Talk:Bose Corporation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This is the first page of archived chit-chat regarding about the Bose (audio) article. It was archived by Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 22:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC) due to the talk page being 93KB in length. It is recommended that you chit-chat at the main talk page. Thanks.

Added List of Commercial Products

I added a list of commericial products to this page. I feel that since Bose products are being more widely used in commercial applications by companies such as Muzak and Playnetwork that it's more than right to have them equally represented here. Compdude512 04:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Dr. Bose owns more than 90% of the common shares of the corporation, remains Chairman of the Board, Technical Director,and, effectively, the CEO. frankatca

Why was the material regarding opinions of Bose removed? Given how vitriolic discussions about Bose products can become, a person could concievably come to this page trying to find some perspective on the issue.

--Johnkarp 20:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I honestly have heard a discussion regarding Bose become vitriolic. (Note: I work for Bose.) Do the opinions of a company belong in an encyclopedia article? Surely there are people with opinions regarding all companies. I'd rather see a "Controversy" section added (Take "Microsoft" wikipedia entry as an example.)

The FAQ that was linked to provided no references and was loaded with almost pure opinion; not the type of material I'd like to see in an encyclopedia.

--siliconwafer 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, some examples of controversy.

If you look at the first google groups search result page for 'bose', you get: 'Why some people claim Bose Systems suck' 'Re: Why shouldn't someone buy Bose?' 'Re: Bose and name recognition Like many of you I have gritted my teeth when I heard people brag abut Bose. I am not a Bose lover...' 'Re: Bose Acoustimass® 15 Home Theater Speaker System Heh. I don't think you COULD find another speaker as bad a value as Bose and also as miserable sounding to MAKE an apple-to-apple comparison.'

Or the arstechnica.com forum, usually a sedate bunch: 'No Highs, No Lows, Must be BOSE!!!' 'What's with all the Bose threads?' 'Please save my girlfriend from spending $2400 on a BOSE system...' 'bose? dems fight'n words' 'Yeah, reccomend a bose product. That will go over well...' 'I think the major problem isn't that Bose sucks, it's that people are stupid.'

Judging from the commentary, you'd think Bose were a tobacco company. Worth a brief mention at least, perhaps in a controversy section as you say.

--Johnkarp 05:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interesting...

Hasn't anyone heard of Bose's infamous "Wave Radios," like the ones with big nice buttons on top and credit-card size remotes that no one can ever find the batteries for? (Actually, they're pretty nice machines, my relatives have one...)

FACT: 2032 button batteries can be found at all 7,100 locations of radioshack.

FACT:

AAAs and AAs are a hell of a lot more common than CR2032s, and can be found in a lot more places than Radio Shack and Digi-Key. They also don't cost multiple dollars apiece to buy from brick-and-mortar stores, and even AAAs have more guts than CR2032s. SVI 16:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversy

The many heated opinions about the Bose loudspeaker technology are best resolved by each listener for himself or herself. Dr. Bose himself says, and I have heard him say this repeatedly, let your own ears be the judge. Whichever technology appeals to you is the technology you should purchase. There are no absolutes when it to comes to the appreciation of sound quality, only personal value judgments. What Bose DOES assure you is that his designs more closely reproduce in homes the SPATIAL qualities of the incident sound fields experienced typically in live performances, namely that the preponderance of the sound arrives at ones head omnidirectionally, and the high frequencies in particular do so. Whether or not that improves ones appreciation of the music, let your own ears be the judge.

As for the "criticism" of BOSE products which follows this comment, it is quite correct that Bose Corporation does not publish the "specs" so beloved by the audio aficianado, not that Bose doesn't know what they are, their research labs are better equipped than most, with a staff of Masters and PhD level graduates from MIT and elsewhere. The problem is that the relevance of the measureable data to perceived audio quality is, by and large, indeterminate -- except in the mind of audiophiles who CAN detect and describe the differences, and to those folks, and to everyone else, the Bose position is: let your ears be your guide. Frank Ferguson, Lexington, Massachusetts

counterpoint:

Speaker system specifications are not universally loved by audiophiles. In fact, specifications are more highly valued by audio engineers than anyone else. Companies that withhold specifications for certain products do so because they can't measure them, because the specifications in question are not meaningful, or because the specifications look awful. Basic speaker measurement technology has existed for over half a century now, and many speaker measurements (especially frequency response) say a great deal about the speaker.

