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.
If watching technology trends tells me anything, it's that you should never think whoever the current leader in a sector will remain. To claim a company as why your area is important is silly.
Myspace
Nokia
IBM
Friendster
Sega
AOL
Blackberry
etc.
PS touch screen phones were out a year or more before iphone and quite popular over a year before the iphone came out. Apple is never bleeding edge technology, they just market very well to the mass consumer market and make things "pretty." Currently most of their products are certainly technologically behind their counterparts in specifications and capability. It has been that way since the early 90s. I had internet and email on my phone in 2001-2002 and you could get it free over gprs/wap, it was certainly nothing new, but yes it's pretty.
That isn't to say there aren't other tech companies in the Bay that do more innovative stuff. Google does way more interesting stuff than apple. If you want to talk innovation, talk Google, not Apple. You just sound silly to anybody who knows tech. They aren't innovators, they have always played it cautious on bringing in new features, never bleeding edge.
IBM probably doesn't belong on that list. It might have missed the consumer market, but IBM is a lot more than and has its fingers in many other pies (like the actual advancement of science and engineering through its amazing R&D work with multiple Nobel and Turing award winners among its ranks). Apple is unlikely to move in that direction, though Google is. IBM has been the top patent filer for about two decades now by a large margin most years and generally for things that are not the kind of ridiculous tiny design features that Apple and Samsung (though Samsung does a lot more other things, too) are heavier on. Unfortunately, that kind of stupidity from Apple has caused other companies, notably Google in its purchase of motorola's patent profile, to also push a crapload of patents for pretty ridiculous and minor "innovations" so that they could protect themselves via threat of countersuing. This whole thing is stupid.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 03-11-2013 at 07:39 PM..
IBM probably doesn't belong on that list. It might have missed the consumer market, but IBM is a lot more than and has its fingers in many other pies (like the actual advancement of science and engineering through its amazing R&D work with multiple Nobel and Turing award winners among its ranks). Apple is unlikely to move in that direction, though Google is. IBM has been the top patent filer for about two decades now by a large margin most years and generally for things that are not the kind of ridiculous tiny design features that Apple and Samsung (though Samsung does a lot more other things, too) are heavier on. Unfortunately, that kind of stupidity from Apple has caused other companies, notably Google in its purchase of motorola's patent profile, to also push a crapload of patents for pretty ridiculous and minor "innovations" so that they could protect themselves via threat of countersuing. This whole thing is stupid.
Well I was mentioning IBM b/c they largely left the home pc market yet used to dominate.
pardon the interruption, but I think it says a lot that SF, a city of 800k ppl, even gets compared to NYC, a city of 8M, as often as it does. The greater NYC area is 18M versus SF Bay Area of 7M. The "impact per capita" of SF is immense.
No one else compares cities about as big as SF with NYC. E.g., you rarely hear, hey how does Austin, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, or Phoenix compare to NYC? Boston, DC, and Philla get compared to NYC, but only as alternatives for East-Coast living, not as cities with similar prestige/impact/global recognition
pardon the interruption, but I think it says a lot that SF, a city of 800k ppl, even gets compared to NYC, a city of 8M, as often as it does. The greater NYC area is 18M versus SF Bay Area of 7M. The "impact per capita" of SF is immense.
No one else compares cities about as big as SF with NYC. E.g., you rarely hear, hey how does Austin, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, or Phoenix compare to NYC? Boston, DC, and Philla get compared to NYC, but only as alternatives for East-Coast living, not as cities with similar prestige/impact/global recognition
Mainly because everyone adds San Jose to SF, so yes, with a satellite city of 1 million 1 hour away gets counted as a part of your metro, it ups the prestige of the city, but in reality, SF is not even close to the likes of NYC. People are delusional if they think this. Manhattan alone trumps SF and more. They just share similar costs of living and thats it. NYC is arguably the #1 city in the world along with London. Then you have powerhouses like Seoul, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Paris, Shanghai, Singapore, Moscow, Los Angeles, etc. SF is not even top 10, maybe not even top 20 in city rankings overall.
Only on CD do you see SF so overrated as far as overall metro and that's mainly because of the very high densities that SF achieves(Compared to the cities I mentioned above with the exception of LA, SF doesn't even come close to density). People on Cd don't seem very traveled. Once they go to the powerhouse cities around the world, they will understand that SF is not that much to the world. Thank god for San Jose, right?
pardon the interruption, but I think it says a lot that SF, a city of 800k ppl, even gets compared to NYC, a city of 8M, as often as it does (on this forum). The greater NYC area is 22M versus SF Bay Area of 7.5M. The "impact per capita" of SF is immense.
No one else compares cities about as big as SF with NYC. E.g., you rarely hear, hey how does Austin, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, or Phoenix compare to NYC? Boston, DC, and Philla get compared to NYC, but only as alternatives for East-Coast living, not as cities with similar prestige/impact/global recognition
fixed this for you.
also way to use bay area csa but nyc msa...convenient way to drop 4 million people though (the approximate amount of SF's entire MSA)
Have fun in your little bubble. Plenty of cities on here are compared to NYC... Chicago, Toronto, LA, Philly etc. It doesn't mean anything though or that they are on NYC's level.
There is no "impact" per capita. Per capita is a statistical # and has nothing to do with raw output. Raw output is raw output. SF has great raw output but having a higher per capita doesn't change much. NYC is more elite in the same earnings statistical brackets but yes is far more of an immigrant hub and far larger so it brings the per capita #'s down.
