backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 61 comment(s) - last by Adonlude.. on Aug 19 at 1:45 PM
Samsung grabs record share of TV market

According to DisplaySearch, TV shipments in North America grew an impressive 28% year-over-year in the second quarter of 2008. The report shows that more than 9.3 million TVs were shipped in Q2 2008.  DisplaySearch says this is the strongest year-over-year growth since it began tracking TV shipments in 2004.

Plasma TV growth outpaced LCD TV growth for Q2 -- 35% and 30% growth respectively. DisplaySearch says Plasma growth was particularly influenced by strong initial shipments of Vizio's 32-inch plasma screens. LCD TV shipments rose by 52% year-over-year in to 7.5 million units.

The report states that most of the growth in the market was in the small to medium screen size including 19-inch, 22-inch, and 32-inch. DisplaySearch says that the 32-inch Vizio plasma accounted for full 13% of all plasma screens shipped in the quarter. Shipments for 42-inch plasma TVs rose almost 86% quarter to quarter; shipments for larger 50-inch plasma TVs were flat.

LCD technology gained market share quarter over quarter to rising from 77.5% to 79.8% of the total market for TVs. Samsung grabbed top honors as the leading brand with total shipments of 19.1% of all TVs sold in North America during the quarter. Samsung also took Sony's top spot for LCD TV unit share in the 40-inch and over segment. However, Sony rose from the number three spot in total TV shipments to the number two spot in total TV shipments, despite their unit share dropping from 13.4% to 11.7% for the quarter.

Panasonic held the lead in North America as the market leader for plasma TVs with 31.2% of the market, though the numbers dropped from 35% in quarter one of 2008. The top brands in flat-panel TV unit share growth are Samsung at number one with 18.9% unit share in Q2. Sony was number two with 10.4% unit share, Vizio was number three with 9.5% unit share, LGE was number four with 8.2% unit share, and Sharp rounded out the top five with 6.9% unit share.

Almost exactly one year ago in August 2007, Vizio was the number one brand in LCD TV unit share. This year Vizio has dropped to number five brand in LCD TVs in North America.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Your future tax dollars at work?
By peldor on 8/15/2008 1:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if this was influenced significantly by the stimulus payments that began in May.




RE: Your future tax dollars at work?
By bribud on 8/15/2008 1:39:42 PM , Rating: 2
Most definitely.


RE: Your future tax dollars at work?
By kattanna on 8/15/2008 1:49:32 PM , Rating: 3
that and the coming digital transition in 2009.

i wonder though just how many thought, or were told, that it was an HD transition and then thought they had to get an HD tv.


By therealnickdanger on 8/15/2008 2:04:25 PM , Rating: 5
For the masses, "digital" and "high definition" are interchangeable. Even a lot of technical folks get confused by the details. In reality, this is kind of the first change in broadcast standards in the history of television... it's hard to believe it's even going this smooth.

But let's think about this - how many stores still sell conventional 4:3 tube televisions with ATSC tuners? I helped my parents buy one (Dynex I think) two years ago, but even then they were in short supply. 32" HDTVs of today are kind of the mainstream 27" televisions of the 90s.


RE: Your future tax dollars at work?
By bribud on 8/15/2008 2:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
i wonder though just how many thought, or were told, that it was an HD transition and then thought they had to get an HD tv.

I bet there is a lot of this going on, depending on the situation. Either it will happen because of un-educated, non-commision salespeople, or due to predatory, commisioned jerkoff salespeople. After speaking with someone for a few minutes about the "new" televisions, you can quickly see who is easy prey and who is not.


RE: Your future tax dollars at work?
By Spivonious on 8/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Your future tax dollars at work?
By DCstewieG on 8/15/2008 2:40:55 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Show me a digital, non-HD television. They do not exist.

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_...

Point, me! :-P


RE: Your future tax dollars at work?
By MozeeToby on 8/15/2008 3:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is, for a whopping 30$ more you can get a 20" HDTV. I know, I know, alot of people don't care about the quality that much but when you're in the store and see them side by side, most people will just opt to spend the extra 30$.