As for the the "Bose position": while working at a certain retail store, I was told that the Bose systems were always to be kept on their own display, far separate from the rest of the systems. Upon inquiring as to why this was so, I was told that Bose has very strict guidelines for any store that will stock their products, and one of them is something to the effect that their products can not be placed in an area where they can easily be A/Bed with competing products. (You can easily find out why if you do an A/B yourself.)

"Let your ears be your guide" is good advice for speaker buyers, but it does not appear to be what Bose advocates in practice. In fact, the opposite is true; if stores want to carry Bose products, they must set things up to make a normal comparison difficult and inconvenient for the consumer. At the very least, the fact that Bose fail to provide specifications for their products AND actively attempt to prevent direct comparisons between their and competitors' products should be seen as a major, obvious source of controversy.

---

The only meaningful kind of A/B is one where the listener cannot see the speakers. Anyone who has performed A/Bs knows that if the listener can see the size of the speakers, they will make preconceptions about how they sound. A huge part of accoustics is psychological. A customer in a store cannot do this type of A/B, and therefore, Bose is very justified in seperating their products.

Counterpoint: While I agree that one's perceptions will color an A/B, I don't think that a non-blind A/B between two different speakers is anywhere near meaningless, and I believe that even if one were to accept that rather questionable point it's still a long leap to your conclusion. Anyone who has performed A/Bs knows that many buyers do not think that bigger speakers = better; in fact, most average buyers seem to think bigger speakers are old technology (don't ask me, I just say what I see) and that Bose speakers sound better and are smaller. Anyone who has performed A/Bs SHOULD also know that the preconception/misconception most commonly generated is that higher price = better. Most customers I saw already thought Bose speakers sounded great, so what would Bose have to lose by having them do an A/B if their speakers even sounded about as good as the competition's and cost more? And what could they POSSIBLY have to lose if their speakers actually sounded _better_?

In short, I hardly think that Bose is "very justified" in separating their products simply because a MINORITY of consumers would compare based on size and not price. Having done several comparisons (including a double-blind done solely for the record) and an amateur FR analysis since, and having watched customers' reactions with direct speaker comparisons (semi-famous story about that: a guy agrees that rock-bottom Athenas sound better, but buys Bose anyway because they must be better somehow), I feel it is safe to say that Bose does not like A/Bs for reasons other than buyer preconceptions. Having worked retail much too often in my lifetime, I also feel it is safe to say that customer preconceptions would BENEFIT Bose on the whole (and have done so, which is why people buy their products).

Edit 2005-12-12

Took out the following lines.

• Excessive bass at the cost of treble (This bothers audiophiles the most.)

I tried searching for such criticism but did not find anything valuable. To the contrary I have heard the opposite criticism, meaning bose producing really small tweeters and not providing subwoofers(historically) meant that they were compromising with the bass and not trebel. If you find this one to be wrong then please provide a reasonable source(if you want to cite personal reviews then cite a bunch of them with some variety), and then feel free to get this back in.

• Unilateral Pricing Policies (This issue bothers buyers of all income levels)

At the least you need to elaborate on this criticism. What kind of company doesnt unilaterally decide prices? How is "deciding prices unilaterally" bad?

• Legal tactics

Again... elaborate...what leagal tactics? cite your sources.

Also please note: statements like (This issue bothers loudspeaker aficionados the most) are by its very nature pov. Try to avoid them, and if you must put such sentenses then provide evidence.

I am sure there is much to critcise about bose, but this section needs work.

hope this helps. --Spundun 06:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Watch your language guys

I had to edit some parts of the page because of the foul language being used in this page. I don't know what motivated someone to use foul language here, but let's keep Wikipedia PG-friendly.

some cleanup

Cleaned out a lot of messy POV stuff (including an entire section that basically said Bose's radio system was groundbreaking and sounded better than conventional space-wasting systems-- the former is simply untrue, the latter is an opinion and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia) and added a controversy section (seems merited given how Bose discussions can get in audio circles, though it's usually just all the particularly immature veterans lining up to insult Bose).

