“While the crowds — who numbered around twelve hundred at opening, according to Apple’s official count — may have been expected, the store’s special guests were not. Many anticipated company CEO Steve Jobs would be on hand to open the store, but few could have guessed that the company would have both current Mayor Gavin Newsom as well as San Francisco’s former mayor Willie Brown in attendance to cut the ribbon. It was under Mayor Brown’s guidance that the city undertook many of the rehabilitation programs that helped to reshape the area,” David Schloss reports for MacCentral.
“‘I think this signals confidence in the retail quality of this area,’ said a beaming Brown from inside the Apple store while employees and customers clapped and danced to booming music. ‘It represents a second step in the development of the Union Square region. The refurbishment of Union Square [itself] was the first step, The private sector development and the opening of the Apple Store is the second,'” Schloss reports.
“The city’s current Mayor, Gavin Newsom couldn’t agree more. …Mayor Newsom waxed philosophic on the significance of Apple’s investment in the region. ‘I think that this store is significant [for this area]. Obviously this is an extraordinary brand with significant character. I think this side of the street has struggled more,’ said Mayor Newsom of the part of Union Square south of Powell, which has spent less time in the spotlight than the shops closer to cable cars and the park,” Schloss reports. “‘I think that it’s significant that [Apple has] found themselves in an area between the manufacturing regions and the commercial regions of the city. They are anticipating a commercial trend that I think is inevitable and they are going to be the heart of it.’ …If today’s enthusiastic crowds were any indication, it’s an investment that will pay off many times over.”
Full article here.
MacNN has posted a photo gallery of the opening here. MacNN reports opening crowd in excess of 1,500.
Quicktime movies of the opening lines and festivities here.
What was in the bags?!?!!!
What was in the bags?!?!!!
What was in the bags?!?!!!
What was in the bags?!?!!!
What was in the bags?!?!!!
What was in the bags?!?!!!
What was in the bags?!?!!!
While Newsome was there did he do any lesbian marriages?
OJ, ditto. Bags and marriages, someone tell us!
That was a good idea to import the Fukubukuro (Lucky Bags). This is creating even more media exposure. I wish I could get one even though I probably already own a lot of what would be in it.
i married my pink mini. we are both so happy!
Dammit, I don’t care if you married your ipod. I want to know what was i the fuckybuccaroos!! :>
I guess you haven’t been getting enough publicity lately huh Gavin, so now you have to show up at the Apple Store to taint their ceremony too. For God’s sake Gavin, just don’t hold any gay marriages on the glass staircase inside the Apple Store. At least keep your disregard for California law at your office where it belongs.
Y’know, Mike, someone that worried about gay weddings (I haven’t heard anything about civilization collapsing, or raining frogs in S.F.–so far it just looks like a lot of happy folks getting married) must be compensating for something. Not feeling a little limpwristed, are you? Don’t worry, at some point you’ll find the right guy.
Good morning. What what what? Is it possible to be married in the Apple temple?? Me and G(ay)5 want to be married there asap.
Ok I think I need my coffee now.
Found this on eBay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2790939002&category=4601
Airport base station is pretty cool.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
I’m hoping the London store looks this good. I was down on Oxford Circus last week and walked past the building site that it’s going to be housed in.
BTW, gay marriages, great idea. Rosie O’Donnell’s story about her partner’s correspondence being subpoena’ed against her in a law trial shows just why legal protection for gay relationships is required. Personally, I don’t think the word “marriage” should be used for any union made outside of a religious organisation (and that goes for straights who get hitched in a civil ceremony too), but I understand that the US is a far more religious country than mine, so it’s probably more important for people over there to use “marriage” as a description whenever two people build a life together.
They were having a debate on a TV show here this morning about this issue, and some idiot rang in saying “How are we supposed to procreate and survive as a species if we all turn gay?” as her argument against. Some people are so ignorant you just have to laugh.
OK, back to talking about the Apple Store.
“At least keep your disregard for California law at your office where it belongs.”
