Isn't the real WTF why a cloud company needs to invest a quarter of a billion dollars just to inconvenience 3000 workers with a commute, and narrow their talent pool to the people they can hustle up work-permits for in the US? (Yeah, I know, Google has offices outside the US, too).
I think the answer is a combination of culture and sunk cost. The people hiring do so locally for personal cultural reasons; hiring globally means changing almost all busines processes. They already have thousands of co-located employees, so switching to a global model would entail drastically changing the nature of their company.
It's "only" about $85k/year, and as many others have pointed out the value of the building is not likely to go to zero (although seeing the ghost of Detroit...)
Anyhow, not saying I support it, but at the salaries Google can afford it makes sense...
I agree, but I feel that I already know the answer. That is the assumption being the best talent is on the peninsula. If you open an office too far south or across the bay, then people from Mountain View upto San Francisco will not come to work for you.
But, there's still the time cost of commuting. If you pay a premium to live in SF, then you're not going to want to commute 90-120 minutes so South Bay. Then another 90 minutes back at night. In that situation, you'd be paying a premium to live in cramped quarters, in a city with thousands of things to do, but have zero time to do any of it during the week.
I meet people on Caltrain coming from Gilroy commuting to work all the way in SF. Commuting 3-4hrs a day. WTF? I guess there's nothing to do in Gilroy, or they hate their families. Joking aside, the honest answer is the only affordable, nuclear-family homes are in the far-south. (Back to joking. Can we even call Gilroy the Bay-area?)
As it seems to me. When you make the decision to come to the Bay-area.
* You have to decide, do I want to drastically overpay for where I live to be close to SF?
* Do I want to commute 1-3 hours a day?
* Or, do I want to have roommates when I am 30+ years old?
> But, there's still the time cost of commuting. If you pay a premium to live in SF, then you're not going to want to commute 90-120 minutes so South Bay.
Yeah. That's what I meant. Google could build offices in the Gilroy or the East Bay to improve those employees lives. Companies like Uber are opening offices in Oakland, which is a pretty central location from BART and freeways.
"You have to decide, do I want to drastically overpay for where I live to be close to SF?"
Of course, if you make good tech money (say, anything over 200K) then its a moot issue-you can overpay for ridiculously priced 1-2 bedroom apartments, and still have money left over to save/indulge with.
> That is the assumption being the best talent is on the peninsula.
I've never seen good data to back this up. Are you aware of any sources? (I know you weren't making the claim yourself.) Talent is already difficult to register, and I find it absurd to think that all the best engineers in the world would cluster in west bay. The only people clustering are those who want to work for google (or startup XYZ), not the people google necessarily wants to hire.
"A second Apple spaceship will be landing in Sunnyvale", October 2015, maybe it has something to do with it, somehow. http://fortune.com/2015/10/02/apple-spaceship-sunnyvale/
"The transaction is another sign—as if you need any more—of Apple’s tremendous expansion, potentially providing enough room for more than 3,000 workers. "
Terrorism is too real in that part of the world unfortunately as you already know. A 1KW windmill will turn into a 3 ton pile of smoldering scrap metal if the right mouths aren't continuously fed. Also the idea is de-centralizing power generation to skip the transmission step where all the leakage exists.
Hey good luck. I am from the same part of the world and agree 100%. I should point out though that there is widespread use of UPS and generators. Not sure if people will go completely off the grid, but initially you are definitely a 'cheaper generator', if cheaper. Like you said its a cash-based economy, and people don't like to put a lot of money up front even if it means savings in the long run, so how will you combat the high initial investment? I do think this is the viable solution. Also you should look into transmission losses. I have heard power lines there are between 30% and 50% lossy.
Thanks, all really good points. Initially I'll be targeting the high end residential and commercial market to get cash flow going and sustain the business. Residents in major cities such as Karachi, Lahore, and Islamabad purchase their houses for US$500k+ with cash. The goal is to sell them on solar electric systems ranging from US$5k to 15k with the promise they can completely or mostly eliminate their electric bills, and get their ROI in 5-7 years while getting uninterrupted electricity for 25 years. The market is ripe and I have seen residential installations worth US$35k with upfront cash.
Generators and UPS are current alternatives. However Generators, very loud and expensive to purchase, are dependent on fossil fuel (dirty) prices, which are very low at the moment but fluctuate routinely. UPS devices produce square wave outputs that damage appliances permanently. Convincing the market to go solar instead because of these reasons is the eventual sales challenge for sure.
Transmission losses (including electricity theft) are part of the sales pitch. They are a big reason why Supply doesn't meet Demand and Load Shedding has to be enforced.
I would focus on incremental systems. Something like 10$ cellphone, 100$ for lighting, 1,000$ for PC, 10,000$ for AC.