If anyone has any objections to this poor newbie's cleanups, please go ahead and state them. I'd like to think that I've moved this article towards NPOV, but I guess we all like to think that. Any thoughts? SVI 02:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I would love to have a Bose noise cancelling aviation headset, but at $1,000 I will buy one the Lightspeed (about $350). I can't believe that Bose really needs to charge that much for this headset, and I suspect the Lightspeed performs comparably.

IMHO, you are probably right, but be sure to demo both (if possible, see if you know someone with a pair if there's no other way) if you're looking to buy. I'm not much into aviation, but I do have some experience in the horrible world of audio, and I can safely say that most buyers tend to advocate what they own for a variety of reasons (and most of the time, they advocate them because they bought them, not the other way 'round). Off-topic, I know. SVI 05:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've decided to link to that semi-famous intellexual.net rant. Is it unbiased? Of course not. Is it worth LINKING, at least? Yes, easily, by my measure. MANY articles on more controversial subjects (politics and others) link rather partisan sites.. they're linked to show one point of view, not to advocate it (advocacy would mean the rant was treated as fact instead of just linked to under "related links").

If anyone wants to provide a link to a perspective from the other side of the fence (it only seems fair, right?), go right ahead. Only reason I haven't is that I don't know of any. SVI 16:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems as though Bose, like many other former high-end audio manufacturers (Marantz, Fisher, etc.) has evolved from high-end products to the mass market. The old 901 was an excellent speaker, though at the time its low efficiency (necessitated by the use of aggressive active equalization to shore up the low frequency end using small drivers and a small enclosure) required high power amplifiers (at least 50 watts per channel or so) which used to be very expensive. Bose speakers these days are popular in rock groups, PA systems, background music in stores, and home theatre systems. Those applications don't require particularly high quality.

The Bose active noise cancelling headset (both the aviation and general-use versions) are based upon adaptive telephone echo-canceller technology that was developed by Bell Labs in the 1960s. While Bose's patents may be unique to applying the technology to headsets or for acoustic noise cancelling in particular, the basic idea was patented in 1970 by Sondhi, et. al, of Bell Labs. I have several patents in this area (application of echo canceller to measurement of echoes) so I think I speak from some base of knowledge.

Well, why not edit the article to include that, then? That's the point of having an open encyclopedia, and I doubt anyone would be surprised to learn that Bose has not actually done as much research on noise cancelling (or any subject, really) as they claim. SVI 17:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Fact: Bose Corporation spends well over $100 million a year in research and engineering and has a 70,000 sq. ft. building in Framingham, Massachusetts, entirely devoted to that effort.

• More cleanup. No offense, Vesther, but some of the addition seemed kind of like weasel language-- there hasn't reportedly been controversy, there HAS been controversy, and the general consensus in audio circles is without a doubt that audio is highly subjective. Most of your changes were perfectly fine, I just modified them a little, like with sorting the manufacturers into alphabetical order (might as well be in some order, I guess) and modifying the list (condensed, changed). If there are any objections to my edits, I'd be happy to listen. SVI 19:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that the sound-quality-to-power ratio remains a main concern to Audiophiles SVI, since audiophiles tend to sample and/or judge the headphones, earbuds, and other audio products by how rich and powerful the sound is and actually conceive how strong the value is. I usually say "sound power" as opposed to sound quality since people wants to know if the price they are paying equate to very powerful sound. Apparently you are paying high prices if the product apparently have very powerful sound, but in the matter of Bose, I think you are paying more for the Bose name and Bose's patents, but I think you're right about the fact that Bose is somewhat overpricing some of their products, and in fact Bose has a bad habit of pricing the products too high. -- Vesther 23:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we're referring to the same thing with "sound power" and "sound quality": how good, rich, crisp, accurate, powerful, high-fidelity, _____ the thing sounds. I say sound quality because it's what I'm used to hearing, and because power makes people think of RMS power ratings. By sound-quality-to-power ratio, do you mean sound-quality-to-price ratio / sound-power-to-price ratio?

