Apple To Build New $2 Billion Data Center In Bankrupted GT Advanced Buildings 98
mrspoonsi writes Apple announced it will spend about $2 billion to build a new data center in Mesa, Arizona. It will be housed in buildings formerly used by GT Advanced Technologies (GTAT), which went bankrupt last year after failing to supply sapphire display covers for the iPhone 6. The data center will be powered entirely by renewable energy. It will be a "command center for our global networks." Apple has said it would help find work for people affected by GTAT's bankruptcy. It's possible some of those former GTAT employees might help construct the new command center. When Apple initially partnered with GTAT to make sapphire displays, the company invested millions in a sapphire production facility. It makes sense that Apple would want to do something with the building if it couldn't make sapphire there.
Re:LOL from high tech worker to construction wanke (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, no. Sure, there's a whole lot of that drudgery, but there's a frack of a lot of other work involved. Security system design and implementation (my profession), air flow design, work flow design, interior walls need to be constructed, UPS design and installation, fire system needs to be redone entirely, AC system for a data center is entirely different than the one that was installed for a factory, logistics and scheduling of material delivery, it's a huge amount of work. The actual installation of se
"Lights out" operations replace "lights on" ops (Score:1)
These are so-called "lights out" operations because they employ so few employees (relative to the prior residents) that the ultimate benefit to the community is extremely limited.
Air out operation, maybe solar? (Score:4, Interesting)
These are so-called "lights out" operations because they employ so few employees (relative to the prior residents) that the ultimate benefit to the community is extremely limited.
There's even a new german data center where they scrub out much of the oxygen. Apparently it helps with both security and fire control. No humans can go in.
I'm surprised by the choice however because one of GTs claims was constant power disruptions were a factor in their poor crystal quality. does not bode well for a data center. And I would think that one would prefer cool outside temperatures and a source of water for cooling would be good too, both of which are in short supply in most of arizona.
On the otherhand GT's original product was solar cells. And Arizona is a good place for clear skies and sun in the US. maybe they are thinking about a solar powered data center? I'd think it not important to co-locate it near the solar cell supplier however.
The ultimate benefit to the community will be taxes and perhaps upgraded infrastructure.
Re: (Score:3)
These are so-called "lights out" operations because they employ so few employees (relative to the prior residents) that the ultimate benefit to the community is extremely limited.
There's even a new german data center where they scrub out much of the oxygen. Apparently it helps with both security and fire control. No humans can go in.
http://thestack.com/erwin-borf... [thestack.com]
Re: (Score:3)
A data center should have power coming from two different generating plants, redundant on-site power generation and a large battery bank to condition power and fill any gaps. If GT was having manufacturing failures due to the condition of the power supply, then shame on them if they did not build out a similar infrastructure, double shame on Apple if they do not set up their datacenter with clean and redundant power
Re: (Score:2)
A data center should have power coming from two different generating plants...
I think you mean two different high voltage sources. Generating stations are all tied to the same grid in the US. The weak point is not at the power plant level, it is on the end-user transmission level.
Re: (Score:3)
The factory will be powered by 100 percent renewable energy, including from a new local solar farm
Presumably that's being done not just for good press for being green but also because of the unreliability of the power grid in the area if what you say is true.
They would probably be better of selling the building to someone else and locating their data center elsewhere, but I suppose they're trying to save face after the whole fiasco involving GT and the sapphire displays.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they are trying to save face but usually large investments like this aren't done lightly. A company like Apple who puts so much effort to avoid spending money will certainly ensure the decision made is the best. You have to figure there are smart people working at this and whatever numbers they are looking at suggest this is the best course of action.
Re: (Score:1)
And I would think that one would prefer cool outside temperatures and a source of water for cooling would be good too, both of which are in short supply in most of arizona.
Wrong. You sound like someone who's never been to Arizona. Go look at a map. The desert part is only part of the state. It gets quite cold in the northern part around Flagstaff and the rims of the Grand Canyon (particularly the North Rim). There's even a ski resort there called Snowbowl.
Of course, Mesa is not in the cold part of the
Re: (Score:2)
I never said anything about water distribution, I was talking about temperature. Do you seriously not believe that Arizona has cold weather?
Re: (Score:2)
We're not talking about Mesa, we're talking about "most of Arizona". See the line I was responding to earlier:
"And I would think that one would prefer cool outside temperatures and a source of water for cooling would be good too, both of which are in short supply in most of arizona."
