70
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 10 months ago

Ah yes, the Panasonic Discman, the prime successor to the Phillips Walkman.

Glad I'm not the only one who got a twitchy eye reading that.

[-] SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 10 months ago

I thought to myself for the briefest of moments: Am I being Mandela Effect’d?

[-] Pixel@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 10 months ago

At least it's not a sony ipod

[-] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 10 months ago

I am really confused now. I know Discman is Sony's name, but generally people refer to any such portable CD player as "discman". At least where I live.
And it's not just regular people, even shops refer to them as dicmans.
Here are some examples to back my claims:

exampleshttps://www.alza.sk/discmany/18886534.htm
https://aukro.sk/discmany
https://www.mall.sk/discmany
https://discmany.heureka.sk/
https://www.okay.sk/collections/discmany

The only exception seems to be Nay, referring to this category as "Portable CD players".

[-] SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 10 months ago

That’s very interesting! Around me, we called them CD Players, it must be a regional thing. Many people called the portable cassette player a Walkman, even though that was a lineup of products from Sony.

Looking on US Amazon, there are several players that have Discman, Walkman, or both in the titles. Sony must not be enforcing their trademarks (wrong term?) for the first non-sponsored listing being called:

2000mAh Rechargeable Discman CD Player:Walkman CD Player…

[-] poppy@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yeah we called them all discman too. A Kleenex/tissue situation imo.

Edit: though I do concede an official label in some sort of display probably should use the generic form “portable CD player” or something similar.

[-] Crozekiel@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago

This thing is so recent it could play MP3s... The first Discman was released in 1984. I'm actually really confused why they picked such a recent version, the technology was almost phased out when this thing was released. FFS the original iPod came out a year before this thing...

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Wasn't the actual "Discman" a Sony product? In the same line as their Walkman cassette players, but for CDs?

I had a Walkman back in the day; but never an official Discman player. All my CD players were pieces of shit 😩

[-] Donut@leminal.space 3 points 10 months ago

This is an interesting phenomenon called a proprietary eponym, where a brand name becomes synonymous with a product.

Just like walkman and disc man, in my language we call a car satnav a "TomTom" after the brand that popularised it here.

[-] wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

Man that one can play mp3 discs. That has to be newer than 2002. Burning CDs wasn't super common yet.

[-] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

I had a aftermarket head unit that played mp3 cds in 2002.

I had a mp3 player in 1999.

We were definitely burning cds back then, this woulda come at a premium but the tech was there.

[-] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

I remember downloading mp3s from usenet in 1999 on my Windows 95 computer. I'd start the download, go to work, then retrieve the file when I got home.

I felt so fancy buying a CD burner at Best Buy so I could burn them onto CDs. It was the first PC component I ever installed by myself.

[-] ramble81@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

BMWs in 2002 used Alpine head units. I knew their aftermarket units could play MP3 CDs so I thought “why not test it out?” Turns out it could play it just fine. It mapped the folder buttons to the seek/scan buttons if you held it and played them just fine. I was floored it did that but wasn’t anywhere in the manual.

[-] guyrocket@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

Is this your kid nephew's "museum"?

"Old" is not 20 years and that is not a goddamn discman. Sorry, Ralphie. You can do better.

[-] Tischbein@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago

Does it belong in a museum if the essential same device is still sold? https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07MDY28Q1/ I mean sure you can get a 200 year old coffee grinder… but that's 200 years not 22.

[-] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

If I bought one today, I'd spend the extra $10 for a rechargeable unit. The one bad memory I have of these was having to replace the batteries so frequently.

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 1 points 10 months ago

You can use rechargeable batteries in it... Built in rechargeable batteries suck. The entire lifespan of the device is tied to that battery. Give me something that runs on AAs any day.

[-] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

Whoa...they have a USB-C rechargeable one.

You know, if they sold an audiophile one, with clean electronics, a good built in amp, and the ability to play FLAC files (microSD port), I'd buy one.

[-] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 0 points 10 months ago

Wasn't Discman a Sony brand?

[-] ares35@kbin.social -1 points 10 months ago

warehouse staff have already removed the artifact for safe keeping and replaced it with a hastily-sourced replica.

this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
70 points (97.3% liked)

Funny: Home of the Haha

5640 readers
589 users here now

Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.

Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.


Other Communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS