🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <35875@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
> >Why doesn't Apple just build one or two big buildings and move everyone
> >into one place?  In the long run, wouldn't that offer tremendous advantages
> >and actually save them money?
> 
> Well, I'm certainly not an Apple spokesman on this, but here's why I think
> this is a bad idea:
>	[...good reasons why one building is a bad idea...]

And, you might add, since Apple (like some othr companies) isn't a static
entity, a single structure perfectly matching Apple's needs today would be
a very bad match by the time it was finished.  Building a structure that
met some projected future need would not be cost effective now...and likely
wouldn't be in the future either, given the accuracy of your typical
projections of future growth.

I'm sure you could think of some other places that fit this model, right
Chuq?	:}

------------
"...I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by 
reorganizing: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion 
of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization."
	- Petronius Arbiter, 210 B.C.