I also think that Bose's products are often badly overpriced, and that people are paying for the name, not for good sound. Some would differ, though, and audio quality IS subjective, so it's only fair to leave things up to the reader. SVI 23:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think Sound Quality, after reading the article over and over again, makes more sense, since it's what many headphone aficionados, audiophiles, loudspeaker aficionados, and audio veterans use the quality of the sound overall to perceive how "in-sync" the products are priced. I don't think Sound Power makes any sense whatsoever, since the type of magnets used in loudspeakers, headphones, and even earbuds determine the power of how much bass and treble you will be listening to. Therefore, I'm just gonna say that Sound Power is how the companies utilize the sound magnets to maximize the clarity of the bass and treble of sound. Sound Quality, as how I define it, is the measure of how efficient companies use their proprietary technologies to make sound as life-like as possible, plus it defines if a sound company is making full use of sound magnets, proprietary technologies they have, and other sound-enhancing amneties which determines if the sound turns out to be crisp. Oftenly I play Coldplay's "Clocks" and "Speed of Sound" plus Pet Shop Boys' "West End Girls" and "Opportunities (Let's Make lots of money)" to judge sound, though people have different ways of measuring the sound quality IMO. I would stay at "Sound Quality", since many sound aficionados measure the value by the sound quality alone, since 105% of the time they might use sound quality to measure whether the product is priced right or too high. -- Vesther 16:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt consumers really look for this "sound power" idea when shopping for stereos. As any reasonable hi-fi set-up can easily reach earbleeding levels (quite literally!) and can cause severe hearing damage. And yes, some companies do tailor the frequency response of their speakers to be more pleasing to the human ear, i.e. more bass more treble in the 5-8Khz register.

Competition/Alternatives

I added some companies on the Market Share section of the area, but I feel that it should either be called Competition, Alternatives, and/or Competition/Alternatives instead of Market Share, since there's a lot of sound variety in today's sound market.

In addition to what I'm suggesting, I also have to make a point that a few sound companies are catering iPod users and it's no mistake that Bose is one of them, but I'm pretty sure that there are alternatives for iPod users as well, since Bose is known to cater to iPod users pretty much, but Altec-Lansing, Etymotic Research, JBL, Klipsch, and some other companies aren't willing to go down without a fight to convince the iPod aficionado that there's an alternative to Bose products. -- Vesther 00:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. As for title, how about "Market Share and Competition"? wrt alternatives, I think providing the competition and relevant links/complaints from critics (the intellexual rant, providing reviews couldn't hurt if you know of any) should do the job while keeping the article NPOV. Anyone interested enough to actually look Bose up should have no problems following these along if they're interested in alternatives. SVI 01:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

"many" vs. "some"

______ audio veterans, audio engineers, loudspeaker aficionados, and audiophiles (mainly the vendor-neutral niche) have historically raised the following issues/criticisms/concerns with Bose in the following areas:

It is a fact that the vast majority of audio engineers and audiophiles hold opinions about Bose that are negative to varying degrees. Evidence for this is easily acquired, at least as far as any opinions are acquired for a given group. Hi-fi magazines, forums, and mailing lists all show a strong, common negative opinion regarding Bose, and the few polls that have been conducted back this up. Five minutes of exploration will reveal this in short order.

I am not advocating or agreeing with whatever issues these people raise. I AM, however, saying that it is unfair (and rather weaselly) to say that "some" hold them when it is quite obvious to anyone with even a toe in the hi-fi community that most members hold fairly strong negative opinions about Bose. SVI 02:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

many vs some

Internet-based forums and mailing lists are not reliable sources for objective information on Bose (or anything else, for that matter). Five minutes of exploration will reveal this in short order. Practicing audio engineers (the kind with a B.S. in engineering) are almost always either employed or affiliated with either Bose or a competing organization, so anything short of a peer-reviewed article submitted and published in an academic or scientific journal is automatically suspect. If you've come across any such independent publications supporting your point of view, please share it with the rest of us.

The entire concerns and criticisms section leaves much to be desired. For now, "many" must be "some" until factual evidence to the contrary is submitted.

This isn't about objective information regarding Bose. It's about objective information on the opinions expressed regarding Bose. When you say that a group raises the following issues with X, you are not saying that the following issues are problems with X, merely that that group raises them. In short, this isn't about who's "right", it's about accurately expressing an opinion and who holds it, regardless of how you or I feel about that group's ability to supply objective information. If many people raise the issue, then many people should be said to raise the issue-- it really doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong, objective or misled, because the purpose is to show the argument and who's making it.

