OMG. People are beginning to play nice with AT&T because Jobs spoketh. You realize this was information already available, yet largely ignored? I'm picturing a bunch of people being led around by their nose rings by Steveo. Yeesh!
I have probably done my fair share of bitching about AT&T's service, but lately I have come to appreciate it a little more.
Every year, I go and spend at least 2 weeks camping out at the Kerrville Folk Festival in rural Texas in late may/early june.
Generally, the reception at the campsite is OK. Voice works just fine, but only edge for data. There is wifi that I can receive from the area that I camp, but it can be pretty slow. This year, seeing as I was taking 2 devices with me, iPhone 3GS and iPad (wifi), I thought that I would stack the deck a little in my favor.
I bought a Sprint Overdrive gadget which acts as a wifi hotspot with 4G/3G about 2 weeks before my trip. I live in Houston which is one of the cities that has 4G. Since it is essential to have high speed internet for my work (self employed trader), I figured I can use it as a backup for when cable goes out - which it does sometimes, and it would great for the vacation. I had no illusions that it would work as 4G in Kerrville, but 3G would be just fine. The subscription of $60 or so per month is not out of line.
I should have known better when at the Sprint store, the Overdrive only had 3G connection. When I brought it home it would flit from 4G to 3G, and the speed that I got using speedtest was slower than what I get on my at&t connection.
I went to various locations around the city in the next few days, and was alarmed at how few places I could actually get a 4G signal, and in some places (again in the city) I got no signal at all. This sucked. I ended up returning it after about 4 days since I don't think it was ready for prime time yet.
Anyway at the campsite, the people that I was camping close to were heavily geek leaning. My iPhone worked well, as did the iPad (albeit slower than at home, but I expected it). One of the guys had a Blackberry (Verizon) that was provided for him by his employer. Like my iPhone it worked well for voice and texting. He did not not use internet on his phone at all but had a netbook which worked OK.
Another guy had an Android phone (N1 ) under TMobile. He was pretty proud of it - would never consider any apple product. He also had some kind of internet gadget - a little bigger than the iPod touch, but smaller than the iPad. Don't know the make. What I found amusing was that he got no voice signal on his phone, and his internet gadget just wouldn't pick up the wifi signal. He had to borrow my phone or one of the other guys' any time he wanted to make a call. I found that amusing only because he was so anti iPhone.
Since I have had my iPhone 4 (got it about a week after it came out), I have experienced 3 dropped calls, two of which may well have been a problem on the other end. That's with about 6+ hours of call time. I consider the antenna issues to be a nonissue. Trust me, I would have returned it otherwise. In every way, the product is very good, perhaps the best phone I have ever owned.
In all my experience with AT&T lately has actually been decent. The only places that I have not gotten a signal (Big Sur, CA, and somewhere in rural West Virginia), other cell phones (carriers) didn't get any reception either. Data throughput has been quite acceptable. There have been places where I did not get 3G, but Edge generally was available.
I have not been with another carrier in several years, so I cannot comment on others (other than the few days I spent with Sprint, and was unimpressed). Verizon is said to be decent, and I have no reason to doubt that. I like iPhones (and other Apple products) and see no reason to change carriers at this point.
I'm attacking Apple because despite the fact that so many people are bitching about what a crap network AT&T is, they stick with AT&T as if they were happily married.
I have a love/hate relationship with Apple. I love Macs, but hate the iPhone division, because it seems they're all about pandering to AT&T and restricting what you can do with their products.
For example, you would think being able to tether a Wifi iPad to use an iPhone's data connection would be a very natural thing to allow. Did they allow it? Of course not.
-Z
Just another example of people bashing Apple when they don't have any idea what the facts are.
Reports are that Verizon had the chance to have the iPhone first, but declined. Apple was forced to give AT&T a 5 year exclusive to get them to carry the iPhone. They can't simply break the contract, and they had to work with an existing provider (since it obviously wouldn't have made any sense to create their own network).
Now, if you have evidence that they had options that were more favorable and chose to go witH AT&T, feel free to provide it. Otherwise, please stop whining about things where you don't have the facts.
As for tethering an iPad to an iPhone, do you have any evidence that ANY carrier was going to allow that? Or that AT&T isn't providing the best deal available?
