• hungry_freaks_daddy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    255
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Me: I need a trumpet, a xylophone, full drum kit, an electric guitar, a full PA system and a grand piano for my jazz show

    Yamaha: I got you

    Me: I also need a motorcycle to get there and a set of golf clubs for Sunday

    Yamaha: I gotchu there too

    • red@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      85
      ·
      1 year ago

      Me: I want to play games until I get fat

      Konami: yo, there you go

      Me: damn, that was a bad idea, I need to go work out in a gym

      Konami: I’m way ahead of you

      • YourFavouriteNPC@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Me: An ATV for the beach, a Snow Mobile for the winter and a Jet-Ski just because they’re fun.

        Yamaha: Of course!

        Me: Oh, and you wouldn’t know where I could find a DVD player?

    • craftyindividual@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I love how these logos often still reflect the initial small scale business, a Yamaha motorbike still features a trio of tuning forks for music. A Mitsubishi… anything… has the three propellor blades of a Zero fighter plane. I made that second one up but apparently it’s three Oak Leaves or Water Caltrops, a simple and enduring symbol.

    • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      ITT: people who are surprised large manufacturers manufacture lots of things.

      • bug@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        East-Asian megacorps are kind of on a different scale if you’re not used to it though

        • Cypher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s a reason that popular Cyberpunk looked to Japan for inspiration when it comes to end stage capitalism in a digitally connected world.

          The assumption was that these Japanese style megacorps would segregate and dominate the internet, in the way we’ve mostly seen tech-bro startups manage.

          Honestly I prefer the cruel indifference of the Cyberpunk musings on megacorp dystopia than what we’ve got.

  • craftyindividual@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    118
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hold up before you place the order! I need train carriages, a supercomputer, radiotherapy equipment, nuclear power plant, aircon, self propelled artillery and an escalator. Don’t ask me why.

  • Ascend910@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Me: I need a flute for my orchestra performance
    Yamaha: No problem, here’s our 800W Series.
    Me: You wouldn’t happen to know where I can
    get a heavy 600 cc sport bike with the stop speed of 260km would you?
    Yamaha: You’re not gonna believe this

    • SqueezeMeMacaroni@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yamaha often gets overlooked for instruments, I think a lot of this is that we don’t expect a company that makes jetskis and motorcycles to also know what they’re doing with guitars, saxophones, and pianos, but they actually make good quality stuff.

      It’s more accurate to think of Yamaha as a conglomerate that owns several different companies. It’s just that a lot of those smaller companies are also named Yamaha

      Fun fact, the Yamaha logo is an image of three tuning forks, laid atop each other.

      • ellesper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve got a set of Yamaha HS7 studio monitors sitting in front of me right now. Their music equipment is great.

      • Protoflare@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have a yamaha saxophone, it is one of their intermediate ranges (I forgot which one since I am living overseas). Sound quality is excellent. I play classical saxophone, and it produces this great warm tone (I have no idea how to describe it) that is excellent for this purpose. I am not sure about jazz though.

        • SqueezeMeMacaroni@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          My brother in law is a jazz sax player (tenor) and plays a Yamaha. I don’t know the model but he says it’s great and punches well above it’s weight class considering what it cost him.

        • IDontHavePantsOn@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think I’ve heard anyone say that before. Almost everything they make is industry standard setting when it comes to price. It’s either so cheap you can’t believe it, or it’s priced right where it should be.

        • teuast@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          In terms of pianos and keyboards, maybe, but those also aren’t overlooked, they’re broadly considered among the best you can get. They own Bosendorfer now too, btw. Drums are just fuckin expensive in general, and most drummers I think you’ll talk to are generally aware of them along with the likes of Pearl and DW.

          You might be talking about guitars and basses, which would be fair, most people don’t associate Yamaha with guitars and basses. The thing is, the most expensive non-signature Pacifica currently in production is like $750 and comes with Duncan pickups and a Wilkinson trem. And even the Revstars, which are out of my price range, come in quite a ways under comparable Gibsons.

          • SqueezeMeMacaroni@thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yamaha owns a lot of smaller companies. Line 6 has been one of their subsidiaries for a while and they recently acquired Ampeg as well, so you can buy a full rig with a bass, effects pedals, amp head and speaker cabs all from Yamaha.

          • DTFpanda@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thanks for your comment, I specifically meant drums and should’ve clarified. Yamaha sets were always up there in cost compared to all low/mid range sets growing up through the 2000s, though I haven’t compared prices in over 5 years. As far as guitars go, I’m currently learning and started with a Yamaha FG800 I picked up used for $175, though even full price wasn’t bad.

            • IDontHavePantsOn@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I am a guitar player first and foremost, but their drums always sounded damn good, and their hardware was always super solid. Not my area of expertise, but Yamaha seemed to never made a cheap kit because their base model kit had such good hardware and quality it was punching up to way more expensive Pearl and Ludwig kits.

              The only problems I’ve seen is that they don’t have good resale value because they are China made, and most musicians don’t want to be that guy playing anything made in China.

              Also good choice on the FG. I’ve played a lot of acoustics and honestly yamaha acoustics are astounding. If I were to pick my top 5 acoustic brands, Yamaha would be solidly at #2. My next acoustic is going to be a Yamaha trans-acoustic. It’s either that for $800, or buy my dream acoustic which costs $5000.

        • SqueezeMeMacaroni@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I don’t know which products you’re thinking of but at least for bass guitars (which is my instrument) they’ve got stuff ranging from less than $200 up to just under $2000. My upper-mid tier bass cost just under $900, but sounds and feels better than Fender basses that would cost $1300 or more. Not to mention better designed. Compare that to other top tier production models from Fender, Gibson, Musicman, Rickenbacker etc… They’re all between $2000 and $3000. Musicman might be the only one of those that can claim to be better built consistently.