When a company goes on the market at X GDP, nobody goes "but hey you guyzzz what is their per capita output?"
Most people with any sense on here compare SF with Boston or DC, more similar metros with more similar cores. Even Chicago makes sense if you are talking economically. Don't think for a second that in any way shape or form that SF is a peer city of NYC or risk real world laughing in your face anytime you step out of your little bubble by even the casual knowledgeable traveler.
BTW Austin is 2 million metro, I would sure hope nobody would compare it with New York, apparently in your mind you thought it was the same size as San Francisco?
When people from around the world think of America, they think of two cities: New York City and Los Angeles, the two capitals of their respective coasts.
pardon the interruption, but I think it says a lot that SF, a city of 800k ppl, even gets compared to NYC, a city of 8M, as often as it does. The greater NYC area is 18M versus SF Bay Area of 7M. The "impact per capita" of SF is immense.
No one else compares cities about as big as SF with NYC. E.g., you rarely hear, hey how does Austin, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, or Phoenix compare to NYC? Boston, DC, and Philla get compared to NYC, but only as alternatives for East-Coast living, not as cities with similar prestige/impact/global recognition
pardon the interruption, but I think it says a lot that SF, a city of 800k ppl, even gets compared to NYC, a city of 8M, as often as it does. The greater NYC area is 18M versus SF Bay Area of 7M. The "impact per capita" of SF is immense.
No one else compares cities about as big as SF with NYC. E.g., you rarely hear, hey how does Austin, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, or Phoenix compare to NYC? Boston, DC, and Philla get compared to NYC, but only as alternatives for East-Coast living, not as cities with similar prestige/impact/global recognition
In the real, everyday world, it doesn't get compared. Here, all the time.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,133,609 times
Reputation: 3145
To me, San Francisco and maybe Chicago are the two cities in the US that do not care to be counted as "peer cities" of New York (whatever that means), especially by someone in Atlanta. You describe us as living in a bubble. I wear that as a badge. There is nowhere like SF and nowhere I'd rather be.
I do love New York, and have always enjoyed being there. It is a fantastic place, and one of my favorite cities in the world. I am not for an instant envious of my friends who live there, though. They like it there, which I understand, but for me, I would miss my California life if i were in NYC.
It's just different here. I agree that NYC is a bigger, more influential city. Lots of places like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, etc. sometimes seem to waste a lot of energy wishing they were more like NYC. I get that. SF actively resists this thinking, though. We are quite fond of our "charming little village" as you New Yorkers and others with half the character style and energy this city smugly like call it. NYC's prominence isn't a threat to me or my city. I am thankful every day I step out into the clean, clear Pacific air. I don't even care if anyone on CD thinks it's better. People who experience the lifestyle beyond an Internet discussion group fall in love with SF every day. Sure, they do with NY, too. Perhaps even in greater numbers. Many who love one of these cities also love the other, though often for different reasons.
I completely understand someone's preference for New York. My question is, why are New Yorkers so threatened or incredulous when someone shows a preference for San Francisco? Is it so beyond your realm of comprehension that one of the most strikingly beautiful and vibrant cities in the world might have the power to draw someone in different and more captivating ways than NYC?
To me, San Francisco and maybe Chicago are the two cities in the US that do not care to be counted as "peer cities" of New York (whatever that means), especially by someone in Atlanta. You describe us as living in a bubble. I wear that as a badge. There is nowhere like SF and nowhere I'd rather be.
I do love New York, and have always enjoyed being there. It is a fantastic place, and one of my favorite cities in the world. I am not for an instant envious of my friends who live there, though. They like it there, which I understand, but for me, I would miss my California life if i were in NYC.
It's just different here. I agree that NYC is a bigger, more influential city. Lots of places like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, etc. sometimes seem to waste a lot of energy wishing they were more like NYC. I get that. SF actively resists this thinking, though. We are quite fond of our "charming little village" as you New Yorkers and others with half the character style and energy this city smugly like call it. NYC's prominence isn't a threat to me or my city. I am thankful every day I step out into the clean, clear Pacific air. I don't even care if anyone on CD thinks it's better. People who experience the lifestyle beyond an Internet discussion group fall in love with SF every day. Sure, they do with NY, too. Perhaps even in greater numbers. Many who love one of these cities also love the other, though often for different reasons.
I completely understand someone's preference for New York. My question is, why are New Yorkers so threatened or incredulous when someone shows a preference for San Francisco? Is it so beyond your realm of comprehension that one of the most strikingly beautiful and vibrant cities in the world might have the power to draw someone in different and more captivating ways than NYC?
Same can be said about any city. People love Atlanta or Dallas or Houston for reasons you don't like it for. Not everyone likes density as noted by the ever increasing populations of Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas. Funny how you SF posters hate when Sf gets knocked down by NYC, but love to knock down the southern sunbelts cities simply because they aren't urban or dense, despite the fact that all 3 of those cities are increasing faster then SF.
And let's not beat around the boat. There are many people from SF who love to compare themselves to NYC ONLY because they have a decent density. Many people like SF, but don't want to live there because of the high cost living and 'ultra liberal' attitudes that reign there.
The problem is SF trying to put itself on a pedestal it has no reason to stand on. SF is a fine city, but it ain't no NYC. Not even close, baby. NYC is arguably the human capital of the world.
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.
