I liked digg's interpretation: "You know those paint bombs that end up in sacks of bank money during robbery movies (and probably real life)? We're wondering why Samsung would put a tiny version of those in a phone."

http://digg.com/video/if-you-try-to-beat-a-galaxy-5s-to-death-it-will-fight-back

I am inclined to believe the battery pack being the culprit here though.

Your video, Samsung Galaxy S5 - Hammer Test Fail, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I agree- the organisers likely didn't brief her enough of the scope. The conference is a willy-nilly kumbaya for artists doing their own thing. Or agriculture.

But I dispute your points. Because I know about her and been following her for a while;
* no she doesn't get chances because she's a young lady. She's not that young and is actually very used to giving presentations;
* she's totally a public personality (yo, she presents how you should monetize on being your own brand!).

She did put in a good effort, I'll give her that. Good sport despite the slide fail. Which is still better than I can say for Michael Bay who probably had way better direction, support, and speech writers.

You don't have to be a stand-up comic. Drive one point. Be honest, genuine, and personable. And if you can't - you're not worth other people's time - politely decline the gig.

1. So you are suggesting people who live on 40p a day would give two squirty shits about a smartphone? That is a result of global economic issues of which one person smashing a phone (they presumably own) is negligible to the point of complete irrelevance. Non sequitur, if this is really a concern to you then you need to go after the corruptions and inequalities in our very financial system. Handing down a phone (which is likely near the end of its useful life anyway) is not going to change anything of significance here.

2. I'm suggesting you are making an entirely subjective value judgement about the pleasure and practical use one could derive from the same investment of money/material. Lets not forget he generated around $7000 of personal income from a £50-100 investment. But more than that, perhaps to some people the pleasure and entertainment of smashing that phone was comparable to other activities that might cost the same (e.g. a night of drinking or a weekend away could easily exceed the cost of that handset). Are you suggesting spending £50-100 on leisure activities etc. is morally reprehensible? Let's not forget "smartphones" don't do anything essential for most people, they are luxury items. If you have a problem with 1st world culture that's absolutely fine (laudible even) but you can't be singling out this guy for making a very successful comedy skit when there are people everywhere who's lifestyles could be politely described as "a decadent waste of atoms".

3. Absolutely nothing is stopping that smashed phone from being recycled, many shops would give you a £50-100 trade in on a new handset even in that state as they are typically just melted down anyway (and your new shiny phone contract is worth more to them than caring about the state of your bag of broken phone bits).

Besides as a matter of pedantry my point clearly stands, doing NOTHING in a drawer is clearly inferior to generating $7000, and providing 2mins of hillarity!?!?!?!? (the comparison was between hammer and drawer not drawer and charity) What you did there was called a "straw man" (i.e. twist my word's to make a different argument that helps make your own point)

4. The phone is old and they are not built to last (again feel free to rant on our disposable culture but leave this guy out of it) as @Payback pointed out it's probably knackered anyway.


Somewhere in your argument is some righteous and commendable rage about the inequalities of the global market but you're focusing it in the wrong direction here. Be angry at the CEO and shareholders of Samsung who profit from human death and suffering in the Coltan mines, the Corrupt banks that hold a fake debt over the poor populations of the world or the Complicit governments that support them. Or maybe go after the Ideologues and philosophers that conceived and spread the culture of consumer and corporate greed driven economics.


Basically anything but rage at this guy for making a IMHO pretty funny video on a budget that utterly pales into insignificance compared to just about anything else.



Could he have handed it down? Sure. Could he have traded it for a crate of jack Daniels, a half ounce of weed, an animatronic chicken alarm clock, a present for his wife etc. etc. etc.?

Your argument taken to its logical conclusion would condemn anyone that spends money or resources on anything other than practical necessities or charity. I'm not saying that's what you meant, but that's what your argument as stated invites.

Do enlighten me: How do you think "dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof [will] strongarm retailers?" That simply won't happen. Rather, there will be fewer barriers to entry for other widget manufacturers to enter the market, either independently or working for competing "dominant" corporations when they discover that it's more profitable to not be "paid off" but to compete in the market instead.

