Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lol, you just helped my case. Guess what? Movies and television are pretty popular, too. Still more popular/influential than new media, in fact.
Furthermore, the CONTENT on those tech platforms is DOMINATED by Los Angeles and New York media groups/celebrities. We're talking people, right? I can't even think of a globally relevant Bay Area celebrity or media group on par with Los Angeles. Clint Eastwood? And please don't say Lucasfilm/Pixar (owned by L.A. based Disney). When your biggest "celebs" are non-local tech nerds Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook, you have a problem. Again, you keep emphasizing things, and not people. People > hardware.
As far as essential industries, up for debate. If the Bay stopped, somewhere else will easily and quickly pick up the slack. Especially in the lightning fast world of tech.
And 3rd place energy center? We're happy to be 3rd now? Seems like you're reaching for anything to boost the Bay. Curious to see those 3rd place numbers now.
You have a point that the Bay Area isn't the kind of essential utility center that Houston, DC, or NYC are. But the Bay Area still plays an integral role in energy, finance, and government and it would be just about a worst case scenario if all of a sudden the whole region was wiped out. What would be the big "unforeseen" loss is the advancement into the future of human knowledge and technology, which is the Bay Area's strongest and most well known suit (not just "tech", which by the way is broad and encompassing these days, but also medicine, chemistry, and so many scientific fields that place such an emphasis on research and development from within the Bay Area).
In terms of celebrities...George Lucas isn't even a hyped up figure in the Bay Area. Most probably have barely an idea that he and his wife work in the city, helm a few charities, and live in Marin. Clint Eastwood was from the Bay Area? Oh...makes sense given his movies...had to think about that. It's hard to explain the Bay Area culture to people who don't live in the Bay Area. It really is its own place. What is a celebrity and important person to literally the rest of America is not to your average Bay Area resident. You talk about "people" being more important than "hardware" and then translating that to a weakness for the Bay Area as if people and the concept of celebrity are valued less in the area and that the economy revolves around hardware. But I don't think that's a good argument at all and it really shows you don't understand the inner workings of the area (how could you? You don't live here and it's such a unique place that it takes years to start to get a grasp). But people are absolutely revered in the Bay Area.
It is people who come up with the ideas and people who have the breakthroughs. Hardware is not a celebrated or glamorous part of the tech industry at all (maybe in the 20th century, but not the 21st) and hardware is not what keeps the area's heart beating. Savvy investors, CEOs, scientists, professors/researchers, politicians, activists, local artists, unicorn founders, 501(c)3 founders such as those of Burning Man and other quintessential Bay Area concepts - these are celebrities for people in the Bay Area, and I can really appreciate that. If someone were to scientifically analyze per capita Kardashian watching or E!News watching, or even national political news watching, I would absolutely not be surprised if Bay Area locales came in dead last.
The fact that this is the case is pretty strong grounds for refuting the fact that you can just put what the Bay Area has in another geography and same/similar things will happen. The Bay Area is a truly special place and it is all due to the human infrastructure and the kind of human infrastructure that has come to be there since the 1800s. Hippies weren't a Bay Area phenomenon for no reason. Silicon Valley started based on a view that the working culture of the east coast was antagonistic to innovation, and the Bay Area was selected by a couple of chip manufacturers for a variety of reasons, none the least of which was the fact that they felt they could individualize well in the area and recruit people to work more independently rather than in a bureaucratic promotional environment. I digress...
Querky people have been integral to the culture and economy of the Bay Area since it all began. There is no way the area could ever be replicated anywhere else. 150++ years of crafting and refining what all makes the place truly unique, and truly great.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,179,323 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist
You have a point that the Bay Area isn't the kind of essential utility center that Houston, DC, or NYC are. But the Bay Area still plays an integral role in energy, finance, and government and it would be just about a worst case scenario if all of a sudden the whole region was wiped out. What would be the big "unforeseen" loss is the advancement into the future of human knowledge and technology, which is the Bay Area's strongest and most well known suit (not just "tech", which by the way is broad and encompassing these days, but also medicine, chemistry, and so many scientific fields that place such an emphasis on research and development from within the Bay Area).
In terms of celebrities...George Lucas isn't even a hyped up figure in the Bay Area. Most probably have barely an idea that he and his wife work in the city, helm a few charities, and live in Marin. Clint Eastwood was from the Bay Area? Oh...makes sense given his movies...had to think about that. It's hard to explain the Bay Area culture to people who don't live in the Bay Area. It really is its own place. What is a celebrity and important person to literally the rest of America is not to your average Bay Area resident. You talk about "people" being more important than "hardware" and then translating that to a weakness for the Bay Area as if people and the concept of celebrity are valued less in the area and that the economy revolves around hardware. But I don't think that's a good argument at all and it really shows you don't understand the inner workings of the area (how could you? You don't live here and it's such a unique place that it takes years to start to get a grasp). But people are absolutely revered in the Bay Area.
