Smart Phones and Multiple O/s

[baz]

Please vote on the New topic but old topic, It's had a post for a couple of years now and David did ask at the time and there were no takers.
It will require a clear backing for any real change and there will be a cost, yet to be decide or even known, it would also need a window for development.
https://www.capitalism2.com/forum/viewt ... =42&t=4804
I accept that there is limited detail and more explanation is needed but the gist is there, just needs the encouragement.

[megapolis]

Even in the real world 3 OS are too much.
The game will not be better with more Smart Phones and OS options. At least with current state of AI.

[baz]

Hi Megapolis,

Thanks for getting back to me and commenting.

My take has on the smart phone industry is quite simple, and we need to go back to the original mobile. This is basic and just for completeness, I don't want to go into history, just some more context and my idea behind this post.

As far as I remember the original phones all had there own type O/S which didn't matter at the time as it was just a phone and had some connectivity to others but not much, Caplab caters for that fine, doesn't really need anything said, although it would be nice if those phones tied into a telecom provider.

The reasoning for 3 Smart phone O/S is for different reasons. This is where Caplab falls over IMO.
Apple (phones only ) started with an MP3 player and simple o/s, then moved into smart phones and wanted to tie in services that it's pc had, apple music, Apple also own a huge amount of music, so it makes sense. And they have gone from there with connectivity been the key.
We can have Apple but without it's separate O/S, it's not ever going to be apple, without them having a market share in o/s, then it's only about handsets. The online Apple store is a behemoth and makes money on it's own and Apple make money thru royalties ect

Google were driven entirely differently and wrote an O/s for various manufacturers to use but Android is far more flexible offering a different take on how smart phones can work. Google now have many services it can offer, they also produced there own tablet but this was made by the same manufactures that also make s.phones in the same market.
Can we have google in the game? Not really as either it's a an internet service or lucky if it can produce a pc o/s to compete without making hardware.

Microsoft went a totally different way by acquiring Nokia, and then created connectivity to it's own o/s and services, Sony bought into Ericsson, and got into s.phones on the back of that. Sony use Android despite having an O/S like many of the others.
We can create Microsoft and create an O/S, caplab does this well. But sony suffers when it comes down to s.phones, yes they both can make them, but the sales don't represent anything more than sales, nor do consoles ect, although it could be the same as pc sales and more to the point add to Internet connections within the software tab or a new tab if desired.

There was a fourth company Blackberry, Very popular, phone had a keyboard, easy to text so connectivity was a key, but where are they now. They didn't keep upto date when the company hit bad times it was stuck with it's own O/S, I think they tried moving to Android but it became to late, they may of been bought but this isn't a history post. Just a point i'm trying to make.
Perhaps the market wasn't now big enough, exactly what happen's in caplab from my own experience, there only will a few that survive, but at the start quiet a few.
Blackberry's demise isn't possible in Caplab due to the O/s, I could recreate s.phones and it would be fine, but that isn't what happened to blackberry, mainly thru choice of o/s and lack of investment in it and not seeing the market change.

My example I'm Google and Microsoft are in the game, We can both make pc o/s and fight it out but we can't in s.phones. Now google doesn't manufacturer hardware per say, so how do we represent Google, Yes the internet has a service for google but Google is more than a search engine. If google had android as an s.phone, tab o/s then I can create it in caplab not fully but much better than now. I can now fight against Microsoft, without been taken over, I don't think in real World Microsoft could buy google, whilst in the current caplab Google could be taken quite easily as it's only represented in the internet search, yes you can make shops farms factory but Google is offices and datacenters and software orientated tech. Alphabet does other things but i'm not asking for everything a company does as it would be boring, just to most relevant parts that explain in how the game compares to real world. And in the game how o/s industry is a huge player within specific areas, not all and can well survive. Microsoft don't own all markets solely and they compete in most, whilst google in some of those markets and Apple in most of Microsoft's. Sony compete in some of Microsoft's and some of Apple ( Music )
Computer companies are represented well in the game, just making the point for other parts of the computer industry namely O/s.

My main point to this is, In Caplab I could have Nokia and Microsoft, but buying Nokia other than owning a phone there's no more. If you added s.phone O/s into it, then you could now buy Nokia and develop a smart phone, then put your own O/s on it, Now we could have O/s battles. Say I was Sony and I bought Ericsson but decided to use Android O/s, but I also have a console O/s different to the phone o/s. You Made android o/s and sell it to me, The phones I sell, would determine your profit, but not just yours, any that used android.
Then you have Microsoft with a open pc o/s, sells to all manufacturers but has closed platform for it's s.phone, console o/s for it's various products, Apple have a closed platform and have a o/s for various product.