RE: Your future tax dollars at work?
By Locutus465 on 8/15/2008 4:08:19 PM , Rating: 4
RE: Your future tax dollars at work?
By Durrr on 8/15/2008 4:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
A year ago, I bought an LCD EDTV (digital non HD), 19" for my kid's room for 179 from Kmart.


By StevoLincolnite on 8/16/2008 6:33:40 AM , Rating: 2
I just ended up buying a 28" LCD Monitor and a HD-TV Set-top with VGA out, and it ended up cheaper with both combined than a single HD TV of comparable size here in Australia.


RE: Your future tax dollars at work?
By 9nails on 8/16/2008 10:33:50 AM , Rating: 2
OMG, EDTV? WTF!?

Another initialism that I don't know the meaning of! So what is EDTV? (Is it a TV that needs Viagra? LOL!) Can it be equated to the quality difference of "Super VHS" to the standard "VHS" tape? Does it take your everyday signal and make it 480p? Would I want to run out and replace my SDTV sets for an EDTV? Just curious.


By therealnickdanger on 8/16/2008 2:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
EDTV typically only applies to monitors/TVs with a native resolution of 480p and typically only come with NTSC tuners, no digital tuning ability. I still have an EDTV plasma from 2004. Everything will be scaled to 480p - each model is different - mine can even scale 1080p down to 480p - and does a good job surprisingly!

You'll be hard-pressed to find many, if any, EDTVs now. While my old EDTV plasma has served its purpose extremely well over the past 4 years and will likely continue for years (kids' room perhaps?), there's no reason to not just get a standard HDTV instead.


By Oregonian2 on 8/15/2008 3:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
Such negativity!

The reason to upgrade to HDTV "for digital purposes" is plain as day. Everybody wants HD TV, but many can't justify the expense. "But dear, the analog is going away before long so we need to upgrade to HDTV now!".

It's being used as an excuse to do the spendy upgrading one wanted to do all along. Not out of stupidity, but out of lust for new electronic video toys.

As to buying a digital SD TV, I've seen them but I think it'd be pretty non-smart to buy them. It's not much more for a cheap 720 HD set and it'll look so much better. Although in theory the broadcast stations only need to go digital, and not to HD transmission, all of the major ones here are broadcasting HD and I think this is the general rule AFAIK (for really obvious reasons).


By Hiawa23 on 8/16/2008 9:21:54 AM , Rating: 2
Like someone else stated, I think this surge was due more to the stimulus checks. Not sure what will happen the rest of the year, but good to see, many are buying TVs instead of saving the cash for the hard times to come. Perhaps another stimulus check could arrive in time for the holiday season....


By ajvitaly on 8/17/2008 6:53:39 PM , Rating: 3
Citizen: We tax payers are hurting! We can't afford gas! The price of milk and corn has gone up! I'm about to foreclose on my loan! Please help me!

Politician: Well here is $600 to help offset these costs.

Citizen runs off and buys TV.


RE: Your future tax dollars at work?
By srue on 8/15/2008 2:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I bet you're right. I wonder if the Olympics helped too. People might want a new TV to tune all that HD action.


By Oregonian2 on 8/15/2008 3:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, we upgraded to a 58" Panasonic 1080p plasma last December after our 13-year old 32" CRT TV went bad. Watching the Olympics in HD has been utterly awesome by comparison.


RE: Your future tax dollars at work?
By BansheeX on 8/15/2008 3:33:16 PM , Rating: 5
You act like a 60 billion dollar a month trade deficit is a good thing. Consuming off of foreign credit sure is nice while that credit remains extended. But it's not sustainable to pay loans plus interest with other loans and inflation. Foreigners would be better off leaving us dry, letting their currencies appreciate, and exporting their products to themselves or other producers. They're just as capable of wanting and enjoying televisions.


RE: Your future tax dollars at work?
By jskirwin on 8/16/2008 2:22:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Foreigners would be better off leaving us dry, letting their currencies appreciate, and exporting their products to themselves or other producers. They're just as capable of wanting and enjoying televisions.


Right, but they aren't capable of affording them.