How about keeping your homophobic bigotry off this forum?
“One Guy from Finland”, I’ll marry you at the SF Apple store!
(Who cares what he looks like. If he likes Macs that much, everything else is insignificant. Besides, I never met a Mac-head that I didn’t like.)
Dave H
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Don’t you have gay marriages there were you live? We have it here. It has not changed anything only those who have married same sex are happier than what they were before. I wonder if one could re awake one of those ancient Greek religions and start a new marriage service under that. Or someone could rewrite what that Caesar Constantinus (337-340 A.D.) wrote when he denied gay marriages inside our Christian church. Funny is that Americans tells that they represent “freedom” and “democracy”. Freedom to do what? Democracy part is relatively new thing too. I can’t remember when African-Americans got the right to vote. I almost forgot that it is not that who gets more votes that wins the election it is the one who comes second. Oh well. It is nice that Apple makes little politics too by inviting the two mayors of the San Francisco to the opening party of the new flagship store. Apple&Think; Different
One thing that would be fun
.%20Those%20days%20they%20were%20competing%20naked%20and%20oiled%20(olive%20oil).%20They%20didn't%20need%20extra%20hormones%20or%20doping%20those%20days%20img%20src=http://www.macdailynews.com/images/smileys/wink.gif)
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Ok. No more beer for me. I go to bed now. Good night.
One guy, in England and Wales the legislation is just going through Parliament to give gay and lesbian couples equal rights to all the financial and legal benefits enjoyed by hetero couples. Currently there is a register in London, but similar to the situation in some US states, it doesn’t really give equality outside of those matters that the London Assembly and the City Boroughs have direct control over, making it a nice gesture, but basically useless in equality terms.
I know we’re really behind some European countries, especially Scandinavia, on this one (thank Margaret Thatcher and her anti-AIDS overreaction), but finally it does look as if our supposed leaders have realised that the State and the Church actually aren’t the same thing, and are setting aside the bigotry of an extremely small section of the religious right to do something that should have been in place ten years ago.
(I didn’t go to bed yet. Checking the news before that.)
Dave H
Good for you. I hope that it gets all the way trough. I think that it should be we the ordinary people who decide what we want do with our own life. Ok maybe I should try to understand Americans little more. It is not easy to be an American these days. It is difficult though. That person (P*sh) is so often in the television that it gives me rash. Actually I think that I skip the news and go bed directly before it starts itching again… Good night Dave H. GMT +2 01:00
Someone said:
“At least keep your disregard for California law at your office where it belongs.”
R.V. who didn’t like it said:
“How about keeping your homophobic bigotry off this forum?”
Now with some sort of logic please explain to me how that can be “Homophobic Bigotry” – or are you blinded by your “pro-homo bigotry”..I think the fact of the matter is that we have a rogue mayor, and a bunch of rogue judges, displaying defience and contempt for the law..You see they are not supposed to be the ones that make the laws…our elected representatives do…AND they represent the values and opinions of their constitients….SO because someone doesn’t agree with this rogue, he is a bigot and a homophobe..RRight…
california law? i thought the state constitution was the highest. it prevents discrimination and guarantees human rights no matter who you fall in love with. good for the mayor. take it through the courts and make the law fit the constitution.
bigotry IS the word. what good does it do anyone to take basic rights away from people? its just like when interracial marriage was illegal.
the bigots lost that time too
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Mac Beth, good post, because it illustrates the california problem. Mayor Newsom and the courts (the northern california court being the most liberal in the nation) have effectively written law, and it isn’t their job. I think it is fine if gays marry but would like the law to be written by the legislature or by the electorate through the proposition process. The situation as it is now is a shortcut that is making a lot of gays happy, but is not legal, and, down the road, will cause more problems because everything, from contracts by these couples to the Rosie situation, will be contestable. The bigots WILL lose this time too, but not this way.