      • Leviathan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They often get overlooked because, in my experience (guitars and violins) they tend to sound like hot garbage. Good for entry level but not much else.

        • SqueezeMeMacaroni@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m a bass player so I’m only aware of their guitar models, haven’t ever played them myself (and honestly I lack the experience with guitars to tell a good one from a so-so one). But their BB basses are great and have been for a long time. I bought one for less than $900 a couple years back and it sounds and plays great, and is just a really well designed instrument. They’ve implemented a lot of stuff that legacy companies like Fender or Gibson should, but won’t (6 bolt necks with miter attachments at the end, angled slots for through body stringing, string trees that actually retain strings well for a good break angle above the nut, reversible bridge saddles)

    • Iron Lynx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      ME: The concert’s on a boat by the way, and we need power really soon. Do you happen to have outboard boat motors?

      YAMAHA: Have I got something for you right here.

    • Cypher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Gear it right (or wrong I guess) and that 600cc WILL hit 300km/h. They put out the same power the original hyperbikes did.

  • Buttons@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    1 year ago

    This reminds me of around 2000, when I had a Daewoo television, and then my mind was blown one day when I saw a Daewoo car. Who makes televisions and cars? Daewoo apparently.

  • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    1 year ago

    Me: Hmm, about time I bought a phone

    Siemens: I gotchu

    Me: a laptop would be nice to apply for jobs

    Siemens: Gotchu there too

    Me: Just got a City Planner job, wonder who I can buy some trains from

    Siemens: Gotchu again bro

    Me: Nuclear power plant to power the trains?

    Siemens: We don’t sell those anymore, we’ve gotchu with steam and solar power plants though

    Me: Just bought a house, need some kitchen appliances…

    Siemens: Gotchu bro

  • Subverb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    Brother (the printer company), makes world-class sewing machines. Home use and heavy commercial.

  • aluminium@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Man, this Smart fridge is amazing. Do you, by any chance, happen to make self propelled atillery tanks as well?

  • nednobbins@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    These weird combinations look fun but they’re generally the result of having conglomerates, companies that have gobbled up a bunch of smaller, unrelated companies.

    Conglomerates are tricky to pull off because managing a lot of disparate business lines. A CEO who knows all about how to market construction equipment is likely to miss that one of their other products became an iconic sex toy years ago. The big problem is that more focused companies can typically outmaneuver you in their area of focus.

    Theoretically, there might be synergies that make your company more effective but normally, conglomeration is drag on the risk-adjusted rate of return on your company. It’s much easier to pull off when your government has strong protectionist policies or if there are officials you can bribe to keep out the competition.

    Why would a company do something that’s generally bad for the company? It’s generally good for the CEO. A CEO often has a very concentrated investment portfolio. Changes in the value of the company they’re running can have a huge impact on their personal wealth. Conglomeration allows a single company to be a diversified asset. It does it in a way that’s objectively worse for shareholders but better for the CEO.

    • masquenox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Koreas “chaebol” system isn’t just any kind of conglomerattion, though… it was based on the system the Japanese used to dominate Korea during it’s colonization of that country, which the US simply encouraged after the war. The dictatorships that followed basically ran with it… and now you have these gigantic, government-subsidized “chaebols” that is the epitome of “too big too fail.” South Korea is about as oligarchic as it gets.

      It’s utterly hilarious to me when “free market” cultists try to use South Korea as an example of how miraculous their fairy tale economic ideology is.

      • nednobbins@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s functionally close enough to a conglomerate though.

        I’m not exactly sure what ‘“free market” cultist’ is or if you’re accusing me of being one. Modern economists don’t normally align themselves with simplistic ideologies like “free market”, “communist” or “capitalist”. They’re aware of the historical and modern usage of these terms but they tend to focus on areas that are far to specific for those terms to even make sense. You won’t find a lot of economists that argue for complete Laissez-faire capitalism any more than you’ll find real economists arguing in favor of classical Marxism.

        There is general agreement that conglomeration benefits management more than shareholders. There’s general agreement that they are more likely to arise under some economic conditions and that those conditions usually aren’t associated with socially optimal economic policies.

        • masquenox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Modern economists don’t normally align themselves with simplistic ideologies

          Yeah… there’s just a whole bunch of them whose sole purpose seems to be coming up with simplistic fairy tale narratives to brainwash the masses with. After all… what would Reagen have been without Hayek, or Pinochet without the Chicago Boys?

    • corbs132@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think your last sentence is congruent with what you were saying before it.

      You’re saying a CEO will opt for conglomeration because it either increases the value or decreases the volatility of the company because the CEO has lots of stock in the company. If that’s the case, how is it bad for the shareholders, of which the CEO is a major player?

      • Badass_panda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The shareholders can go and buy a diversified portfolio on their own, by investing in many companies, so they can derisk their portfolio without conglomeration.

        If they already own shares of the conglomerating company, its returns will be lower (they don’t care that it’s less risky; they’ve diversified already). Similarly, the returns of the company that is now becoming part of the conglomeration will likely be reduced, which negatively affects shareholders of that company.

        The benefit is really only for the people whose prospects are deeply tied to this company, and only this company… its management employees, who are compensated by the company (often in the form of stock that they can’t sell till they leave, or that vests over a long time frame).

      • nednobbins@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s a bit complicated.

        The CEO and the other shareholders aren’t the same.

        For the CEO, it’s a good way to diversify since they can’t diversify the normal way.

        For the regular share holders it’s a way to diversify but it’s not as good as being able to buy and sell the individual components.

        I’ll skip a lot of the math but the upshot is that their Sharpe Ratio (expected return divided by risk) is higher if they do their own diversification than if they buy one company that tries to diversify within it.