I can't make it any clearer than this. I'm sorry if you interpret this as aggressive, but as you do not seem to see why "many" is "many" and not "some" (afaict, you think it has something to do with factual evidence regarding their statements, which it doesn't-- any relevant opinion on a controversial subject should be mentioned, regardless of rationality or factual evidence), I'm changing it back. If you can show that, in fact, many audiophiles and audio folks do not hold these opinions, I'd be happy to see your evidence; otherwise, kindly remember that the goal at hand before reverting. (ref.: to accurately depict these opinions and those who hold them, not to attempt to advocate or prove whatever viewpoints are being explicated.)

I am open to wording this to fit the NPOV policy better, or to make it somehow clearer that these are OPINIONS and not fact. I am not open to making the wording even more weaselly and vague than it already is (who the heck is this opinion held by "many" supposed to be attributed to?). SVI 16:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

many v some

"Many" implies too much. Perhaps "some" implies too little. A handful of sand contains "many" individual granules, but your still only holding "some" of the sand on the beach. Perhaps the best solution to is to do away with both terms and simply report more objectively that people within these groups disagree and argue amongst themselves.

Works for me, though on a semi-OT note I'd say from time in audio circles that it's difficult to imply too much here. At any rate, I also think that "many" can be both somewhat misleading and a little too vague, and attempting to quantify can apparently make people think an argument by majority is being made, so this version looks like it should work better than "many". SVI 12:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

"Please see the talk page"

Please stop making this edit. No article's content should direct the reader to its talk page. If you can not back up your statement sufficiently for it to go in the article itself, a mention of the talk page doesn't belong there either. If you CAN back it up, then kindly do so now. Either way, please stop now. I would hate to seek arbitration over such a minor issue. SVI

Markup

I need to find some independent, or rather, public pricing info. Most Bose HT systems are sold at about 45-60% margin for the RETAILER, not even including OEM markup. They set their MAP that high. I've got numbers from several major retailers of the 3-2-1 systems, from employees with access to it (some of which I've personally verified), but I need independent stuff not roped in by Bose contracts and lawyers, or at the very least, company NDAs. I don't know any retailers that like employees releasing invoice data.

Riotgear 23:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Based on my previous purchase of various Bose products, I should make a note that Bose won't even post any audio specifications (i.e. Impedance, Sensitivity, Noise, Driver Metal Type, etc.), so I guess that refusal to post Audio Specifications can be a criticism. — Vesther 03:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Sony, Altec Lansing, Onkyo, Klipsch

I've looked at each of the websites for each of the subject companies and found limited common areas of competition in the categories of HTIB, and mini audio systems. In the categories where there is some crossover, the price points indicate that they are pursuing a different market or demographic than Bose. As such, I am considering removing these names from the list of direct competitors. I haven't looked as closely at Klipsch, but a brief visit to the Klipsch website would suggest that Klipsch should also be removed--the size and price of a Klipsch system suggests that they pursue a more exclusive niche or segment of the Consumer Electronics market.

That brings up an interesting point. There are, afaik, very few direct competitors to Bose based on both price and quality, probably because few others have the marketing power to sell unremarkable sub-sat HTIBs at such prices. If you've checked their sites and they don't seem to compete in the same exact segment (read: where the "smaller is better" and "more expensive is better" market segments overlap), I for one have no objection to removal. Actually, I need to trim a couple too... Athena and KEF lines do not, AFAIK, target the high-end segment of the market. Anyone object to this either? SVI 12:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Some competitors may be removed, at your discretion, since they have either little or nothing to do with competing with Bose directly, so I'd say research the competitors' offerings very carefully and edit where you see fit and/or credible. — Vesther 13:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

A lot of people are drawn to Bose from other brands thanks to the flashier displays and aesthetics. I wouldn't say the "smaller is better" market segment is all of their competition, because size is just another consideration people make when picking out HT equipment. To that extent, I'd say anyone making expensive HT audio equipment is a competitor. Riotgear 05:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Some expensive HT/audio equipment manufacturers go out of their way to not be seen as Bose competitors. Others seek to compete head on. Not every HT manufacturer wants to make a HTIB system, especially the most expensive brands. Not every manufacturer wants to have to compete in the "wave radio" market, because of Bose's extensive (expensive) marketing in this category. I think the manufacturers presently listed have demonstrated both the desire and the ability to compete directly with Bose. I'm sure there are others...