I don't have the facts either, but Apple is an extremely successful company. If someone had offered them a better deal, they would have taken it. Why is it that everyone thinks they know better than Apple how to run their business?
hiding cell towers in church steeples is another favorite trick --
in frisco there's supposedly one in st. paul's in noe valley
(where sister act was filmed), but if so it's only helping us out only a little bit.
In such a notoriously heathen city, it is likely almost as difficult to find church steeples as a reliable AT&T signal.
This ought to teach those limousine-liberal, central-committee NIMBY-ites a lesson about the unintended consequences of their over-zoning ever little aspect of life, as though they were God. The necessary chaos that created our most wonderful cities, the very cites they most favor, such as San Francisco, Paris and Venice, would never have been possible given the central planning, regulate everything-possible approach they favor to life.
It is sweet karma that their own petards are depriving them of their precious iphone signals.
So, to fight one extreme, you have to go to another extreme? As in, there's no middle ground? There's proper regulation, and then there's excessive regulation.
I think some SF folks are concerned with looks, but then there are also those involved in fearmongering about RF radiation, blocking cell towers might actually make the situation worse as the phone radio has to increase its power for the signal to reach the tower.
I think are lot of people should look at this and put into perspective just how much opposition there was in the SF Bay Area the 1960's to getting the BART system built?
What is the issue with electromagnetic radiation? Are there signal interference problems?
Uh, no. But you wouldn't want to live under high tension lines, usually found on the larger towers (100KV and above I believe), for many years unless, of course, you are a fan of cancer and other health related issues.
Belushi and Aykroyd made an offbeat movie called "Neighbors" that poked fun at the problem.
I think are lot of people should look at this and put into perspective just how much opposition there was in the SF Bay Area the 1960's to getting the BART system built?
Now imagine the Bay Area today without it....
To be correct, the opposition stemmed from Santa Clara who didn't want to subsidize their neighboring counties to allow a complete loop.
We all get screwed due to that fiasco. The CALTrain between SF and Sunnyvale sucked hard. It beat the commute, but thanks to their myopic vision the cost of finishing the BART today is completely cost prohibitive.
When I lived in SF the expansion to SFO was starting. At $1 Billion/mile it was clear it would never be addressed again, without a completely different solution being implemented. Too much damn concrete.
Cingular was purchased by SBC, which also purchased the name ATT when ATT was dissolved. It then renamed itself ATT, even though it's really SBC (or was). ATT was broken into the baby bells back in the '80s, then was eventually eaten by one of its own offspring so to speak. Somewhere in this whole thing GTE was absorbed as well (I think by Cingular first in the '90s).
I have probably done my fair share of bitching about AT&T's service, but lately I have come to apI consider the antenna issues to be a nonissue. Trust me, I would have returned it otherwise. In every way, the product is very good, perhaps the best phone I have ever owned.
End of July is the ETA for the iPhone to arrive at Rogers here in Canada. Can't wait.
I suspect the antenna will be just fine, as it is for most iPhone 4 users.
I guess that's a price we have to pay in the "Last Best Place", but that hasn't stopped Verizon from putting in a great network here. Plus, more than a few people from all over the world visit those little places like Yellowstone and Glacier. Don't bother to bring your AT&T phone when you do ... ;-)
It hasn't been that long that providers have been "national" in the true sense of the word. They originally staked out separate territories, moving into each others has been a slower process. Wasn't Montana and the NW was a Verizon territory from day one?
As for tethering an iPad to an iPhone, do you have any evidence that ANY carrier was going to allow that? Or that AT&T isn't providing the best deal available?
Actually the original poster had a valid point here. After all, you can pay $20 extra and tether your laptop via your iPhone. Why not the iPad? It would be easy enough to do via bluetooth.
Even though the iPad and the iPhone are similar devices, there are some things where the iPad is much better, because of the larger screen.
Hopefully that will change at some point, although that seems to be an Apple imposed limitation otherwise who would buy the 3G version?
This is San Francisco - ATT needs to make them look like banana HAMMOCKS, they would be approved in three HOURS!
sorry, couldn't resist!
Since "banana hammock" is a slang term for Speedo, and since more straight guys wear Speedos than gay guys, your remark seems to have missed the target by a little.
Actually the original poster had a valid point here. After all, you can pay $20 extra and tether your laptop via your iPhone. Why not the iPad? It would be easy enough to do via bluetooth.
Even though the iPad and the iPhone are similar devices, there are some things where the iPad is much better, because of the larger screen.