By BansheeX on 8/16/2008 10:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, neither can we. We're the world's largest debtor nation with a negative savings rate, and we're consuming 60 billion more of products and services than we provide per month. We can only "afford" imported products based on loans that we get from those producing nations themselves, and the interest obligations keep building. Countries like China actually peg their currencies to the dollar, in effect devaluing their own to keep their exports cheap. If they didn't do this, their currency would appreciate relative to ours, killing their exports but giving rise to an internal boom instead. Their cost for oil would go down, too, while ours would explode. We're a real drag on the world economy and they don't realize it. The CPI is BS, there's no way current rates are covering our real rate of inflation. I'm not entirely sure why the bond market hasn't imploded yet.


By Ringold on 8/16/2008 9:58:23 PM , Rating: 2
Have you switched to being a current account deficit hawk now that the hard-money theorists favorite inflation indicators, commodities, are falling hard, and the dollar is appreciating despite a dovish fed? :P

Please show me the fantastic benefit Germany, and its workers, have enjoyed from its studious trade surplus in the last decade. I would also helpfully point out that the foreign factor could be entirely stripped out of China's GDP figures and it'd still be growing rapidly. That doesn't mean its surplus is meaningless, but it's also at a different stage of development. I'd also point out we've gone pretty much from horse and buggy to Gulf Stream G650s while having an almost unbroken, except for a few years, trade deficit.

To tweak a good quote from a misguided economist, markets can remain irrational longer than your disbelief can remain solvent. I like my money hard too, but moderation in all things is good, including hawkishness.


By marvdmartian on 8/15/2008 4:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Report: TV Shipments in U.S. Surge 28% in Q2


Report: Stimulus checks arrive in U.S. households in Q2.....yeah, I'd say it had something to do with it!


RE: Your future tax dollars at work?
By Moishe on 8/18/2008 1:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
Am I the only one that saved mine?


Really?
By mdogs444 on 8/15/2008 1:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
DisplaySearch says Plasma growth was particularly influenced by strong initial shipments of Vizio's 32-inch plasma screens.

I've never even seen a 32" Plasma television. Not sure where they sell those.

I was imagining that the growth was due to the price drops going around for 42"-50" 1080i Plasmas from Samsung, Panasonic, and Hitachi going for around the $700-$900 range.




RE: Really?
By onwisconsin on 8/15/2008 1:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
Curious too..doing a google search, I guess Walmart...

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_...


RE: Really?
By mdogs444 on 8/15/2008 1:43:49 PM , Rating: 2
And its only $13 cheaper than the Vizio 32" LCD. So call me crazy, but I cannot see a plasma being responsible for this huge boost in sales because of a $13 difference at a retail store.


RE: Really?
By therealnickdanger on 8/15/2008 1:56:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if I were in a store choosing between a 32" plasma and LCD of the same brand and price, I would take the plasma any day of the week. Not all plasmas are created equal of course, but you could expect generally better PQ from the plasma along with a much longer lifespan. I wouldn't expect typical Wal-Mart shoppers to be aware of this though...


RE: Really?
By hcahwk19 on 8/15/2008 3:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the smaller LCD screens have better resolution than the small plasmas. Almost every plasma under 50" is not true HD resolution (I have seen 1 1080P Dynex that was 42" and it looked good). Those smaller plasmas are 1024x768 or 1024x720. This is not an HD resolution. 720P, the lowest HD resolution is 1280x720. Most smaller LCDs are a standard 1366x768, which is above the minimum for 720P, and basically the same aspect ratio. I can tell the difference looking at a 42" plasma and a 42" LCD. The resolution of the LCD is better, but the plasma has a deeper black level (though not a realistic one).


RE: Really?
By therealnickdanger on 8/15/2008 3:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Almost every plasma under 42" is not true HD resolution

Fixed. Most available 42" plasmas are 1080p. In fact, 720p plasmas are a dying breed.

The plasma in question is 1024x720, so it gives up very little in resolution - but that's a moot point in most cases anyway since neither are 1080p. Plasmas are generally better with contrast, color accuracy, and have smoother motion (fewer artifacts) and less judder. They excel even further with film-based content. The viewing experience is subjective to the user - but the trend with experienced home theater critics indicates plasma to be the better technology overall - although typically more expensive.


