An architect will tell you that skyscrapers have a service problem the taller they get. The more floors, the more elevators they need on lower floors, the more dedicated service space required for the upper floors, and the more structural support for the upper floors required, which takes away from useful rental space in the lower floors. The service core gets to big and there is a point of diminishing returns. One way around it is to have dedicated sub-lobbies where "elevator transfers" take place. You then can have a few non-stop elevators to the sub-lobbies on an upper level which access the next set of floors, and depending on how tall the building is, there may or not be ground floor access to all the sub-lobbies. That can limit the number of elevator shafts required, and therefore the core size. However, that limits the staff entrance and exit times for workers coming into the building, and usually that means staggered work hours. Getting workers to and from a small footprint building such as a skyscraper has its own problems, and requires a completely different infrastructure, than a flat building like the Apple headquarters.
Given my druthers, I think a skyscraper is much more spectacular to look at. A skyline of such buildings is awe inspiring. Flat buildings, meh.
Skyscrapers, also have a construction cost problem. Above 10 or 20 floors, costs go up geometrically. According to Trump in “Art of the deal”. Of course that was written in 1987, and I’m sure construction techniques have improved since then.