A dominant corporation cannot buy every possible competitor. That's absurd. And there will always multiple "dominant" corporations, and not just one, or one and a number of "start-ups." Where there is Coke, there will be Pepsi. Where there is Apple, there will be Samsung. In a free market, monopolies and cartels cannot exist except in the very short term and at an eventual loss (unless they have the primary monopoly of the government to back them up).

If there are patents, there's no free market. A free market, by definition, must exclude all patent, trademark, copyright, and other such IP law. So, you may have picked the worst example.

Free markets without patents is not a problem at all. Not for the market and not for consumers. Companies may just be more careful about spies. They certainly wouldn't be incentivized (like they are now) to spend $millions just to hold patents on products that are never produced, only to corner the market and "strongarm" competitors (like they do now).

Companies like Bed, Bath & Beyond have been trying to price upstarts out of the market for years, decades even! And they're still not able to get rid of competitors! Same can be said about Walmart. Many stores other than Walmart sell TVs, even at higher prices, and remain competitive. Other stores sell linens besides BB&B. So, you have a distorted view of how markets actually work. No one corporation can monopolize the sale of any goods or services. That's just incorrect (unless the government helps them to do so). It just doesn't happen.

There's no such thing as a "natural monopoly." Name one. In Texas, for example, there are competing utility providers, and people can choose which energy service to use. This is in contrast to CA, where most of us are forced to "choose" PG&E over zero other alternatives.

"Restriction of information/prevention of rational, informed consumers"

I'm sorry, but anyone who has been involved in business knows this is complete horseshit. If you have a better product/service (the only way to outdo the competition), you will let the customers/market know right away.

And there's no scale at which markets collapse. The same forces of the market apply to big, small, and medium businesses. There is no arbitrary size for which these forces do not apply. And keep in mind that without government granted privileges, corporations would be much smaller than they are now, because competition would make it easier for competitors to participate, thereby forcing a re-allocation of resources to accommodate the market's demands.

So, yes you most certainly "overstated" your case. All markets can be free, regardless of size. Whether it's a small farmer's market or Whole Foods. The same market forces apply. They all have to court voluntary customers through service, price, quality, etc. Again, anyone who has had to work with marketing will know this.

BTW, things like "price dumping" are circumvented all the time. Does Rolls Royce care that Hyundai sells cheaper cars? Does Mercedes care that a Prius is less expensive?

Target makes money because Walmart is cheaper, not in spite of it!
And everything Walmart sells, you'll find many other stores selling it, even though Walmart might sell it cheaper.
The local natural food store in my neighborhood sells, more or less, the same things as Whole Foods. None of your objections pose any real problems in the real world.

I don't see Walmart buying every other TV seller, or even trying to do this. Microsoft tried but, so what? They failed, because they could not buy every single competitor in the software world, could they?

Even in Somalia, to use @enoch's example, in the telecommunications industry (to pick one that saw growth), no one even remotely managed to do any of the things you say could happen. In 20 years, no corporation did any of these things. Why not?

Because they couldn't.

And did "dominant" corporations take over all small retailers and sellers? No way, not even close! They couldn't. Only regulations can really kill all small retailers (and they do it all the time). Your outrage is gravely misplaced. Do the countless bazaars and sellers of Turkey, India, or Thailand get taken over by "dominant" corporations?

Hint: No.

Only when government meddles, do the big corporations wipe out the little ones, and sometimes each other.

In any case, Coke will not eliminate Pepsi (or Sprite, or Dr. Pepper, or A&W), government or no government.

I do not like his movies or what he does.

He should never have been put in this situation in the first place. His agent should have prevented this, Samsung should have done their research, tech problems never should have happened (especially at of all places CES) and he himself should have rejected whatever deal they came up with.

For anyone interested in this story, go to to reddit and search/find the thread that explains what happened. Not sure I'm allowed to post links so I won't, and this "fail" is a problem a lot of people have.