Hopefully that will change at some point, although that seems to be an Apple imposed limitation otherwise who would buy the 3G version?
What makes you think that's an Apple imposed limitation? AT&T sets the cell phone plans, not Apple. Why would Apple want to limit that? In fact, they'd probably sell more iPad 3G systems WITHOUT the limitation so it doesn't make any sense for Apple to be behind it.
What makes you think that's an Apple imposed limitation? AT&T sets the cell phone plans, not Apple. Why would Apple want to limit that? In fact, they'd probably sell more iPad 3G systems WITHOUT the limitation so it doesn't make any sense for Apple to be behind it.
Do you have EVIDENCE that Apple is behind it?
No I do not have any evidence - merely conjecture. Companies do that sort of thing all the time - not to mess us up, but so as to differentiate their products. Were I an Apple marketing person, I might have made the same decision.
As an Apple customer with 2 (wifi) iPads in our household, I wish it weren't so.
Actually I'm not sure I understand your point. I am merely saying that if you were able to tether the WiFi to iPhone, there would be no need for an iPhone/iPad owner to get a 3G iPad. The Wifi version would do.
I guess that's a price we have to pay in the "Last Best Place", but that hasn't stopped Verizon from putting in a great network here. Plus, more than a few people from all over the world visit those little places like Yellowstone and Glacier. Don't bother to bring your AT&T phone when you do ... ;-)
It is astounding that the Bay Area has a reputation for its highly educated population given that the lotus eaters in San Francisco are constantly making statements like this. (...and others above and below.) San Francisco is not an especially "dense" city. It is only especially dense by America's standards and America is the one of the most sparsely populated industrialized countries in the world. Australia, Canada and Russia are the only the only major countries that have a lower population density than the United States. San Francisco's density roughly compares to Istanbul's or Hong Kong's, but is around half of New York's, Jakarta's or Tokyo's, approximately a third of Seoul's or Mumbai's, and less than a fifth of Dehli's or Cairo's. As for the "Last Best Place" (and similar) comments, that is merely the sign of provincialism. I wish neuvo San Franciscans knew how ignorant and arrogant it makes them sound. Certainly San Francisco is a beautiful place, but their attempts to preserve it in stasis, as a city in amber, to make it a Disneyland for progressives, has made the city stale and unexciting, while quintupling the cost of living there. Ironically, in the process, these so-called liberals have driven out every single old blue-collar San Francisco family (and job) from the city as they drove up the cost of living with their growth and rent and other regulatory controls. Now tower controls are making living here even more inconvenient. Most of these people are the same people who screwed up New York by trying to "save" it, and who then fled New York when their meddling backfired. They've been flowing into San Francisco to "save" us since the 70's, and they've pretty much screwed up San Francisco in the same way. We can only hope they will soon flee here for their next "last best place." Good riddance when they go. Hopefully we can restore The City to a functional city, where families can afford to live and work, and where people, jobs, and affordable homes take priority over politics, views and lattes. Cities are dynamic, chaotic places by nature, they have to be that way in order to function best, to serve the needs of the people who live there. These central planning types, who should have learned their lesson in 1989, are denser then Dehli. They just don't get it.
---
BTW, the top five most dense communities in California are all in the Los Angeles area. Look it up. Likewise, the most dense communities in the New York City are actually in New Jersey. Strange how what every one knows to be true just ain't so.
It is astounding that the Bay Area has a reputation for its highly educated population given that the lotus eaters in San Francisco are constantly making statements like this. (...and others above and below.) San Francisco is not an especially "dense" city. It is only especially dense by America's standards and America is the one of the most sparsely populated industrialized countries in the world. Australia, Canada and Russia are the only the only major countries that have a lower population density than the United States.
Why the tangent? I didn't find anything in the post you quoted to that referenced city population density.
Quote:
As for the "Last Best Place" (and similar) comments, that is merely the sign of provincialism.
I'm pretty sure that's a marketing slogan. Is that really such a big deal?
Comments
OMG. People are beginning to play nice with AT&T because Jobs spoketh. You realize this was information already available, yet largely ignored? I'm picturing a bunch of people being led around by their nose rings by Steveo. Yeesh!
I have probably done my fair share of bitching about AT&T's service, but lately I have come to appreciate it a little more.
Every year, I go and spend at least 2 weeks camping out at the Kerrville Folk Festival in rural Texas in late may/early june.
