09-15-2004, 01:00 AM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 23,595
|
|
C|NET Reviews the Polaroid Juke Jam PDP 600 (20GB)
"Polaroid, best known for its contributions to photography and Outkast lyrics, presents the 20GB Juke Jam as one of its first forays into the MP3 scene. The $300 hard drive player looks like it could be the iPod's obese sibling, and its spacious LCD and joystick are almost as easy to use as the iPod's. Unfortunately, a few significant flaws prevent the Juke Jam from being a true top-shelf competitor."This unit seemed promising (look at the size of that display!), but C|NET thumps it with a 6/10 rating.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-15-2004, 01:17 AM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,819
|
|
Is there nothing that Polaroid won't put its name on anymore?
I guess when you build your business around licensing the name, you gotta do this kind of stuff.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-15-2004, 01:18 AM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,781
|
|
I've been keeping an eye on this player since I first saw it at PCMall for $169.
Can't say it's a total show-stopper, but the lack of a hold button is a *big* minus. Gotta wonder what they were thinking...
|
| |
|
|
|
09-15-2004, 01:25 AM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,781
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by James Fee
Is there nothing that Polaroid won't put its name on anymore?
I guess when you build your business around licensing the name, you gotta do this kind of stuff.
|
Well, its worth remembering the Polaroid name comes from their first product: polarized film and coatings for optics and sunglasses.
The company existed for 20 years or so before moving into instant photography, so its not as if their photography roots are that deep anyway. They're not like Kodak, which started as a camera maker, evolved into a chemicals business, and is now working to evolve into an digital imaging company... |
| |
|
|
|
09-15-2004, 01:30 AM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,819
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Felix Torres
The company existed for 20 years or so before moving into instant photography, so its not as if their photography roots are that deep anyway. They're not like Kodak, which started as a camera maker, evolved into a chemicals business, and is now working to evolve into an digital imaging company...
|
But isn't that Polaroid dead? I thought they went bankrupt and the name was sold off?
OK, this isn't a "smoking gun", but I think I was right. I doubt the old polaroid makes anything anymore...
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/st...5/daily35.html |
| |
|
|
|
09-15-2004, 02:16 AM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,781
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by James Fee
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Felix Torres
The company existed for 20 years or so before moving into instant photography, so its not as if their photography roots are that deep anyway. They're not like Kodak, which started as a camera maker, evolved into a chemicals business, and is now working to evolve into an digital imaging company...
|
But isn't that Polaroid dead? I thought they went bankrupt and the name was sold off?
OK, this isn't a "smoking gun", but I think I was right. I doubt the old polaroid makes anything anymore...
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/st...5/daily35.html |
Well, *somebody* is still making and selling instant cameras and film under the Polaroid name and logo...
...and claiming the whole corporate history going back to Edwin Land's polarizing celluloid film...
http://www.polaroid.com/index.jsp |
| |
|
|
|
09-15-2004, 04:06 AM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,819
|
|
It doesn't mean that they can't, just that the company that Edwin Land created when bankrupt in 2002 and all shareholders got nothing.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-15-2004, 04:22 AM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,781
|
|
<shrug>
Whoever they are, they're selling the pre-bankruptcy products, as well as supporting them. Name licensing aside, the current outfit selling Polaroid cameras and film is using IP and facilities that predate the bankruptcy sale and likely even a lot of personnel.
The thing about corporations is that they exist independent of the humans who created them; the current Polaroid has enough continuity in products and brand identity to be considered the same company.
The same applies to Rio, even though they are now a division of Denon, instead of whatever remains of Diamond (I think VIA owns that, no?).
I don't think its quite the same as, say, Packard Bell or Commodore or Maybach, where there was a long gap between corporate incarnations; Polaroid products never disappeared from the market, regardless of whatever happened to the folks that ran the company into the ground.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-15-2004, 04:42 AM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,819
|
|
As I said, it appears that they are licensing their name more often now.
I just don't see people running out and buying a mp3 player because it has a Polaroid name on it.
They ain't Apple....
|
| |
|
|
|
09-15-2004, 01:52 PM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,781
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by James Fee
As I said, it appears that they are licensing their name more often now.
I just don't see people running out and buying a mp3 player because it has a Polaroid name on it.
They ain't Apple....
|
Buying it? Maybe not...
Looking at it?
Consider it?
Very likely.
Faced with a Shimatzu Juke Jam and a Polaroid Juke Jam, folks *will* consider the Polaroid while consigning the unfamiliar name to the "Brand X" category.
That is why people *pay* for familiar names.
There is value in the name, which is why companies hanging on by the skin of their teeth look for endorsements or, conversely, farm out the brand.
In this case, the owners of the name get money *and* a bit of extra visibility.
Westinghouse is doing it too, in flat-panel TVs, as I'm sure you've noticed.
As for Apple, no, they're not there yet.
Nor are they likely to get there any time soon.
But as you yourself pointed out elsewhere, without the pod, they'd be darned close to it...
1.5% market share and shrinking...
The pod bloomed just in time... |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