Actually the term "4K" seems to have stuck with all the marketing folks. I've seen about 5-6 different models (Sony, LG) of 4K TV in different stores, and not 1 was labeled as "2160p" or marketed as "UHDTV". We'll see what Panasonic, Samsung, Sharp, etc labels theirs as, but I'm going to guess "4K".

It can mean 3840x2160 or 4096x2160 (and apparently others)

Tags for this video have been changed from 'sisters, boobies, bouncing, samsung' to 'slow motion, sisters, boobies, boobs, breasts, tits, bouncing, samsung, galaxy note 3' - edited by lucky760

THIS is how real breasts bounce *related=http://videosift.com/video/Testing-slow-motion-video-on-the-Samsung-Galaxy-Note-I

Testing slow motion video on the Samsung Galaxy Note III has been added as a related post - related requested by braschlosan.

Did Samsung steal this from Apple? Pop Culture inspiration has been added as a related post - related requested by braschlosan on that post.

People are saying that Samsung stole this commercial idea from this 2007 Iphone commercial. What do you think?
*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Iphone-Hello-commercial

Did Samsung steal this from Apple? Pop Culture inspiration has been added as a related post - related requested by braschlosan.

Apple's strategy appears to be progressive in releasing new products and conservative in making iterations.

It's particularly obvious on the iPhone. (1) On screen size they've barely budged while competitors have offered options varying widely from 3-7 inches. While some would argue phones larger than 5 inches are ungainly, it's very much a personal preference and where there's clearly demand say for Samsung's Note series, the option should be available. (2) The UI may have also been revamped but compared to the customisability of Android, it's still immensely basic and locked down, (3) File access continues to be restricted through iTunes which keeps transferring files, and sharing them between apps a massive pain. Apple's bandaid solution to this is to stick a 'share' button everywhere, but this is hardly a real solution.

The problem is Apple's slow pace of change means they're losing their competitive advantage. I'd argue the big change that has kept the iPhone successful even as Android was beginning to catch up several years after the first iPhone was the (1) all metal design that came with the iPhone 4 & (2) the smoothness of their UI. Now with phones like the HTC One, the durable/water resistant series from Sony and the rumor that Samsung is going all metal with its next generation, the first advantage is going. The second went with Android Jelly Bean which mostly fixed Android's laginess. I just don't see anything coming along that will significantly differentiate them in the future, both the iPhone 5 and 5S really didn't offer anything as compelling as the build quality of the 4.

The iPhones main remaining advantages are its user friendliness and the relative strength of its app store. I'd argue the first is over-exaggerated, and even if it is such a large factor, the sheer fact that it has already seen sizable portions of the older generation being enticed into smartphones makes the next step of moving to a new UI a relative cinch. Effectively Android phone makers/Google can capitalize on the market Apple helped create. With the build quality gap diminishing and Android device prices coming down, while iPhone prices remain largely unchanged I think the incentive to switch will rise.

The App Store's strength is largely a factor of the revenue that it brings in for app creators. Yes, no doubt iOS apps are generally pricier and it's users more willing to pay. But with the dominance in market share for Android in developing markets, even if their consumers are poorer, it's only a matter of time before at the very least app makers move from the iOS first, Android second model to a simultaneous release. From there I think it will be a steady decline for iOS.

Don't do it. Stick with Android, just change the brand. I highly recommend one of 3 chinese brands. either Jiayu, Oppo, or Xiaomi.

I know, I know.. Chinese phones, they must suck right? wrong. These 3 brands are not only really good, they have a much lower price.

I have a Jiayu G3 Turbo, which cost 199€ and it outperforms a Samsung Galaxy s3. 1280x720 resolution, Gorilla Glass, Quadcore 1.5ghz processor, 1gb ram, 4gb internal memory, and a decent design.

It comes rooted, and it works great. Investigate one of these 3 brands. Supposedly the Oppo Find 5 is a very high quality phone, but it costs a bit more. Still a lot cheaper than a samsung or iphone