Generally, the reception at the campsite is OK. Voice works just fine, but only edge for data. There is wifi that I can receive from the area that I camp, but it can be pretty slow. This year, seeing as I was taking 2 devices with me, iPhone 3GS and iPad (wifi), I thought that I would stack the deck a little in my favor.
I bought a Sprint Overdrive gadget which acts as a wifi hotspot with 4G/3G about 2 weeks before my trip. I live in Houston which is one of the cities that has 4G. Since it is essential to have high speed internet for my work (self employed trader), I figured I can use it as a backup for when cable goes out - which it does sometimes, and it would great for the vacation. I had no illusions that it would work as 4G in Kerrville, but 3G would be just fine. The subscription of $60 or so per month is not out of line.
I should have known better when at the Sprint store, the Overdrive only had 3G connection. When I brought it home it would flit from 4G to 3G, and the speed that I got using speedtest was slower than what I get on my at&t connection.
I went to various locations around the city in the next few days, and was alarmed at how few places I could actually get a 4G signal, and in some places (again in the city) I got no signal at all. This sucked. I ended up returning it after about 4 days since I don't think it was ready for prime time yet.
Anyway at the campsite, the people that I was camping close to were heavily geek leaning. My iPhone worked well, as did the iPad (albeit slower than at home, but I expected it). One of the guys had a Blackberry (Verizon) that was provided for him by his employer. Like my iPhone it worked well for voice and texting. He did not not use internet on his phone at all but had a netbook which worked OK.
Another guy had an Android phone (N1 ) under TMobile. He was pretty proud of it - would never consider any apple product. He also had some kind of internet gadget - a little bigger than the iPod touch, but smaller than the iPad. Don't know the make. What I found amusing was that he got no voice signal on his phone, and his internet gadget just wouldn't pick up the wifi signal. He had to borrow my phone or one of the other guys' any time he wanted to make a call. I found that amusing only because he was so anti iPhone.
Since I have had my iPhone 4 (got it about a week after it came out), I have experienced 3 dropped calls, two of which may well have been a problem on the other end. That's with about 6+ hours of call time. I consider the antenna issues to be a nonissue. Trust me, I would have returned it otherwise. In every way, the product is very good, perhaps the best phone I have ever owned.
In all my experience with AT&T lately has actually been decent. The only places that I have not gotten a signal (Big Sur, CA, and somewhere in rural West Virginia), other cell phones (carriers) didn't get any reception either. Data throughput has been quite acceptable. There have been places where I did not get 3G, but Edge generally was available.
I have not been with another carrier in several years, so I cannot comment on others (other than the few days I spent with Sprint, and was unimpressed). Verizon is said to be decent, and I have no reason to doubt that. I like iPhones (and other Apple products) and see no reason to change carriers at this point.
I'm attacking Apple because despite the fact that so many people are bitching about what a crap network AT&T is, they stick with AT&T as if they were happily married.
I have a love/hate relationship with Apple. I love Macs, but hate the iPhone division, because it seems they're all about pandering to AT&T and restricting what you can do with their products.
For example, you would think being able to tether a Wifi iPad to use an iPhone's data connection would be a very natural thing to allow. Did they allow it? Of course not.
-Z
Just another example of people bashing Apple when they don't have any idea what the facts are.
Reports are that Verizon had the chance to have the iPhone first, but declined. Apple was forced to give AT&T a 5 year exclusive to get them to carry the iPhone. They can't simply break the contract, and they had to work with an existing provider (since it obviously wouldn't have made any sense to create their own network).
Now, if you have evidence that they had options that were more favorable and chose to go witH AT&T, feel free to provide it. Otherwise, please stop whining about things where you don't have the facts.
As for tethering an iPad to an iPhone, do you have any evidence that ANY carrier was going to allow that? Or that AT&T isn't providing the best deal available?
I don't have the facts either, but Apple is an extremely successful company. If someone had offered them a better deal, they would have taken it. Why is it that everyone thinks they know better than Apple how to run their business?
hiding cell towers in church steeples is another favorite trick --
in frisco there's supposedly one in st. paul's in noe valley
(where sister act was filmed), but if so it's only helping us out only a little bit.
In such a notoriously heathen city, it is likely almost as difficult to find church steeples as a reliable AT&T signal.