Locations Section

I think this is out of place for an article IMO. I don't know where "Locations" belong, but I feel that it should go with the "Background" and/or "Vital Statistics" section. — Vesther 03:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Your call. I just moved it out of the main section, I don't actually have any preference wrt location so long as it's not in the middle of something. SVI 04:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Bass Problem Clarification

I talked to someone at a Tweeter Audio/Video store and I asked him how he felt about the Bose Tri-Port Headphones. He told me that he didn't like them because the mid and low bass levels tend to overlap the Treble levels, and that he can't hear the highs whatsoever. He was pretty much an audiophile and he recommended the Shure Earbuds over the Bose Tri-Port Headphones for reasons unknown.

Just wanted to clarify the Audiophiles' criticism about the Bass problem. — Vesther 20:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Automotive?

There is no discussion in the Bose article of their automotive business, which is VERY significant. They have a pretty good customer base; last I knew, Ferarri, Audi, GM, etc.

Then go ahead and add it. Be bold, and all of that. Also, please sign your posts with three or four tildes (~ = tilde, four tildes timestamps while three just leaves your name or IP). SVI 05:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Legal

I looked up the legal data on Bose when adding it, however I could not find any records from crediable sources related to the legal suits mentioned in the FAQ. I even used LexisNexus to see if they had anything and could only find the suit for the "Lifestyles" name. The only sources I could find from Google all reference the FAQ or someone else that did so.

Also SVI I would like to see your source for the Consumer Reports section you removed since I used the FAQ as a guide as to how the audiophile community saw the test and was trying to demenstrate that while Bose did sue CR they might have been in their right. Or at least the audiophile shouldn't knock on Bose for doing so. So really if doesn't matter if the test was valid it just matters that both groups thought the test was poor.

The FAQ is not representative of the entire audio community and should not be seen as such. The test that CR was being sued over was actually one of their last reasonably useful audio tests, done using semi-scientific techniques and based on sound quality rather than looks and features (as they are now). There are audiophiles who agree with this, but only the ones who believe in measurements and double-blind testing over "trusting their ears," and then only the ones who actually remember the test and cite it (many think CR's current tests are an indicator of the quality of that test). SVI 10:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Patents

The legal and merit issues aside, it would be good to know what patents are at issue. In March 2005, I asked Bose's law firm (Fish & Richardson - http://www.fr.com) for a list of patents on the Bose Acoustic Wave System. This is the list I got back:

4061890, 4158756, 4490843, 4577069, 4628528, 4739514, D502462, RE37223

Some of those patents have expired, unless they have been extended under the "patent term adjustment rule." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States)

What other patents does Bose hold?

A quick search of http://www.uspto.gov returns 168 US patents assigned to Bose Corporation. There may be more from before 1976, and there are certainly some non-US patents, as well.

Over thinking the NPOV

"The consensus in audio circles is that the overall quality, reliability, and value of audio devices (speakers, headphones, et al) are highly subjective, meaning that they vary highly from individual to individual. As such, it is important to remember that these views should not be seen as fact (meaning objective, true data), regardless of who holds them or why."

Translation. The consensus in that there is no consensus, and as such you should not take anyones opinion as fact. I think people have gone a little over the top in trying to keep criticisms NPOV.--Pypex 01:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Watch your edits guys.

