Brands That Will Disappear In 2010 (opens in new tab)

Why do they bother saying "Brands" when everyone knows that never happens?

Motorola, Kodak, Newsweek... whether they get bought out entirely or sold piece by piece, those brandnames are not going anywhere. They may get new management or aggressively downsize but there will always be Kodak products to buy, Newsweek will always be on the stands, and same for Motorola.

So why say the "Brands won't exist"? I don't get it.

Must have been more than one writer involved—items 7–10 are in serious need of punctuation and general editing. (‘Kodak won’t cease to exit.’; ‘Its fate as a standalone company is however looking more and more like an inevitable fate.’)

Can we just say that advanced smartphone manufacturers who attempt to compete with the iPhone will suffer massively for it?

It's so frustrating to have to click 10 times to see the list. I thought "Hey, there's a printer-friendly version - I'll click that button!". Of course, it only prints the page you're currently on.

Thanks for the amazing user experience, Business Insider.

I don't disagree with the general argument here, but the headline may be overstating things a bit-- I tend to think that some of these brands may be able to limp forward for a few more years before ultimately collapsing. There's an art to circling the drain...

The source article, in one page: http://247wallst.com/2009/12/02/the-ten-brands-that-will-dis...

I hate when articles like this are split across multiple pages. Sure they want to increase the number of their page views for ad revenue, but I'd love to know the bounce rate on these multi-page lists. I did not bother to go further.

In an odd twist of irony, all ten companies post gains in 2010 while the domain businessinsider.com is sold for $200 to a porn company looking to bank on office affairs.

Is there some point to that photo of Buffet eating a popcicle?

I have a brokerage account at etrade. Is my money in danger?