This post for me is a means to an end to be able to have connectivity from an o/s to a data center so that has traffic going thru it.
I fully understand the point about to much but after it was set i'm unclear why it would be to much. I'm only purposing originally an O/s for 4 other items, Wifi router, console, media box and s.phone.
This is to be used for more data input into data center.

My proposal is this You create wifi router like you would but then create o/s as you would for pc, first to create is the o/s of choice like Pc, then every wifi router built would count towards o/s number like pc and o/s and that info goes to data center, which you have owned and then you make money thru the amount of O/s going thru data center.
You could even say well create a mast so s.phones go thru that. fine, you could have 4g going thru a mast and landline operations thru data center.
Some masts are owned by government and sold rights, whilst others are private companies, not related directly to phone manufacturers but more infrastructure, thus if we could add something like this iit adds more depth and makes comms companies more relevant too, just by adding and using the numbers we have bind to something more than a stat.

I tend to play the game in specific area's, thus why I end up with so many posts as I keep finding areas that are difficult to replicate but with tweaks could be very relevant within an industry. I'm really getting into semi products as well, so to enhance that having multi differences makes sense of it.

My whole point about telecoms is that it just doesn't represent that market, Making BT becomes irrelevant as it mostly hinges on subscribers, using data feeds would give you that, Now we just have a telecoms building make a phone and that's BT. They are not bound, the phone sales makes no odds to subscription, and unless i'm wrong internet connections don't have an effect on the Telecoms building,

What you could have is, make phone, phone has o/s once made every phone is a subscriber, that goes to mast data center telecoms, and counts as a number. In an ideal world I could own all data centers, masts telecoms ( Infrastructure provider) and could decide by O/S who I wanted or have all. But I would need data feeds from each to be able to do that. The O/s represents the company or subscribers of that company in this sense.
Regarding s.phones they would have at the start of o/s is this open or closed, closed would be Microsoft and IOS, google would be open, We can already name o/s so i'm not worried by name, these subscribers go via mast data center telecoms, Infrastructure industry makes profit on the subscribers and markets it's own service. You later buy infrastructure company and turn it from a accept all subscriber to maybe just your own, ie Virgin. All competitors would now have to build there infrastructure or another infrastructure company could move in but as market share shrank it may not be worth it, but this is a industry now, not just a telecoms building.

I'm playing a game now and i've just created an o/s for the point of this post, so we do have multi o/s but only for pc. I'm just looking at doing the same for the other products mentioned. All it would be is the same now with laptop pc box which you tick now but adding the products mentioned, then you could have a tick in desktop and laptop, or phone or wifi or all, along side who you will allow to use it is it open or closed.
In the software guide it would show the same but with the other devices, i mean wifi router is the number of internet users on cities digital tab so the data stream is there. The wifi router would become a dominant internet connector because it should add pc's but consoles and media boxes.
So you could argue the s.phones, tabs and wifi routers, just need adding for that purpose.

So to summarize, There is Multi o/s for pc's in the game now. By proposing that s.phones ect appear in software tab os info beneath pc and notebook and have a user base figure that then counts toward s,phone internet Users , same for console ect.
Each Internet users number pipes either thru telecoms or as as mentioned a new building type like data centers and or masts, You could have one connect to the other and require both not a problem really.
Data center link to Telecoms in my idea and Telecoms sell services to world via voice, data, TV service and broadband. and buy or own data centers mast to get there subscribers. By having source of 4 your telecoms could sell them separate, thus the different data stream requirement. Multi O/S just add to these numbers like they do now for multi pc o/s.
I see no reason why having another o/s for another hardware type is confusing or removes anything from the game. I would say that it adds more depth and real world feeling. With my above comments it also creates an Infrastructure side to the game that isn't really there
at this moment.
The end result is that we could introduce service providers, Infrastructure providers and get the telecoms industries working as it should, potentially have landline and mobile that receive subscribers based on the items made in the game world.

I never intended for such a long post but I try and be complete and make sure that I have explained myself properly, which I do struggle with unless I get deep Hopefully this post is now complete and can advance.

[megapolis]

Hi baz,

Wow, that definitely was a longpost.

Your ideas are quite good and reasonable so I feel myself obliged to provide you with an answer of the same depth. It will take some time and effort since in am Russian but I will try.

Ok. Talking about your ideas. The idea to create opportunities to use monopoly in one field as a leverage to get monopoly in another field is awesome in theory. The idea to add fields that are currently implemented as running costs or not implemented at all also looks nice. But bad in practice.

First. OS. We know that unlike PCs, Smartphones cannot be shipped without OS. So OS itself is just a component. Like current CCD, CPU or Plastic. (does not worth it)
So OS makes sense only if we have services like Google Play, iTunes etc. and ability to bundle them and promote through inclusion into OS. They are not implemented now and I hope will not be implemented in the future. They will create a lot of intercorporate relations that AI will never be able to handle.

