
Apparently, Apple strong-armed its way into a lease allowing it skip out on the revenue sharing clauses that other tenants at Grand Central generally agree to. The MTA, which operates Grand Central, noted it’s actually getting about four times the rent that it was previously. But its hope to replace the lost revenue sharing income with whatever traffic boost the Apple store provides seems risky at best. The MTA is hemorrhaging money at an untenable rate, so any infusion of cash from an Apple deal helps. Apple knows this and is turning the screws accordingly.
The sweetheart deal probably won’t do much to mess with New York as a whole — more Apple stores means more tax revenue — but for the cash-strapped horror show that is the MTA, it’s a total downer. New Yorkers have had fare hikes and service cuts to deal with, so news that Apple’s getting a free ride while theirs is getting crappier and more expensive. It’s one more instance of Apple screwing over one of its partners; just this time, might be hard-lining you right out of your ride to work. [NY Post]



















alex effing
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 9:45 AMIts called being an anchor tenant…supermarkets will pay less rent and hold longer lease terms because they bring people in.
light487
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 10:21 AMApple is of course God’s gift to the world afterall.
(yes.. sarcasm)
cayal
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 10:53 AMClever.
Richard
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 11:21 AMCry me a river. I’m not even sure why Apple’s rent or their ability to secure a good arrangement for themselves should have anything to do with the price of public transport.
It’s not like other businesses or even individuals will attempt to pay the lowest price they can squeeze when buying property, so how is this different? If they didn’t think it was worth while they would have gone with another tenant.
olearymo
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 12:36 PM+1. Yub yub!
olearymo
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 12:32 PMApple? Strong-arm? no way! :P
Seriously though, it doesn’t sound like it’s Apple’s fault. Seems these guys were in trouble already. If it was any other store, like a supermarket or GAP, it wouldn’t be a story.
I mean, sure, Apple’s evil but only as much as any other company. Perspective, people.
Just This Guy ...
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 3:38 PMI hate Apple.
However, on this occasion (for once) the screwer is not Apple.
It’s whomever actually struck the deal with them in the first place.
New Yorkers. Them’s the one’s wot’re screwing New York. Not Apple.
On this occasion….
Matt
Friday, December 2, 2011 at 11:21 AM“wot’re”
A double-abbreviated conjunction with an added scoop of internet speak.
The internet disgusts me sometimes.
Mmmmm
Thursday, December 1, 2011 at 9:22 PMIf you rent a property for less than market value more fool you. Apple’s people clearly negotiated better.