This ought to teach those limousine-liberal, central-committee NIMBY-ites a lesson about the unintended consequences of their over-zoning ever little aspect of life, as though they were God. The necessary chaos that created our most wonderful cities, the very cites they most favor, such as San Francisco, Paris and Venice, would never have been possible given the central planning, regulate everything-possible approach they favor to life.
It is sweet karma that their own petards are depriving them of their precious iphone signals.
"AT&T has tried to make them look like banana trees". How about Apple trees?
I swear I saw some very weird looking Pineapple trees near the highways and byways of Tempe, AZ the last time I was there. Now I think I know why?
This is San Francisco - ATT needs to make them look like banana HAMMOCKS, they would be approved in three HOURS!
sorry, couldn't resist!
Perhaps if they made them look like a giant penis? Oh wait, they already have one of those in Sacramento!
So, to fight one extreme, you have to go to another extreme? As in, there's no middle ground? There's proper regulation, and then there's excessive regulation.
I think some SF folks are concerned with looks, but then there are also those involved in fearmongering about RF radiation, blocking cell towers might actually make the situation worse as the phone radio has to increase its power for the signal to reach the tower.
I think are lot of people should look at this and put into perspective just how much opposition there was in the SF Bay Area the 1960's to getting the BART system built?
Now imagine the Bay Area today without it....
What is the issue with electromagnetic radiation? Are there signal interference problems?
Uh, no. But you wouldn't want to live under high tension lines, usually found on the larger towers (100KV and above I believe), for many years unless, of course, you are a fan of cancer and other health related issues.
Belushi and Aykroyd made an offbeat movie called "Neighbors" that poked fun at the problem.
Apple 'says' all manner of things... One learns to discern what's most likely rubbish - Like This!
Do YOU know (aside from your trolling, which is *all* you seem to know) how many years it takes?
Tell us. We'd love to see your figures - the one's YOU have and Apple apparently couldn't get their hands on.
I think are lot of people should look at this and put into perspective just how much opposition there was in the SF Bay Area the 1960's to getting the BART system built?
Now imagine the Bay Area today without it....
To be correct, the opposition stemmed from Santa Clara who didn't want to subsidize their neighboring counties to allow a complete loop.
We all get screwed due to that fiasco. The CALTrain between SF and Sunnyvale sucked hard. It beat the commute, but thanks to their myopic vision the cost of finishing the BART today is completely cost prohibitive.
When I lived in SF the expansion to SFO was starting. At $1 Billion/mile it was clear it would never be addressed again, without a completely different solution being implemented. Too much damn concrete.
Cingular was purchased by SBC, which also purchased the name ATT when ATT was dissolved. It then renamed itself ATT, even though it's really SBC (or was). ATT was broken into the baby bells back in the '80s, then was eventually eaten by one of its own offspring so to speak. Somewhere in this whole thing GTE was absorbed as well (I think by Cingular first in the '90s).
For clarification:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless
Going back even further:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT&T
It came full circle. AT&T->SBC->AT&T.
I have probably done my fair share of bitching about AT&T's service, but lately I have come to apI consider the antenna issues to be a nonissue. Trust me, I would have returned it otherwise. In every way, the product is very good, perhaps the best phone I have ever owned.
End of July is the ETA for the iPhone to arrive at Rogers here in Canada. Can't wait.
I suspect the antenna will be just fine, as it is for most iPhone 4 users.
I guess that's a price we have to pay in the "Last Best Place", but that hasn't stopped Verizon from putting in a great network here. Plus, more than a few people from all over the world visit those little places like Yellowstone and Glacier. Don't bother to bring your AT&T phone when you do ... ;-)
It hasn't been that long that providers have been "national" in the true sense of the word. They originally staked out separate territories, moving into each others has been a slower process. Wasn't Montana and the NW was a Verizon territory from day one?
As for tethering an iPad to an iPhone, do you have any evidence that ANY carrier was going to allow that? Or that AT&T isn't providing the best deal available?
Actually the original poster had a valid point here. After all, you can pay $20 extra and tether your laptop via your iPhone. Why not the iPad? It would be easy enough to do via bluetooth.
Even though the iPad and the iPhone are similar devices, there are some things where the iPad is much better, because of the larger screen.
Hopefully that will change at some point, although that seems to be an Apple imposed limitation otherwise who would buy the 3G version?
This is San Francisco - ATT needs to make them look like banana HAMMOCKS, they would be approved in three HOURS!
sorry, couldn't resist!