IMHO, Newsome kicked the whole house of card down…it doesn’t matter all that much what comes after now, the homophobes are pissing in the wind. They keep rattling off, “It’s the law, and he’s breaking the law, and he shouldn’t break the law…” circling around and around because although the law is the law its a law that’s being shown every day to have no rational basis–once they get past “it’s the law, it’s the law, it’s the law” all they appear to have as backup when told, “In that case, the law is an ass” is to reply, “Well, gays are grody.”
Personally, I think the real breakthrough has been J.Lo and Ben Affleck. After what these two did to the whole idea of getting married, a couple of lesbians smooching at City Hall is no big deal.
Sometimes, the greatest changes do not come from a senate full of politicians, a king or queen, presidents, ambassadors or great orators. “Here’s to the crazy ones…” http://lib1.store.vip.sc5.yahoo.com/lib/redlightrunner/thinkdifferent.mov
The purpose of any government is not to support the majority, but to protect the minority from the majority. It does not matter if the majority thinks it is wrong for themselves, but only that it is right for the individual. Tyranny is possible when the majority uses their popular consensus as a reason to suppress the weaker minority, rather than using logic, reason and compassion to determine what is morally right for individuals.
Marriage was never about creating children or what two people may do in privacy; it’s about love. A love so strong that the two are as one, and in the eyes of their society, their government, they are given this recognition and thus the rights and privileges as if they were one. Not acknowledging devoted love as the primary purpose of marriage, but instead grasping at hetero-centric reasons, is just a feeble cloak for bigotry.
Gays will eventually win, just as the inter-racial relationships did, because the bigot-generated hate of a million people will never break the bond of just two people in love. Love will win; it always does.
The best thing about what is happening in SF at the moment is that finally this issue is being discussed, rather than brushed under the carpet. As has already been said in the media, and above in other posts, straight people have nothing to fear from giving gays the same rights they have themselves. What changes in your life if the gay couple next door are married or not? Nothing. If you stop them from marrying, they are not suddenly going to break up and find themselves nice opposite-sex partners to settle down with just to please you. They will still be your neighbours, only they will be paying more taxes than you for less rights (the definition of state discrimination, IMHO).
As for California’s judges, let’s just accept that they know the law a damn sight better than most politicians do, so the accusation of them acting in the face of it is pretty baseless, especially when you consider not only the Constitution of California, but that of the United States itself.
Dave, I love ya, but you don’t know the deal re: the ninth district court of appeals. They have usurped the duty of the legislature consistently, and are practised at submitting partial opinions that take forever to overturn while the issue at hand proceeds with their minority imprimatur. They are largely Clinton appointees who serve for life, and are not at all reluctant to politicize their offices. It’s the sort of thing that is great if they are on your side, but it isn’t the way the system is supposed to work, and not fair nor efficient in the end.
All the arguements in this thread are good, but are 99% opinion. Opinions only become law when they are supported by a majority. Appeals courts exist to protect the minority from unconstitutional law, not to effectively write the law in the first place.
Ah sorry Joe, I’m being all UK-centric in the way I see your legal system working. Over here, as well as the statute law brought in by politicians, we have case law becoming enforcable by precedent, so if a judge makes a ruling in favour or against a plaintiff, the judgement is carried over into similar cases to be taken into account. Of course, other judges down the line can overturn the precedent, which is normally when parliament steps in and brings about some statute law to clarify the issue. In most cases, however, the precedent is taken as the law, meaning we have an ever changing system of what is right and wrong.
I think this is possibly the reason why our lawyers don’t have the time to sue everyone around them like your do
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
To represent an opinion other than Gays should be allowed to marry = Homophobe
Well excuse me but NO..that is complete and utter BS!!!
Perhaps, my morals as a Christian..dictate that marriage is the union of a man and a woman before GOD..Perhaps I believe that being gay is your business and I don’t really care what your lifestyle choices are..and perhaps..I do not believe that in this America [Which I wore the uniform of and fought for] my opinion and morality being differant than yours fashions me a BIGOT….