Latest Drone Footage Reveals Landscaping Progress in Apple Park's Inner Circle

I wonder what mechanism they're going to use to clean the solar cells on the garages and the main building.

Maybe windex and some old t-shirts.

The goobers on here complaining about Apple Park would be sniping no matter what course Apple had chosen. Apple could have remodeled the HP campus and moved in, and the goobers would have complained. Apple could have built buildings like Lowe's, Home Depot, and Walmart, and the goobers would have complained. Apple could have built a giant cube, and the goobers would have complained.

Instead, Apple and Steve Jobs chose to build a campus that fit their vision and tastes...and the goobers complain.

Indeed, SC Johnson is an good example, but then realise how few of those positive examples exist...
Mega corporations at their top generally attract overcapitalist, crazy-whealty, A-type bozo's with stellar ego's.
I could mention a few at Apple (too many)
In the production/capital goods sector, their arrival merely landmarks the way down.
I am not implying this is the case with Apple, but it's stunning how badly they follow Steve's final instructions and changed the overall pathos - betraying his idea's.
To me, that's the black shadow over this otherwise fine building.

Not to worry. Your frequent and reflexive anti-Apple retorts needn't be addressed and are easily ignored.

https://9to5mac.com/2017/07/05/apple-park-campus-impact-on-cupertino/

This is reported to be running, so far, around $5 billion, and that's only the cost to Apple. This article alludes to the peripheral costs of escalating property value estimates for the surrounding area. Houses are doubling and tripling in cost, and they weren't exactly cheap in the first place. Another thing I wonder, given the sometimes fleeting lifetimes and fates of tech corporations - remember Digital Equipment Corporation, which was a staple for at least half my 35 year career, from PDP-11s, Dec-10/20s and Vaxes, all the way to Alpha servers? - what will this huge thing look like in 20 or 30 years? And what will happen to this property, should Apple go under, downsize, or reinvent itself? But yes, it is quite a world wonder. So was Houston's Astrodome 50 years ago.

Trying to compare Apple with DEC is downright silly. Prognosticating negative outcomes is also.

The fact that 5, 6, or whatever billion is actually a minor expense in relation to Apple's operations and value, should be a point of optimism to any reasonable person.

This reminds me of the old fable of the blind men each examining part of an elephant, and each declaring his own erroneous estimation of the nature of the beast.

Apple is the most valuable company on the planet and in all of known history. Give Apple its due. None of this was easily come by.

I look at this as a new phase for the company, and an entirely essential organizational evolution. The ring layout implies enhanced inter-departmental coordination and efficiency. The Apple team needs these enhancements now more than ever.

I've been a happy Apple customer for over 30 years, and I'm more optimistic now than ever for its continued well being and prosperity.

https://9to5mac.com/2017/07/05/apple-park-campus-impact-on-cupertino/

This is reported to be running, so far, around $5 billion, and that's only the cost to Apple. This article alludes to the peripheral costs of escalating property value estimates for the surrounding area. Houses are doubling and tripling in cost, and they weren't exactly cheap in the first place. Another thing I wonder, given the sometimes fleeting lifetimes and fates of tech corporations - remember Digital Equipment Corporation, which was a staple for at least half my 35 year career, from PDP-11s, Dec-10/20s and Vaxes, all the way to Alpha servers? - what will this huge thing look like in 20 or 30 years? And what will happen to this property, should Apple go under, downsize, or reinvent itself? But yes, it is quite a world wonder. So was Houston's Astrodome 50 years ago.

I imagine many people questioned the SC Johnson company (home cleaning and wax products, zip lock bags, etc) commissioning Frank Lloyd Wright in 1936 to design buildings for their headquarters in Racine, Wisconsin. Estimated construction costs were $200K, but ballooned to $1.2M. And here we are, 81 years later, with the company doing just fine. Tip-of-my cap to SC Johnson and Apple, as well as other companies with vision who are willing to take risks creating bold and architecturally stunning workspaces.

https://9to5mac.com/2017/07/05/apple-park-campus-impact-on-cupertino/

This is reported to be running, so far, around $5 billion, and that's only the cost to Apple. This article alludes to the peripheral costs of escalating property value estimates for the surrounding area. Houses are doubling and tripling in cost, and they weren't exactly cheap in the first place. Another thing I wonder, given the sometimes fleeting lifetimes and fates of tech corporations - remember Digital Equipment Corporation, which was a staple for at least half my 35 year career, from PDP-11s, Dec-10/20s and Vaxes, all the way to Alpha servers? - what will this huge thing look like in 20 or 30 years? And what will happen to this property, should Apple go under, downsize, or reinvent itself? But yes, it is quite a world wonder. So was Houston's Astrodome 50 years ago.

I wonder what mechanism they're going to use to clean the solar cells on the garages and the main building.

They'll use those little cleaning cloths you get with screen protectors.

I wonder what mechanism they're going to use to clean the solar cells on the garages and the main building.

Rain?

It's because Apple don't make many products and they are released so seldom that there is nothing else to talk about.
If Apple had a wider product range and you could buy many Apple products to use in your home, things would be different.

I do wonder if people expect more products to come, once this building is finished.

Indeed, SC Johnson is a fine example, but then realise how few of those positive examples exist...
Mega corporations at their top generally attract overcapitalist, crazy-whealty, A-type bozo's with stellar ego's.
I could mention a few at Apple (too many)
In the production/capital goods sector, their arrival merely landmarks the way down.
I am not implying this is the case with Apple, but it's stunning how badly they follow Steve's final instructions and changed the overall pathos - essentially betraying his idea's.
To me, that's the black shadow over this otherwise fine building (also used to feign they do follow Steve)

So: merely because of its monumental nature, I am not saying that building should be striken by fire, earthquakes or thelike in order to get that top brass humble and in line again.
But at the same time, it might eventually help....

Each time I see messages like this I wonder how different their market cap, profitability, and success would be if only the commenter was running the show.

Surely all way higher.

I wonder what mechanism they're going to use to clean the solar cells on the garages and the main building.

My guess is that Apple will do nothing.

I recall reading some university study that showed that the loss of solar cell efficiency was about five or seven percent from a soiled panel (dirt, dust, pollen, smoke particles, etc.). I'm not convinced that factor is enough to merit deploying the resources (cherry picker, water, labor) to clean the arrays.

In this part of California, precipitation is cyclical, with the first rains coming in October and stopping around May. On a per panel basis, they would see a loss of efficiency in the summer months/early autumn, but those are also peak production days with the typically clear skies. Much of the debris would wash off at the first couple of rains.

It is likely that Apple has based their electrical generation estimates on a forecast taking into consideration soiling and season, not peak production from a brand-new, immaculately clean panel array under the bright sun on summer solstice.

A similar consideration would be panel failure. It is highly unlikely that Apple will replace the panels as they fail individually. Again, I'm sure Apple has already figured in a certain amount of panel failure into their energy output calculations. Heck, with the size of this development and the number of solar panels, I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a panel failure every other week.

A probable scenario is that Apple (or more likely its solar panel contractor) would replace defective units once a year unless a particular panel poses a danger.