Also, midrange UPS don't output square wave, I fact solar systems include a UPS for night time power. So, you could sell a ~3k, UPS system with bult in solar hookups where people can add pannels over time.
Thanks and completely agree. I'm going back home with an open mind. There's lots I will learn on the ground and will fine tune my approach according to the realities. I reckon Energy Efficiency will also play a big part in my approach down the road. Wanted to initially target a high end market segment with the least barriers to entry.
These are list prices, we are finding list and sale prices are quite different in the Bay Area. Folks list low on their realtor's advice to ignite bidding wars. And bid buyers do. On the plus side now we are hearing from our realtor and others that prices are stabilizing (i.e. not going up as fast, but definitely not coming down). Still hugely unaffordable for most.
Also, even if you can bid, cash is king. So, not only is everyone driving the prices up, but the winners are usually all cash. I don't know anyone who has a few million in the bank, ready to move on property. Sadly..
Well, according to the article 3/5 of foreign buyers paid cash, 1/3 of domestic buyers paid cash, and 1/5 of all buyers are foreign cash-only buyers.
1/5 (all buyers) = 3/5 (foreign buyers)
So one in three buyers is foreign. Which means two in three buyers are domestic, which means two in nine buyers is a domestic buyer who pays cash. So that puts the number of cash-only domestic buyers higher than foreign investors. That means that it's roughly the same absolute number of domestic cash-only and foreign cash-only (allowing some fuzziness in the numbers), not quite mostly foreign cash-only.
We can safely then conclude that the article linked does not support the claim that the people bidding cash are mostly foreign.
Buying != Bidding. You don't just bid on one property and buy it.
When you're in an auction market, which has a segment of bidders that are more accustomed to bidding over with cash, you're going to see them push auctions into the cash over range more frequently, even if they aren't the ones ultimately buying.
A reasonable hypothesis. Since there is no evidence that domestic cash-only and foreign cash-only buyers have different bidding patterns, we can then conclude (contingent on your latest hypothesis) that the link with the stats does not support the idea that it's mostly foreign buyers bidding up the price.
It's not a hypothesis - it's part of auction theory for markets that use absolute and reserve auctions. Why are you so adamant in attempting to redefine this to dismiss it?
Absolutely. Unfortunately I know many, many who have a few tens of millions; unfortunately^2 I am not one of them. People say it's the Chinese buyers with the all cash offers, but I see locals do it left, right, and center with money made in SV within the last few years.
Garry is a hero. He is extremely nice, very kind, and has more empathy for the founder than anyone I know. Whatever he does next, I wish him happiness and success.
All of the photos in the article show consumer electronic devices. Could I use it with, say, furniture manufacturing / aftermarket car parts / leather goods manufacturing?
Heck yes! Alas not a filmmaker but I have wanted something very nearly like this forever. I go horseback riding regularly, mostly through relatively open areas (county parks / regional preserves / city trails etc). I have wanted a drone that can carry a GoPro (or something) to capture footage of our rides (sometimes we go through some gorgeous country that we really wish we could capture on video).
However, here is the kicker, because we ride at a fast trot or canter, I can't actively control the quad. Instead, I must be able to passively control it. It must perform specific, pre-defined actions based on my position, speed, and heading while flying, steering, and maneuvering without receiving any input directly from me. It should continually adjust its position and flight path based on my speed according to the rules I pre-define. For example, after takeoff with the camera turned on, the drone ought to stay ahead of me, say 30 feet ahead and 20 feet off the ground. Then if I start moving faster than 10 mph it should come to my side about 30° (10 o'clock). If I continue at this speed for more than a minute it should do a slow semi circle around me and come to the 2 o'clock point for a minute. If I keep going it should... etc etc. I don't care if I have to program the drone in code or through a UI, I just want to be able to define lots and lots of rules (based on the terrain of the day). Of course it would need to protect itself from running into trees and walls, or any other objects while trying to follow my rules as closely as possible.
Wow. This is great information! You have a very well laid our requirement :).
"Of course it would need to protect itself from running into trees and walls, or any other objects while trying to follow my rules as closely as possible."
And that is the kicker. A lot of the features you've outlined can be done with current technologies simply using GPS (though framing would be wrong unless you have a SHIFT-like product). However, none of it is safe to use. Even if you were in "mostly" open areas, to constantly watch out and make sure the drone doesn't crash is very cumbersome.
Comprehensive sense-and-avoid is the golden egg of the drone community, precisely because of the features you've mentioned!
This is exactly right. "Westerners" has less to do with the exact geography and more with economic indicators including standards living/income. I was traveling with Singaporeans who kept being referred to as "westerners"; it was odd initially, but to the locals it was about the group's purchasing power, expectations of luxury/comfort, and nothing else. It was their way of identifying big spenders from the rest.