There's no shortage of cold weather in Arizona. The southern desert does not take up the majority of the state.
Re: (Score:2)
Shame the walls are already up
http://build.slashdot.org/story/15/02/02/0419234/the-cool-brick-can-cool-off-an-entire-room-using-nothing-but-water
A swamp cooler that produces high humidity? Just what you want in a data center.
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree -- It isn't the best thing, especially with how few people such a large building needs... but it does pay the rent and keep the physical building occupied, so it isn't a total loss.
Plus, I don't see how Apple could have done better. They have plenty of office space, and moving a call center would take a lot of cash. Similar with moving a factory.
A data center is probably the most effective use of that space anyway. Plus, even though it takes a lot of cash to get started, it becomes something q
Re: (Score:2)
"the taxes which Apple pays" :-)
Ha ha, you're funny!
My own cynicism about Apple is getting out of hand (Score:5, Funny)
When I saw this snippet in TFS:
I actually thought "just like a conquering nation making their new prisoners build their own prisons."
Re:My own cynicism about Apple is getting out of h (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not cynicism, this is cynicism.
Promise contract to company.
Make contract impossible to fulfil.
Bankrupt company.
Sweep up company assets on the cheap.
???
Profit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My own cynicism about Apple is getting out of h (Score:4, Insightful)
Your forgot 'write-off your holdings of company debt for pennies on the dollar'.
Bankruptcy was the planned outcome if the sapphire didn't workout. Leaving most of the debt in Apple's hands.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More like:
receive contract offer from company.
Accept contract you know you can't possibly fulfill.
Fail to meet the terms of the contract.
Go bankrupt.
???
Re: (Score:2)
The company and it's investors don't need to make money, just the psychopathic executive team and that is exactly the way most modern corporations are run, banksters much. They kept the bonuses based upon fraud and that doesn't include offshore tax haven bonus from predatory companies, seeking to prey upon other companies and their investors.
Re:My own cynicism about Apple is getting out of h (Score:4, Insightful)
slight ftfy:
Promise contract to company.
Make contract impossible to fulfil.
Bankrupt company.
Sweep up company assets on the cheap.
Profit.
Re: (Score:1)
Horrible Bosses 2
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's not cynicism, this is cynicism.
Promise contract to company. Make contract impossible to fulfil. Bankrupt company. Sweep up company assets on the cheap. ??? Profit.
I know it's cool to hate Apple, but GTAT is who made the promise they couldn't keep and Apple is the company that got left holding the bag.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, Apple is the company that is left
Right, just like you're still left if some company you hire to paint your house goes bankrupt in the process of failing to keep their painting business in good shape. Might be even more annoying if that company happened to be run by your nephew, in whom you invested a few thousand dollars - so now you don't get your house painted AND you lose that money. But you're "left" afterwards ... and you seem to find that evil, somehow. Another person who's never run anything tried to invest in anything, or probably
Re: My own cynicism about Apple is getting out of (Score:2)
Collect big bonus.
Profit!!!!!!!
Jump ship and move on to the next company before it becomes obvious that they are in deep trouble.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Re: (Score:3)
Were talking about Apple and GT, not microsoft and Nokia. In the apple GT case, apple lost a boatload of cash and a banner product. I don't think they came out ahead. GTs market capeven if they got all of it is spit in a bucket compared to what apple lost.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. I'm not sure that Apple didn't come out losing on this deal. But they definitely imposed contract terms that made the accomplishment impossible...and if an earlier story I read was correct some of those terms were done via an amendment made after the contract was signed.
This doesn't prove that Apple was malicious rather than incompetent, and the available evidence seems to show that the affair cost them considerably...so I lean towards incompetent rather than malicious. IIUC GT was not in a position
Re: (Score:2)
Cynicism and cutthroat business practices are frequently synonyms.
Was GT forced to sign at gunpoint or something? (Score:2)
I haven't been following the story but I assume GT signed it because they were forced at gunpoint--otherwise you would be blaming the idiots who signed a bad contract.
Re:My own cynicism about Apple is getting out of h (Score:5, Interesting)
While we like making the big company the bad guy. GTAT Executives were the ones who really screwed up. If you are going to have a business relationship with Apple, you better be sure that you are big enough to operate without Apple.
It is no secrete that Apple is very fickle when it comes to venders. If you are not giving what Apple wants they will not sit there and take it, they will drop you in an instant. Apple has the resources to drop seemingly vital venders, and rework its products just so they get the deal that they want.
GTAT should have known this, and avoid Apple unless they had the resources to manage without them as well. However they just beefed up their company size to produce something on a mass scale that they haven't before. Just so they can have a chance to win a contract.
If I were a GTAT employee I would be more pissed at the executives for hiring you for a high risk position without letting you know the actual risk.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
And because a lot of Slashdot readers blindly hate on Apple any chance they get, your informative comment will get moderated into oblivion.
Re: (Score:2)
your informative comment will get moderated into oblivion.
(Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While I agree that GTAT doomed itself by signing the agreement with Apple, the terms of the agreement were so outragious that I think that Apple still deserves a lot of blame. Here's the Forbes article on the contract:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2014/10/30/this-is-why-apple-did-not-want-its-gtat-contracts-made-public/
Re: (Score:1)
I am really not surprised at the terms of this contract. Yes, they suck. They were written by Apple's lawyers for Apple. They are obligated to seek the most favorable terms possible for their client. They seem to be creative about screwing people, but what do you expect? Not only are they lawyers, they have been writing similar contracts probably for decades.
If you don't consider those to be reasonable contractual terms, don't accept the contract. GTAT had lawyers too, and they had something Apple wanted ba
Who signed what (Score:3)
Missed the part where GTAT was forced at gunpoint to sign a contract they considered bad?
You seriously think GTAT wasn't simply being greedy and ignoring terms they they thought were unreasonable, instead of pushing back at all as you are supposed to in any contract negotiation?
My thinking is that GTAT just accepted the contract Apple put together because the GTAT leaders knew it wasn't going to work out anyway, but they could siphon off a ton of funds before Apple figured things out.
Don't sign bad agreements (Score:2)
While I agree that GTAT doomed itself by signing the agreement with Apple, the terms of the agreement were so outragious that I think that Apple still deserves a lot of blame.
Spare me. If they signed an outrageously one sided business deal then they deserve what happens to them. Business deals like this are for people wearing their big boy pants. If you want to play in the big leagues then you probably should have your lawyers at least glance at the agreement to see if it will bankrupt you.
Re: (Score:1)
let's say you run a factory with a capacity of 100 widgets/year. the current market for widgets is around 150/year. megacorp people show up and say they want widgets, tens of thousands of widgets yesterday. so you draw up a contract for selling 5 years of 10,000 widgets (50,000) and begin construction of a 10,000/year widget factory. then megacorp says, "nah. we don't want your widgets anymore at the contract price and we have a team of lawyers that will tear the contract to shreds."
what are you gonna do? t
Re:My own cynicism about Apple is getting out of h (Score:4, Interesting)
While they were to blame, that wasn't exactly what happened. They bound themselves to a contract which was skewed wildly in Apple's favor. Basically they bore all the risk - borrowing all of the money to gear up for production, resulting in them bearing all the losses if the product didn't live up to specs or if they weren't able to produce sufficient quantity. Normally in a situation like this, a vendor orders and pays for samples, the manufacturer produces them, then the vendor decides whether or not to pay for a full order. In this case, Apple requested samples, the GTAT execs went "OMG Apple!" and bent over backwards (or forwards depending on what analogy you want to use), borrowing huge amounts of money and investing it in massive production facilities when they didn't even have a firm order from Apple yet.
Apple bears some of the responsibility for using their huge size to coerce behavior out of a supplier, like how Walmart coerces suppliers to give them ruinous pricing. But the bulk of the responsibility lies squarely with GTAT for agreeing to those terms. Companies like GTAT or Walmart suppliers (or even employees who meekly accept whatever terms their employer sets) put themselves into these situations through their unwillingness to stand up for themselves just to hold onto a contract (or a job).
It's like the saying goes, before you can respect someone else, you have to respect yourself. These companies (or employees) didn't respect themselves, and it's only a natural consequence that they get walked all over. Show some pride in your work. If you truly believe you have the best thing since sliced bread, then it's Apple which should come to you on their knees begging if they want their products to have the best components. If they don't, it's their loss and their competitors' gain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, I mean, getting a data centre building for half a billion dollars losses is really cheap. Sounds like an ideal business plan!