It is people who come up with the ideas and people who have the breakthroughs. Hardware is not a celebrated or glamorous part of the tech industry at all (maybe in the 20th century, but not the 21st) and hardware is not what keeps the area's heart beating. Savvy investors, CEOs, scientists, professors/researchers, politicians, activists, local artists, unicorn founders, 501(c)3 founders such as those of Burning Man and other quintessential Bay Area concepts - these are celebrities for people in the Bay Area, and I can really appreciate that. If someone were to scientifically analyze per capita Kardashian watching or E!News watching, or even national political news watching, I would absolutely not be surprised if Bay Area locales came in dead last.
The fact that this is the case is pretty strong grounds for refuting the fact that you can just put what the Bay Area has in another geography and same/similar things will happen. The Bay Area is a truly special place and it is all due to the human infrastructure and the kind of human infrastructure that has come to be there since the 1800s. Hippies weren't a Bay Area phenomenon for no reason. Silicon Valley started based on a view that the working culture of the east coast was antagonistic to innovation, and the Bay Area was selected by a couple of chip manufacturers for a variety of reasons, none the least of which was the fact that they felt they could individualize well in the area and recruit people to work more independently rather than in a bureaucratic promotional environment. I digress...
Querky people have been integral to the culture and economy of the Bay Area since it all began. There is no way the area could ever be replicated anywhere else. 150++ years of crafting and refining what all makes the place truly unique, and truly great.
Eloquent post, and I'm inclined to agree with a lot of it. To me, though, San Francisco (really The Bay as a whole) is on the cusp of being a true top tier global city, but it's lack of global culture holds it back. Make no mistake, you guys are already a global area, far more so than even my area of Philly. I'm talking about hanging with the Big Boys, though.
To me, San Francisco is Seoul or Tokyo WITHOUT the commensurate cultural output (anime, K-Pop, etc.) and that makes all the difference. Those two cities are similarly "tech" oriented and yet they still maintain a cultural output not far from LAs. THATs the difference, in my book. Quirky and brilliant people can ALSO make a cultural splash, and the Bay is sorely lacking in this regard in the present. I know you guys had the whole hippie movement, liberal influence, gay rights, etc, but unfortunately, this is still a what have you done for me lately world. When people say The Bay has lost its soul, this is what they mean.
In terms of celebrities...George Lucas isn't even a hyped up figure in the Bay Area. Most probably have barely an idea that he and his wife work in the city, helm a few charities, and live in Marin. Clint Eastwood was from the Bay Area? Oh...makes sense given his movies...had to think about that. It's hard to explain the Bay Area culture to people who don't live in the Bay Area. It really is its own place. What is a celebrity and important person to literally the rest of America is not to your average Bay Area resident. You talk about "people" being more important than "hardware" and then translating that to a weakness for the Bay Area as if people and the concept of celebrity are valued less in the area and that the economy revolves around hardware. But I don't think that's a good argument at all and it really shows you don't understand the inner workings of the area (how could you? You don't live here and it's such a unique place that it takes years to start to get a grasp). But people are absolutely revered in the Bay Area.
It is people who come up with the ideas and people who have the breakthroughs. Hardware is not a celebrated or glamorous part of the tech industry at all (maybe in the 20th century, but not the 21st) and hardware is not what keeps the area's heart beating. Savvy investors, CEOs, scientists, professors/researchers, politicians, activists, local artists, unicorn founders, 501(c)3 founders such as those of Burning Man and other quintessential Bay Area concepts - these are celebrities for people in the Bay Area, and I can really appreciate that. If someone were to scientifically analyze per capita Kardashian watching or E!News watching, or even national political news watching, I would absolutely not be surprised if Bay Area locales came in dead last.
You really should stop trying to explain the Bay Area to others because you don't do a very good job or seem to know the entire area as well as you might think.
These are all genres/ mediums that are being taken over via technology.
Which is still center on NY and LA.
Quote:
This is the biggest flaw in your argument.
You dont need to know where a company is from to be influenced.
In Which most people don't care or they're ironically giving the credit to NY and LA. History books are not going to mention Google let alone it's in the Bay area, LA and the history of the film industry is a much different story.
Quote:
Nothing in LA or from LA is even remotely widely used on a daily basis around the world as much as Google, or Facebook, or Youtube.
If they decided to suddenly shut down their sites for even an hour, the entire planet would be affected, it would be the biggest news story in the world. And yet, the Bay Area could theoretically do that. Sounds like power and influence to me.
LA couldnt really do that. Could it?
Your seriously acting like other search engines and other video sharing sites want just become more popular if google, Youtube stop you can't be serious? Even with stuff not film in LA, Bollywood, Nollywood and etc they name after and giving an oath to the history of the film industry in LA, Also LA effects what people search on those search engines,
The Media effects people perception of the world. LA is a Mass Media hub a major cultural center in the World, It been effecting the culture and trends on the world since the Early last century. What people listen to, how people dress, what people read, what people watch, what people are informed on. What people buy. What LA has done is change and influence the world on a level than SF likely never will.
There reasons LA exploded over twice to four times SF size, the migration and immigration of people around the World cause LA is more influential. and more cosmopolitan.
Oh, I hate to break it to you, but the Bay Area is now a major media hub as well.
Quote:
Google is now 136% bigger than the second-largest media owner (Disney), up from 115% a year earlier. It is also bigger than the second-largest and third-largest (Comcast) combined.
Largest Media Owners in the World, 2015 1 Google-BAY AREA
2 Disney-LOS ANGELES
3 Comcast-PHILADELPHIA
4 21st Century Fox-NEW YORK
5 CBS-NEW YORK
6 Bertlesmann-GERMANY
7 Viacom-NEW YORK
8 Time Warner-NEW YORK
9 News Corp-NEW YORK 10 Facebook-BAY AREA
11 Advance Publications-NEW YORK
12 iHeartMedia-SAN ANTONIO
13 Discovery-WASHINGTON DC
14 Baidu-CHINA
15 Gannett-WASHINGTON DC
16 Asahi Shimbum Co.-JAPAN
17 Grupo Globo-BRAZIL 18 Yahoo!-BAY AREA
19 Fuji Media Holdings-JAPAN
20 CCTV-CHINA
21 Microsoft-SEATTLE
22 Hearst Corp.-NEW YORK
23 JC Decaux-FRANCE
24 Yomiuri Shimbum Holdings-JAPAN
25 Mediaset-ITALY
26 Axel Springer-GERMANY
27 ITV plc-UK
28 ProSiebenSat. 1-GERMANY
29 NTV-JAPAN
30 Sanoma-FINLAND
You arent going to like this, I gather:
“The rapid growth of digital media and emerging ad markets has strengthened the position of media owners such as Google, Facebook, Baidu and Globo, at the expense of traditional media owners in developed markets. The top digital media owners currently maintain a strong grip on the digital ad market, but they face the constant threat of displacement by disruptive innovators. While some emerging-market media owners face challenges in expanding their businesses in the short term, we expect to see more media owners from emerging markets enter the top 30 over the next few years.”
Jonathan Barnard, ZenithOptimedia’s Head of Forecasting.
So now we see the Bay Area is a major player in tech, finance, energy and media too.
Care to continue this conversation?
Quote:
In Which most people don't care or they're ironically giving the credit to NY and LA.
I dont care. The real power and influence belongs to those who control the media, not those who create it. Sorry.
Quote:
There reasons LA exploded over twice to four times SF size
Guess what? I'm fine with that.
Equity Capital, 2015
San Francisco Bay $5 Trillion
Los Angeles Basin $500 Billion
The emerging Bay Area media hub might come as a suprise to C-D people, but the industry is very much aware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Los Angeles Times
HBO Stregthens Ties to Bay Area as Center of Gravity in Media Shifts
Los Angeles Times
March 25, 2015
The notion that HBO has left it's heart in San Francisco is no accident.
The premium cable network has held two major events there in the last two weeks. The first was the unveiling of its new stand-alone streaming service, HBO Now, as part of a deal with Apple Inc.; and then came Monday night's lavish Season 5 premiere for fantasy drama "Game of Thrones."
"We love to be in San Francisco," Richard Plepler, the network's chairman and chief executive, told The Times ahead of the premiere screening. "We were here just a couple of weeks ago for the Apple launch, which was very exciting. And we're thrilled to be back for the 'Thrones' premiere. It just made sense. It's becoming a very natural habitat for us. [Silicon] Valley has embraced us in ways that are very dynamic."
The center of gravity in media has been shifting to San Francisco and Silicon Valley. And HBO's attention to the tech hub underscores the importance of branching beyond the traditional home base of New York and Hollywood as it strives to keep its television kingdom relevant in the digital era...
I'm just saying. Even your newspaper knows what's up.
You could not sound more insecure about SF if you tried.
Here's the thing about confidence: When you have it, you don't feel the need to brag and boast. And conversely, the guy in the room in who never stops bragging is the one wearing his insecurity on his sleeve.
You've now spent 12 pages bragging about San Francisco in an extremely arrogant and pompous manner. Food for thought.
Last edited by DistrictDirt; 08-15-2015 at 04:40 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