RE: Really?
By HsiKai on 8/15/2008 6:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
Well I'll take the difference of 184,320 pixels for an extra $13. I wouldn't say that 184,320 pixels out of 2,073,600 is insignificant, especially compared to the price. Also, the plasma in question would look stretched or as though it's missing the pixels to try to compensate for the difference in size.


RE: Really?
By HsiKai on 8/15/2008 6:42:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I wouldn't say that 184,320 pixels out of a million pixels, then compared to 2,073,600 is insignificant, especially compared to the price.


Fixed that, left out half the sentence.

Oops, to make that more clear, there are 2 million pixels in 1920x1080p and 921,600 in 1280x720p so 184,320 pixels is fairly significant compared to 720p and while true 720p is only half the resolution of 1080p, it is still a far sight better than 1024x720.


RE: Really?
By therealnickdanger on 8/15/2008 6:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
Meh, you still wouldn't notice. I bet that from 10 feet away (perhaps even 2 feet away), you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between 1024x720, 1280x720, and 1366x768. There would be no image stretching - the built-in scalers take care of that.


RE: Really?
By nowayout99 on 8/16/2008 12:07:09 AM , Rating: 2
At the end of the day, PQ wins out over the resolution, where not all panels are created equal (by far). The resolution differences in and of themselves aren't noticeable at this size.


RE: Really?
By Jedi2155 on 8/16/2008 5:46:08 PM , Rating: 1
Except resolution is PQ...you should rethink that statement.


RE: Really?
By nowayout99 on 8/16/2008 6:29:10 PM , Rating: 2
No, PQ and resolution are not synonymous.


RE: Really?
By therealnickdanger on 8/17/2008 4:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, you could have a 1080p panel with hot whites and gray blacks looking much worse than even a 480p panel. There is so much involved with displaying a proper image beyond resolution.


RE: Really?
By Jedi2155 on 8/18/2008 5:14:43 AM , Rating: 2
I understand that there is much more involved, but I've always understood picture quality to be the displayed quality. Of course there other factors, but resolution is definite factor in overall picture quality.


RE: Really?
By hcahwk19 on 8/15/2008 8:50:06 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry, but most 42" plasmas out there are still 1024x768 or 1024x720. Only now are a small number of 1080P 42" plasmas coming to market. The only one that I have seen was a Panasonic 42" 1080P at BestBuy the other day. It was the only one like it in the store.

Maybe you cannot see the difference between 1024x768 and 1366x768 or 1280x720, then you might need your eyes checked. It is very easy to see the difference. Something just looks "off" with the 42" plasmas that are 1024x768. The effect is akin to a noisy/blocky image. I see it clearly when the two types are next to each other.

1080P will be nice to see trickle down into the smaller models, but that will be much harder to see the difference over 720P. Studies have shown that to see the difference you need a much larger screen (50 or 60 and up). Anything below that size and the difference between 720P and 1080P is extremely difficult to discern.

Now, that being said, I could definitely see a difference when I was at BB the other day between the LG and Samsung 42" plasmas (1024x768) and the new Panasonic 42" 1080P. I was kind of surprised that it had that much better picture on it, but it did, and it was easy to see it. Next to it was the new Dynex 42" 1080P LCD which looked just as good. On top of that, the Dynex is only $799, compare to $1400 for the Panasonic. That is a very big difference in price for what appeared to be a nearly identical picture.


RE: Really?
By therealnickdanger on 8/16/2008 1:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
most 42" plasmas out there are still 1024x768 or 1024x720. Only now are a small number of 1080P 42" plasmas coming to market


From Best Buy's website, 21 of the 30 plasmas they sell are 1080p (70%). Out of those 30 plasmas, 16 are 42", and of those 16, 10 are 1080p (63%).

From Newegg's website, 25 of the 36 plasmas they sell are 1080p (69%). Out of those 36 plasmas, 6 are 42", and of those 6, 3 are 1080p (50%).

From Amazon's website, 45 of the 86 plasmas they sell are 1080p (52%). Out of those 86 plasmas, 20 are 42", and of those 20, 11 are 1080p (55%).

