Apple said yesterday that employees will start boarding its futuristic campus, officially named Apple Park, in April. According to San Francisco Chronicle, Apple’s chief executive Tim Cook will move his office to the new 175-acre campus.

The article is short on specifics, but it’s safe to presume that Cook along with Chief Design Officer Jony Ive and other top executives will occupy offices on the top floor of Apple Park’s main 2.8 million sq ft ring-shaped structure.

In honoring the legacy of Steve Jobs, Apple has said that a massive 1,000-seat underground auditorium (where future corporate and press events will take place) has been named the Steve Jobs Theater. Located on a hill that overlooks the meadows and main building, the Steve Jobs Theater has a 20-foot-tall glass cylinder entrance covered by a metallic carbon-fiber roof.

“Steve’s vision for Apple stretched far beyond his time with us. He intended Apple Park to be the home of innovation for generations to come,” Cook said in a statement.

Apple Park will offer a pond and two miles of walking and running paths for employees. The company has planted more than 9,000 native trees to replace five million square feet of concrete and asphalt. The new campus, located on the site of an old HP office park, will open for employees in April 2017.

Moving about 12,000 engineers, developers and other staff from the company’s current headquarters to Apple Park will take about six months to accomplish.

Aside from the central structure resembling a flying saucer, the forthcoming campus includes several ancillary buildings such as secure research and development facilities, a 100,000 sq ft fitness center for Apple employees, a visitor center with an Apple Store and cafe open to the public and more.

Powered entirely by renewable energy, augmented by 17 megawatts of rooftop solar and fuel cells from Bloom Energy, the main structure files as one of the most energy-efficient buildings in the world. In addition to the new  campus, Apple will continue to have engineers at its buildings on Infinite Loop.

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

  • Rowan09

    Is it that bad guys that anytime you write an article that may bring some negative comments you close the thread? This is the new America I guess so PC.

    • The comments in these highly controversial posts are just all over the place, usually becoming pretty quickly utterly offensive, racist, and homophobic.

      While we want to report news related to these kind of topics, we certainly don’t want to make iDB a place for debate about these specific issues.

      This is not censorship. This is moderation.

      • Rowan09

        I understand, but it’s censorship when all those articles are closed for comments. I’m not mad at you guys, but people have to be so PC nowadays. Everyone is equally right in today’s America and that’s a contradiction within itself.

      • OUfan08

        It’s not censorship.

      • Rowan09

        So when you only allow certain things and block anything you deem offensive what’s that called? As I stated before I’m not blaming IDB for anything but you can delete comments like I’ve seen many times before. I know that’s a harder way to deal with things, but I would consider that moderating. When you don’t allow any comments that’s censorship. (Definition of censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security).

      • OUfan08

        You’re commenting on a private site’s comment section, it’s content control. Especially when offensive things are posted that could damage their reputation. Censorship really correlates with government entities and not private organizations as you don’t have freedom of speech on iDB, other private sites, or within private organizations.

        It’s no different then Amazon controlling content on their website, or an employer controlling content in the workplace.

      • Rowan09

        That’s the definition of censorship when there is no content to control. There is no content to control when a comment section which is usually open is closed to any comments hence making it censorship. Censoring doesn’t need to be a government organization and moderating would imply something to moderate, but there is no content posted because it was blocked. Just like in China the government censors the internet this is not different. If you can’t post its censorship, if you delete posts that moderating. I get it, but if the shoe fits is all I’m saying.

      • There are times when I’m genuinely interested in what people think on a topic however and am always saddened to see those comments are disabled. I’m all for moderation but shutting the whole comment section down to avoid a few flaming trolls seems to be a bit of a heavy handed approach. Although if iDB’s staff can’t possible spend the time to moderate a thread like that for a couple days that I can understand that too. I don’t know how stretched you all are for time.

      • It’s not even about time spent moderating. It’s about being the judge of what is considered offensive and what is not. By leaving comments open, I basically put myself in charge of deciding “this guy is definitely offensive, so let’s ban him”, or “this guy is somewhat offensive, but not too much, so what should we do?” It is a position I don’t want to be in.

        Maybe more importantly, I don’t want to make iDB an avenue for haters to come and spill their hate speech in the name of freedom of speech. People have no idea what kind of comments I have removed from these posts, most of them being automatically put held for moderation by the system, so you never as a reader never see them to begin with. We’re talking awfully abusive and hateful comments. This is not what this site is about.

        It’s infuriating enough to see the ridiculously offensive comments sometimes being posted by Apple or Samsung haters. There is absolutely no reason for me to allow more offensive comments towards certain people being published on this site. This is regardless of my beliefs regarding the matter being discussed.

      • That’s perfectly understandable and as someone who also owns and runs websites for a living I can respect that.

        However I think my point still stand that it comes across as a heavy handed approach and that it can be a disappointment for people who are genuinely curious to see what tech savvy people or Apple enthusiasts have to bring to the table on a discussion.

        If you know that posting a particular article will cause such hateful responses wouldn’t it be better to just not report on it? For instance let’s say that the breaking story is about Apple’s stance on immigration. The two questions I would ask myself (if I was in your shoes) would be; does this story relate directly to technology or apple products and will this story be beneficial or detrimental to the community I’m trying to foster on this site? If the answer to either of those questions is no I would simply pass it by. Nothing says you have to report on everything (especially politically charged and emotional topics), but when you do and then ban comments it indirectly communicates that you don’t trust your readership to act civil and while that might be a totally justified expectation to some that’s something of a slap in the face.

        Obviously it’s your call, but after reading your response if I was in your shoes I think I would stop posting news that is more political in nature and focus on the typical stories you guys report on and let us scrounge around the internet to act uncivilized elsewhere if that’s what we would like to pursue.

        Anyways, just some thoughts. Thanks for all your hard work!

  • David Gow

    I also can’t believe the thread is closed