I had to revert some "Encyclopedia-illegal" edits from this article even though neutrality is encouraged. While Wikipedia always prefer neutrality over biasness, any Encyclopedia-illegal edits will be reverted, even though it comes from a legit source, since some encyclopedia-illegal edits might be considered "trolling". Please try to avoid adding any trolling on an article, and try to keep Wikipedia articles encyclopedia-legal at all times. Thanks. — Vesther 01:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, it has came to my attention that I'm seeing some biased edits as well. Try to keep the edits neutral to form. While I have my shares of biasness, try not to be so overly biased when editing. Thanks. — Dark Insanity 19:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Product Placement Section

This article (and Bose in general) will never be regarded as completely neutral, because many audiophiles would love nothing more than to get their hands on Amar Bose's neck (and smash his speakers). But do we really need the product placement section? It doesn't give any useful information and will only provide fodder for audiophiles proving Bose's pervasive marketing campaigns...and general "suckiness" by extension.MetraB 03:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think that Wikipedia is about trying to get people hurt, but about creating the best encyclopedia available. That’s why people do their best to give as neutral an article as possible aka WP:NPOV. What people do with the info from there is beyond the scope of Wikipedia’s powers. I don’t think that there is anything inherently useless about the Product Sightings section and it should be noted that even though some listed are paid for by Bose not all are. All major companies out there do product placement, right now I think that the king would have to be Apple Computer, I still remember the iPod scene from Blade... Still makes me laugh.

People at Wikipedia do their best to keep their opinions to themselves... although it doesn't always work. But one cannot create an encyclopedia without trying to show people the facts and talking about both sides rationally and letting the reader decide for themselves. Things like Religion and Politics are great examples of these, because there are very rare cases when anyone can agree on anything. Such is the same with what people taste, smell, or hear... These are subjective and have to be treated as such... Personally I don’t like Brussel-sprouts, but do I think that someone who likes them is wrong? No, I might think it’s weird, but not wrong!

Respect other peoples opinions and you’ll go far here! If you think that someone is wrong let them know your reasons for thinking that way by rational means. But in the end, all you can do with sound equipment is tell them to listen to them, compare for yourself, because frankly I believe that you should do the same. Don’t be swayed by people saying this or that, experience them for yourself. Know what you are looking for and go for what fits whose needs. Oh and try to put new topics at the bottom of the page. It makes it easier for people to find changes. Check this page out, it could help Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers Talk to you later UKPhoenix79 08:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I just skimmed the article for the first time and the product placement section stuck out like a sore thumb. Is there something especially notable about Bose's product placement? If not, the entire section should be removed as either unencyclopedic, cruft and a list of indescriminate information, take your pick. To add, it is also probably hard to verify all of this. If their product placement is notable for some reason, than it should be explained why in the article. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

While I am discussing things that should be removed, "Internet authorized dealers" should also be considered. See Wikipedia:External links, "Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." I suppose this section could be listed in a different way, as Bose's partners or something, which is why I brought it to the talk page instead of removing it. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I know that it took someone a lot of time to put together such a complete listing of Bose product sightings, and it is interesting. But it is also not specifically relevant to an article about Bose as a corporation. It may be worth mentioning, but such an exhaustive listing makes for tedious reading. Perhaps a link to the original source would be better.Waulfgang 18:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What Dr. Bose says

The article is full of statements that tell the reader what Dr. Bose thinks. How do we know what he thinks? These statements need references.

Also, what's up with this: "Although these speaker systems accurately emulated the characteristics of an ideal spherical membrane, the listening results were disappointing, leading Bose to further research into psychoacoustics that eventually clarified the importance of a dominance of reflected sound arriving at the head of the listener, a listening condition that is characteristic of live performances." Disappointing to whom? To Dr. Bose? Where's the citation?

68.239.10.119 00:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

While skepticism is certainly an important of Wikipedial evolution, so is Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, or else every birthdate in Wikipedia would need to have a reference link. For instance, I myself would not require a reference for this sort of thing:

The company spends at least $100 million a year in research and engineering, employing a 70,000 sq. ft. building in Framingham reserved for that purpose.[citation needed] In 2004, Bose purchased an additional site from HP in Stow, Massachusetts to house growing automotive and marketing divisions.[citation needed]

but would rather, if feeling skeptical, attempt to verify the information myself; that being in the end easier and less liable to failure than the process of tagging the thing with the [citation needed] tag, requiring somebody else to notice the [citation needed] tag, research it themselves, and then re-edit the article inserting the citation; in which case, the skeptical would be morally required anyway to track down the reference to check for themselves, as should anyone make up something like the square footage of Bose's research building, I don't think they would hesitate to make up a reference. No offense meant, BTW, I'm just saying. Gzuckier 20:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll--Not sure about a section

I really, really, really, really hate to debate on this one section, as I'm willing to cooperate with you guys to achieve the closest NPOV possible with this article and to curb any possible "anti-Bose" sentiment. I'm taking a straw poll on this section since I really feel that placing competitors on this page might make an article look uninviting:

==Market share== Bose directly competes against the following companies in the consumer speaker and home theater market: *[[Bang & Olufsen]] *[[Boston Acoustics]] *[[Cerwin-Vega]] *[[Harman/Kardon]] *[[JBL]] *[[Klipsch]] *[[Polk Audio]] *[[Infinity (audio)]] *[[Wharfedale (company)]] Bose directly competes against the following companies in the consumer headphone market: *[[Altec Lansing]] *Coby *[[Koss]] *[[Sennheiser]] *[[Sony]] Bose caters mainly to the premium/luxury segment of the consumer market, mainly affluent non-[[Audiophile|audiophiles]]. While critics argue over the price and quality of some Bose products, there is no doubt that Bose is growing and sometimes dominating certain segments of the high-end consumer audio market.

Undecided I'm really uncertain and not quite sure whether competitors should be mentioned in an encyclopedic article. — The Evil in Everyone (U * T/R * CTD) 22:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fry's Electronics

It also has came to my attention that Bose Products is also offered at a Fry's Electronics store. Do you guys think that at Fry's, Bose is the most expensive product offered at their store? I'm not sure whether or not you guys heard of Fry's before, but I'm just curious about this. — The Evil in Everyone (U * T/R * CTD) 22:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as the speaker section is concerned, yes, it generally is, at least at my local Fry's. --Zambaccian 06:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Consumer opinions

I just wanted to explain some edits I've made which have been reverted. I'm fine with some of the reverts but there are sentences I'd really like to discuss.

Also, more US households (17.5 million by Forrester's estimate) aspired to own Bose products than the products of any other consumer-electronics or computer manufacturer -- Dell, Apple, Sony, Pioneer, TiVo, etc. is fine.

The study indicates that many people trust the Bose brand because they believe that the products are quality products. This is a speculative, unsourced conclusion that seems like an attempt to infer quality from brand image. Just because people aspire to own the products doesn't directly imply anything about quality - that's like saying people want to drive around in a Jaguar because of the car's quality engineering. I don't think this sentence should be here.

Unsourced, but not really speculative. Several consumer surveys show people consistently ranking Bose as high in quality/reliability, and it doesn't seem like much of a leap of faith to assume that this and trust are linked. If a decent citation for any of aforementioned surveys were dug up and inserted, would you still object? SVI

Bose is also criticized for selling its products in low and medium-end stores - this is a misrepresentation. What's meant is that Bose products are not in any stores that sell high-end audio equipment - the kind where one would find B&O, Meridian, etc. I'd be willing to change it to something like "Bose products are generally sold in stores that don't carry any high-end competitors." It's important to remember that Bose isn't criticized for selling in low-end stores. It just helps explain the aforementioned brand image: consumers who've never stepped in a higher-end store hold Bose to be a pinnacle of luxury and quality. The rest of the paragraph seems fine. --Zambaccian 19:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. That sentence does make it look as if Bose is criticized for stooping to low-end/general electronics stores, and although the second sentence sets the paragraph back on track, I'd prefer something clearer (your proposed change, for example). SVI 20:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Zambaccian and SVI—I would preferrably say "Bose prodcts are generally sold in stores that generally/literally lack premium alternatives", because literally, Bose is a premium product, and there are plenty of premium audio competitors Bose has to worry about. Therefore, saying "lack of premium audio alternatives" makes more sense. I'll try to work things out so that parts don't sound too awkward. — The Evil in Everyone (U * T/R * CTD) 02:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Stereophile reviews

This looks like a "review" of a Bose product to me: http://www.stereophile.com/news/071706infiniti/index.html I believe this may make the sentence below incorrect: In turn, hi-fi specialist magazines such as The Absolute Sound and Stereophile don't publish reviews of Bose products. Anyone else have thoughts? --209.6.23.61 01:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It really can't count as a warranted edit unless the article talks about a particular Bose product in whole. Sorry. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 01:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

See also http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/425/ in External links (full review of original 901s). Rivertorch 06:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)