It's not just Apple here, it seems like every large player is fighting this shift rather than embracing and leaning into it.
Why does this particular problem fall in the bucket of "throw up our hands and continue doing things the old (old, old, old) fashioned way," unlike all the other problems big tech feels qualified to attempt to innovate a resolution to? Companies that at least initially thrived on rejecting the status quo and doing what was better, even if it was challenging, suddenly abdicating to a status quo that is centuries old and costs everyone huge amounts of our least renewable resource: our time.
If people stop living and/or working local to their investments, the value plummets and the hedge no longer works.
In that sense, I'm wondering if the push to get back in the office is more about "Damnit we're locked into a 10 year lease on this space, we're sure as hell not going to let it go empty, get those workers back in these seats!"
But I've worked at a couple VC funded SV startups and it wasn't exactly unusual for our investors to show up in the office and see how things are going, get a tour, have meetings. I doubt it's a contractual obligation of any sort, but there's clearly pressure to have a staffed office both local and impressive to the investors.
This left me assuming the VCs on Sand Hill Road would hold substantial real estate in the area, both commercial and residential. You're far more willing to throw hundreds of millions of dollars at high-risk investments if you can be confident they'll be throwing most of that money at office leases in the area, and salaries spent on rents and/or inflated bubble mortgages in the area. Especially if you can be confident all your investing peers on Sand Hill are doing the same, further inflating the bubble. The businesses will probably flop, but most that money just comes back through the real estate side provided you keep it all concentrated locally.
Perhaps make it a hub for more teams, and close down rental spaces all over the bay. Make the gym and cafeteria way bigger.
Obviously this is arm chair thinking on my part, but I find it hard to believe that given enough thought they couldn’t make the numbers work out.
Same with Asana, whose founder recently announced[1] "Asana will have an office-centric synchronized hybrid environment," which is another way of saying "employees may work from home on Wednesdays only."
There is a very real possibility that allowing 100% remote work could very well prevent them from being "trailblazing engines of innovation". So many things start as adhoc idea's from a random discussion that would never have happened without being in the same location.
Work has gotten easier in this remote world as it turned my whole team into input / output engines with very little thought along the way but god it's sucked all the creativity out of our work and removed most of the critical review of any product decision.
Coming up with projects that are impactful and novel is a large part of our jobs, and creative velocity has nose-dived since everyone went remote. There's just (to me) no substitute for hallway chat, overhearing people arguing and getting involved, or coming across an interesting white boarding conversation. One person at a time talking on a scheduled webex is just not at all the same.
So it's possible, but it certainly _felt_ different than the random discussions I'd had at in-person companies.
I can't quite put my finger on it, though. With the remote startup, there was no choice...?
It's hard to have random conversations WFH when they're usually prefaced on running into someone in the hallway or saying a quick "hello" as you walk past their cubicle/office/whatever.
They're betting on that not being the case (at least not enough to change one of their defining work-culture tenants -- face to face, in-person work is more productive and innovative). Only time will tell.
But work is not typically a democracy and there's time for consensus and if it doesn't go your way, you can leave or stay and commit.
I do see some value in having a presence in the office, at least for myself in my own position: My boss & I have to work extremely close together, and that goes more smoothly in person. But it doesn't need to be everyday, and it still works out okay with phone calls & texts & adhoc Zoom meetings.
I will say that, for myself, I understand my work behavior very well. If I could choose any style, it wouldn't be complete WFH. It would be 3 days WFH, 2 days in office. Just a quirk of my personality that I tend to be more focused in the office, and the time I spend there gives me a fairly regimented view of what I need to accomplish during WFH time.
Which is completely what you said: do what worked best for each employee.
eg: a 10h weekly commute better be worth at least $75k USD
I don't think Apple et al. will have trouble finding talent, but they may have trouble attracting "the best and brightest" if they require that you go into an office.
Then again, maybe they don't want to hire people who will prioritize mental health and family over work. "Best and brightest" is often a thinly veiled way of saying "willing to over-work and sacrifice personal life for the bottom line".