Alternatively (and involving more sanity), Apple started a deal in good faith with a company. It didn't work out. Apple went out of their way to figure out how the deal going south could do as little damage to the community as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly was GTAT forced to accept an impossible task by Apple? Like a thousand companies before it, GTAT management was blinded by dollars and overestimated their capabilities.
Re:Apple planned this all from the start (Score:4, Informative)
First of all, Apple were the ones who bought the land and facilities they are turning into a data centre FOR GTAT to use to make Saphire. So they already own the plant.
Secondly, they have not bought GTAT at all. At least hate Apple for legit reasons, not made up ones.
Re: (Score:1)
Solar powered data center in the desert? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You buy a company, bankrupt it because your idea didn't work out and then offer to help some of the people who;s job you destroyed.
Out of curiosity, what do you get out of deliberately mis-representing what happened? Why the fiction? Why lie about it? What do you hope to accomplish? Really, it's an honest question (unlike your dishonest fantasizing). Please, be specific as you answer, so people can better understand people like you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty close to reality.
Apple said "Here's a half billion dollar contract, you now work exclusively for us". GTAT spent a whole bunch of that money building manufacturing capacity. Turns out sapphire isn't quite as good as gorilla glass. Apple cancelled the contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple never bought GTAT. GTAT's old management was entirely responsible for those jobs being lost.
Re:How kind of you Apple (Score:4, Informative)
You buy a company, bankrupt it because your idea didn't work out and then offer to help some of the people who;s job you destroyed.
What part of your statement is true?
Did Apple buy GTAT? No. They paid GTAT for a contract to build sapphire that GTAT could not deliver. When GTAT declared bankruptcy, Apple would be their largest creditor and are entitled to some portion of the assets but they did not "buy" GTAT. The rumors are that Apple advanced GTAT $350 million to build whatever facilities they would need to supply Apple with the necessary amount of sapphire and equipment. So GTAT may have spent part or all of the money.
Second it wasn't Apple's idea to get into the sapphire business for GTAT. GTAT was in the business long before Apple. Now GTAT's problem was that they were not a large scale manufacturer of sapphire or manufacturing equipment. At best they had a small business doing both. According to estimates, Apple would need at least 2600 furnaces to meet with estimates. From what I read, the original agreement was that GTAT would manufacture, install, and operate those furnaces at an Apple facility. They were not able to do so and the agreement had GTAT manufacturing rather being simply an equipment manufacturer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
No.
Apple offer a company a contract for a product of certain specification and quality.
Company accepts, borrows a shit ton of money from Apple but can't produce the goods.
Apple offers to change the repayment terms to give company more time to produce product to the right spec and avoid bankruptcy.
Company CEO and CFO unload shares at high price, then announce bankruptcy and proceed to blame Apple.
Apple uses the plant THEY bought for the company to produce the product for alternative reasons and in the proces
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's not in that business. They don't want to be in that business. They need a data center for their core business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that a change of uniform color from yellow to red?
In TOS that would be red (engineering) to gold (command)...
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone else feel like (Score:2)
the NSA just got another data center? [wikipedia.org]
Where you failed (Score:2)
Where Apple failed, Kyocera succeeded in getting a Saphire phone to market.
Well it's nice and all that Kyocera has shipped a phone with a screen that shatters more easily...
But the question really is, do yo honestly think whoever Kyocera is getting screens from, could have produced 74 *million* of them last quarter? Because that's what Apple needed.
And even then, it wasn't Apple that failed to produce the screens - it was GTAT. So you are basically kicking a company when it's down. Way to make a bankrupt
Re: (Score:2)
Kyocera is making the screens themselves. They're primarily a materials company: the "cera" in their name comes from "ceramics". I have some Kyocera cookware, the cooking surfaces are really good.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course on the orange hand, Kyocera has low volume phones and their ceramics group makes their own sapphire, where Apple currently needs to contract to get access to sapphire manufacturing.
I suspect that won't change in the near future, but perhaps, eventually, Apple will attempt to get their sapphire coated glass idea manufactured at some point. I'm guessing that although they would undoubtedly like exclusivity, I don't think that will be in the cards following that whole GTAT fiasco, so they might have
only reason Hatebois have Gorilla Glass phones... (Score:2)
...is because Apple made a similar "impossible to fulfill" deal with Corning 10 years ago. Or did you think Apple was secretly hoping to bankrupt that company as well, so it could lose money and a product with hype just to pick up some real estate on the cheap?
Get a life, guys.
wikipedia content download (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)