42" 1080p Plasmas have been fairly common-place for about a year now with many under $1,000 - most under $1,500.

quote:
...you might need your eyes checked...

...Studies have shown that to see the difference...

I can most certainly discern the difference, but most people can not - or don't even care - as your anecdotal "study" confirms. Either way, it seems clear that you have certain conceptions not fully based on reality.

Dynex makes (repackages) a decent product at a great price. I bought two Dynex 32" LCDs during last year's Black Friday. For $400, they easily compete with 32" LCD panels at twice the price... but there are differences that I do find lacking. I'm also aware of Dynex's 42" 1080p LCD. If you say it can compete with the Panny 42" (any Panny 42")... well that's your opinion, but it would be opinion that you need your eyes checked. ;-)


RE: Really?
By Flunk on 8/15/2008 7:35:15 PM , Rating: 3
Um, plasmas have vastly inferior lifespan.


RE: Really?
By bigboxes on 8/16/2008 12:33:15 AM , Rating: 2
If by 60k hours to reach half-life then you need an edumacation. That's better (and equal to and LCD) than a CRT!


RE: Really?
By althaz on 8/16/2008 9:11:11 AM , Rating: 2
After that amount of time the TV isn't watchable however (not that it matters as that's the best part of 30 years of TV watching). Also the panel is never the thing to wear out in these TVs, it's always the electronics (or a manufacturing flaw).

As all nerds know, the lifespean of electronics is directly proportional to the temperatures they are subjected to, which points pretty clearly to the fact that LCDs last longer than Plasmas, which is indeed the case.

LCDs also have a clearer picture, though Plasmas have a more vibrant one. Personally I'd buy an LED backlit LCD given what's currently available, unless I wanted 50"+ in which case you'll be far enough back to hopefully not notice the ragged edges on any moving objects on Plasma screens.


RE: Really?
By therealnickdanger on 8/16/2008 2:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Um, plasmas have vastly inferior lifespan.

Um, the LCD modules themselves remain operable for a very long time - but will the CFL lamp that illuminates it? CFL lamps can supposedly last 20K hours (generous). LED-backlit LCD displays should fare much better as LED has a useable lifespan of well over 50K hours (putting it on par with plasma's 60K half-life), but LED is much hotter than CFL, so its lifespan will vary according to its ability to stay cool.


RE: Really?
By onwisconsin on 8/15/2008 1:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
Curious too..doing a google search, I guess Walmart...

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_...


Vizios are ok for the bedroom..
By PAPutzback on 8/15/2008 1:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
But the save money and limiting inputs which hurt int the living rooms where you have all the components hooked up. HTPC, DVR, blu-ray player, Wii... That is what I have hooked up currently and tie up all my HDMI jacks. Good thing the Wii wasn;t H-def or I'd have to choose which one got the poor SVIDEO connection.

I am still a fan of Samsung LCD, Panasonic Plasmas and Sony RPTVs. It all depends on which one is on sale when I go to get a new TV.




RE: Vizios are ok for the bedroom..
By mdogs444 on 8/15/2008 1:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
HTPC, DVR, blu-ray player

But its also cheap to create an HTPC player that has a built in BR player and DVR with TV Tuner - then use only 1 HDMI port on the TV.

Not practical for everyone, but still easy enough to do so that TV input limitations really do not limit you that much.


RE: Vizios are ok for the bedroom..
By joeld on 8/15/2008 1:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
That depends -- if you're like me, renting a HD DVR from a cable provider is much cheaper than trying to build a 2 tuner HD cable card equipped HTPC.


RE: Vizios are ok for the bedroom..
By chmilz on 8/15/2008 2:03:08 PM , Rating: 2
Or a free HD-PVR which I got from my cable provider for switching from satellite... Kinda.
I never had satellite, but a broken receiver and a photoshopped account statement from a friend goes a long way, saving me $690 :)


By saiga6360 on 8/15/2008 1:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
How many of these people who buy cheap 32 inch HDTVs will actually switch to Bluray? Probably not that many. Exhausting the HDMI ports probably isn't a concern and if so they can just buy an HDMI switch.


