great.
Clearly they're not perfect, but - and this is just off the top of my head - the company invests in a double blind manner, so they may invest in XYorX oil company, but it is done in a manner which makes the most money for the charity. Is it the way I'd do it? No. Is it "EVIL BILL REALLY TRYING TO KILL EVERYONE BUT HIM" probably not.
"but - and this is just off the top of my head - the company invests in a double blind manner, so they may invest in XYorX oil company, but it is done in a manner which makes the most money for the charity."
There would seem to be quite a few arguments that indicate this would not appear to be true... perhaps you could read around and then make your point.
"Is it the way I'd do it? No. Is it "EVIL BILL REALLY TRYING TO KILL EVERYONE BUT HIM" probably not."
No, indeed, however I don't think that was necessarily what was being claimed and, despite much of the drivel spouted online when things are being debated, not everything in the real world has to be one extreme or the other.
Having been shown round one Foster and Co building just after it was built with a view to buying one of the apartments and then working in another building from the final stages of construction to the first phases of it being put to use I can say that I was vastly underwhelmed on both occasions.
From the outside and as a casual visitor both buildings looked stunning and had a facade of functionality. The real problems are in the smaller details which you have to deal with on a more day to day basis. Corners get cut to keep the aesthetics right. impracticable service rooms, odd corridor arrangements. Rooms which have an outside wall but no windows for no apparent reason apart from to keep the building looking pretty.
And then there are other design fuck ups which had to be ripped out at the last minute and replaced with a more tried and tested method
13,000 yuppies driving an hour each way to and fro work. What baloney, another environmental disaster. I suppose ultimately a Chinese province will be dug up for the rare earths needed for slave laborers to make the toys these yuppies will design. And the liberal yuppies claim capitalist exploiters are gone. Walt Kelly got it: "We have met the Enemy, and He is Us."
"Cupertino locals had complained that the 13,000 employees who will work in the glowy doughnut office will bring traffic and noise into the area without adding any amenities for locals. "
I'm forced to ask, who cares? It's *Cupertino*. There's nothing worthwhile there *now*; it's an endless sprawl of at-best modestly-wooded strip malls and suburbs. I believe the town motto is "Cupertino: At least we're not Sunnyvale."
but this looks like a sensible move to me.
The new location is less than a mile from Infinite Loop, is right next to 280, and looks moderately well thought out to me with adequate onsite parking and access.
Whatever you think of Jobs or Foster, it's more interesting than the Microsoft Campus.
Full details can be seen here;
http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1107
All those factors you mentioned are of no value to a single person in the entire world except for Apple employees. You counted only the benefits to them, and did not even consider the remotest possibility that those benefits might imply costs to others in the local neighbourhood, or the rest of the world, or even anywhere at all. That utterly one-sided all-benefits-no-costs analysis can't be justified and could only arise from your own pre-existing cognitive bias. Fanboi.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