Since "banana hammock" is a slang term for Speedo, and since more straight guys wear Speedos than gay guys, your remark seems to have missed the target by a little.
Actually the original poster had a valid point here. After all, you can pay $20 extra and tether your laptop via your iPhone. Why not the iPad? It would be easy enough to do via bluetooth.
Even though the iPad and the iPhone are similar devices, there are some things where the iPad is much better, because of the larger screen.
Hopefully that will change at some point, although that seems to be an Apple imposed limitation otherwise who would buy the 3G version?
What makes you think that's an Apple imposed limitation? AT&T sets the cell phone plans, not Apple. Why would Apple want to limit that? In fact, they'd probably sell more iPad 3G systems WITHOUT the limitation so it doesn't make any sense for Apple to be behind it.
Do you have EVIDENCE that Apple is behind it?
What makes you think that's an Apple imposed limitation? AT&T sets the cell phone plans, not Apple. Why would Apple want to limit that? In fact, they'd probably sell more iPad 3G systems WITHOUT the limitation so it doesn't make any sense for Apple to be behind it.
Do you have EVIDENCE that Apple is behind it?
No I do not have any evidence - merely conjecture. Companies do that sort of thing all the time - not to mess us up, but so as to differentiate their products. Were I an Apple marketing person, I might have made the same decision.
As an Apple customer with 2 (wifi) iPads in our household, I wish it weren't so.
Actually I'm not sure I understand your point. I am merely saying that if you were able to tether the WiFi to iPhone, there would be no need for an iPhone/iPad owner to get a 3G iPad. The Wifi version would do.
I guess that's a price we have to pay in the "Last Best Place", but that hasn't stopped Verizon from putting in a great network here. Plus, more than a few people from all over the world visit those little places like Yellowstone and Glacier. Don't bother to bring your AT&T phone when you do ... ;-)
It is astounding that the Bay Area has a reputation for its highly educated population given that the lotus eaters in San Francisco are constantly making statements like this. (...and others above and below.) San Francisco is not an especially "dense" city. It is only especially dense by America's standards and America is the one of the most sparsely populated industrialized countries in the world. Australia, Canada and Russia are the only the only major countries that have a lower population density than the United States. San Francisco's density roughly compares to Istanbul's or Hong Kong's, but is around half of New York's, Jakarta's or Tokyo's, approximately a third of Seoul's or Mumbai's, and less than a fifth of Dehli's or Cairo's. As for the "Last Best Place" (and similar) comments, that is merely the sign of provincialism. I wish neuvo San Franciscans knew how ignorant and arrogant it makes them sound. Certainly San Francisco is a beautiful place, but their attempts to preserve it in stasis, as a city in amber, to make it a Disneyland for progressives, has made the city stale and unexciting, while quintupling the cost of living there. Ironically, in the process, these so-called liberals have driven out every single old blue-collar San Francisco family (and job) from the city as they drove up the cost of living with their growth and rent and other regulatory controls. Now tower controls are making living here even more inconvenient. Most of these people are the same people who screwed up New York by trying to "save" it, and who then fled New York when their meddling backfired. They've been flowing into San Francisco to "save" us since the 70's, and they've pretty much screwed up San Francisco in the same way. We can only hope they will soon flee here for their next "last best place." Good riddance when they go. Hopefully we can restore The City to a functional city, where families can afford to live and work, and where people, jobs, and affordable homes take priority over politics, views and lattes. Cities are dynamic, chaotic places by nature, they have to be that way in order to function best, to serve the needs of the people who live there. These central planning types, who should have learned their lesson in 1989, are denser then Dehli. They just don't get it.
---
BTW, the top five most dense communities in California are all in the Los Angeles area. Look it up. Likewise, the most dense communities in the New York City are actually in New Jersey. Strange how what every one knows to be true just ain't so.
It is astounding that the Bay Area has a reputation for its highly educated population given that the lotus eaters in San Francisco are constantly making statements like this. (...and others above and below.) San Francisco is not an especially "dense" city. It is only especially dense by America's standards and America is the one of the most sparsely populated industrialized countries in the world. Australia, Canada and Russia are the only the only major countries that have a lower population density than the United States.
Why the tangent? I didn't find anything in the post you quoted to that referenced city population density.
As for the "Last Best Place" (and similar) comments, that is merely the sign of provincialism.
I'm pretty sure that's a marketing slogan. Is that really such a big deal?