Second. Cellular networks and all this stuff. It actually does not matter what particular industry you mean. I will explain the general problem.
Let's, say, you want to roleplay and dominate one particular industry or set of industries, it does not matter. For example you want a monopoly in Beds. You set up a Lumber camp, Bed factory and a couple of stores in each city. Great, you're the monopolist. But economy goes into a set of recessions, GDP falls because exports are always exceed imports. So if you want to improve the situation, you have to install a mayor. Unfortunately mayorship in one of the cities will not help. Other cities will tank your city. So... you have to take them all. oops. It will not help as well. Rival companies build all their factories in once city. Its ecology drops to zero and you cannot improve it. The only way to improve it and also balance cities' economies is to buy all the competitors and spread their factories evenly among them. Great! You control everything! But wait. You have a problem. Your profit exceed influx of money into the economy and it goes into constant recession. Again. But this time it is even worse. Since you are quite effective, you replaced almost all of the local economy. Unemployment skyrocketing, population leaves, demand drops, cities income lowers, you have to close excessive city services. It is an endless vicious cycle that you cannot end anymore. There are several ways to prevent this. First is to fill all the cities with unprofitable Retail stores (remember, you cannot build more factories because of ecology). Unfortunately it is boring and you will run out of space sooner or later. Second option is to reduce your influence on city economy and grow cities up to the sky. As a bonus, large cities will give you more profits and reduce your impact on city economy. Looks much better apart from the fact that cities are limited in growth because of the bugs in game mechanics.

Oops. We started from the flaws in AI and ended with the same. Now I have a question. Do we need additional aspects to the game or the flaws of the game will become worse?

[megapolis]

Oh, by the way we additionally found out that none of the industries in the game matter. So why should we add them?

Note to David: Banks and Loans are good because they could complete the money circle if implemented correctly. Insurance companies are useless because they provide statistics-based services in statistics-based simulation.

[David]

As a bonus, large cities will give you more profits and reduce your impact on city economy. Looks much better apart from the fact that cities are limited in growth because of the bugs in game mechanics.

I wonder what those bugs in game mechanics are exactly?

Rival companies build all their factories in once city. Its ecology drops to zero and you cannot improve it.

Did you imply that AI companies tend to build their factories in the city with the lowest wage is an issue? If so, do you see it as a gameplay issue or an AI issue and would you care posting a poll seeing if the community thinks that the AI should spread their factories over different cities regardless of their wage rates?

Oops. We started from the flaws in AI and ended with the same. Now I have a question. Do we need additional aspects to the game or the flaws of the game will become worse?

Are the flaws you referred to the one mentioned above or different ones? If different ones, could you elaborate?

Oh, by the way we additionally found out that none of the industries in the game matter. So why should we add them?

What did you mean actually?

Insurance companies are useless because they provide statistics-based services in statistics-based simulation.

I like the sound of your statement. Unfortunately I see no explanation behind the notion that providing statistics-based services in statistics-based simulation is equivalent to uselessness.

[megapolis]

As a bonus, large cities will give you more profits and reduce your impact on city economy. Looks much better apart from the fact that cities are limited in growth because of the bugs in game mechanics.

I wonder what those bugs in game mechanics are exactly?

David, unfortunately I cannot provide you with proper feedback on this for a couple of obvious reasons.
First is that it takes 200+hours for me to reach this stage. That is a couple of months of real-world time.
Second is that save games incompatibility and ridiculous amount of game-breaking bugs in the game. Two months old game version is so outdated that I cannot even reach the moment where these bugs will become visible.

You cannot obviously fox the latter issue but you can fix the former one. Out of 200 hours I spend around 100 hours reconfiguring education. If you will introduce a completely new interface and some automation into it, that would reduce 100 hours and will allow me to reach late-game stages more frequently.

[megapolis]

Rival companies build all their factories in once city. Its ecology drops to zero and you cannot improve it.

Did you imply that AI companies tend to build their factories in the city with the lowest wage is an issue? If so, do you see it as a gameplay issue or an AI issue and would you care posting a poll seeing if the community thinks that the AI should spread their factories over different cities regardless of their wage rates?

Yes, it is an issue. And it is a gameplay issue, not an AI one.
But on the other hand it is an AI issue. AI puts all the eggs in one basket.

[megapolis]

Oops. We started from the flaws in AI and ended with the same. Now I have a question. Do we need additional aspects to the game or the flaws of the game will become worse?

Are the flaws you referred to the one mentioned above or different ones? If different ones, could you elaborate?

It was a summary of my previous arguments.

[megapolis]

Oh, by the way we additionally found out that none of the industries in the game matter. So why should we add them?

What did you mean actually?

I meant that once you switch from company level management to government-level management, none of your corporate issues matter anymore. Even more. In fact it appears that corporations (both AI-owned and yours) destroy city-level economy and you need to reduce their impact.