By Icelight on 8/15/2008 2:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
I know what you mean about running out of inputs. I've got a JVC LCoS TV and before I bought it I figured 2 HDMI ports and 2 component connections would be more than I'd ever need.

Well, a year later they're all filled up already :|


By Spivonious on 8/15/2008 2:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah but Vizio is half the price of the other brands you mention, and the picture is at least 90% as good.

Most people with that many components have them all going into a receiver first anyway, so the TV itself doesn't need that many inputs.


RE: Vizios are ok for the bedroom..
By srue on 8/15/2008 2:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
Newer Vizios, like the VO series, have 4 HDMI inputs, plus component and a host of others. How many inputs do you need?

http://www.vizio.com/productDetails.aspx?id=1694&p...


RE: Vizios are ok for the bedroom..
By Screwballl on 8/15/2008 4:10:30 PM , Rating: 3
plain 32" CRT TV, DVD player and basic cable FTW (for me)...
I think I am more in the majority of people that really has no need to go HD or LCD (until the TV dies)... If I want HD content, I can watch stuff on the computer or go without.

also considering that most cable providers require you to have their $60/month premium package to even get HD channels which can be free or $10+ per month. I have Cox locally and with them you have to have their digital deluxe package and get free HD. From what I have seen, most cable providers are the same.

Another point of contention: What good is HD when there is STILL nothing good on TV? Bad HD shows? Your local news in HD? Premium priced movie rentals?


By itlnstln on 8/15/2008 6:01:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'll go with your preference of TV and not wanting to pay for additional cable, but I think you are mistaken on quality programming. OTA HD, sure, but there is very good HD programming on the cable channels (several Discovery channels, History Channel, Nat. Geo., all the sports you could want, et. al.). I used to be with you on the "SDTV is good enough." I watched HD at a friends house, though, and was hooked. I now have an HD pj in the theater w/an 80" screen and a 61" HDTV in the living room. Truth be told, HDTV is not very worthwhile (other than the widescreen aspect of it) if you are not watching it on a big screen (or sitting reasonably close). Sitting 10' - 15' away from a 24" or 32" HDTV is pretty much pointless. At that distance, you really can't tell the difference. HDTV is like going Black; once you go HDTV, you can never go back. :)


By Choppedliver on 8/16/2008 7:36:49 PM , Rating: 1
You are like me... I agree 100%. I have a panasonic 32 inch crt and to me it suits me just fine.

I have seen a bluray computer generated movie from pixar on a sony hdtv and it "blu" me away. haha. NO doubt it was awesome. But I dont watch disc based programming all day. I have never seen HDTV programming from our cable company that looked good. In fact I would say it looks inferior to my standard tv because of the highly compressed digital signal. Every little flaw stands out on an HDTV screen and it just looks like shit.


...
By pwnsweet on 8/15/2008 9:29:15 PM , Rating: 2
So much for the US heading toward a recession...




RE: ...
By bigboxes on 8/16/2008 12:35:33 AM , Rating: 1
Already there bro.


RE: ...
By Hiawa23 on 8/18/2008 11:16:11 AM , Rating: 2
So much for the US heading toward a recession...

for most families, this recession started some time ago, & like many have said I am sure this surge was because of the stimulus checks, & it appears that most of them have run out, but I sure hope most families were not wasting them on TVs when the had more important issues to worry about like bills, upcoming school year & whatnot. good for the economy, though, I am just curious how the holiday season will play out for many families this year.

Toys Vs Bills, food, who will win, as kids really don't care about any recession, as they want gifts for christmas no matter what. Seems like many families will be maxing out credit cards this holiday season probably moreso than ever before as their disposable income has diminished, compared to previous years.


RE: ...
By Moishe on 8/18/2008 1:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
Tons of stupid people spending more than they have and not wanting to "hurt their kids".

I say, you can "hurt" your kids now by teaching them that sometimes you have to tighten the belt to ensure a better future.
OR
You can "hurt" your kids later when it all comes crashing down and they *actually* have nothing.


Corning
By Adonlude on 8/19/2008 1:45:32 PM , Rating: 2
Me thinks it might be a good idea to buy some GLW stock.




"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




16 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki