Why the criticism of Bose? - Page 17 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 361Likes
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #481 of 496 Old 08-07-2015, 05:30 PM
Member
 
Pro-People's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 102
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I'm summarizing, please see below and comment on this;


Example : Acoustimass 10 Series sound approach


1. Small Cube Design Speakers - they want to consider aesthetics by making speakers so small in order not to overwhelm it in the house living room, and it need to blend with the decors or the color of sound equipments. It is said by many that construction was made of cheap materials.


2. Bass Module (many said this is not Subwoofer) - they also consider the aesthetics, and this module is meant to hide on sides of furnitures or walls, so it meant not to be shown to our eyes. Bose have to design sound reproduction of bass notes to appear it coming from the small cubes.


3. Sound Dispersion - the idea was to fill the room with music virtually in any location. So it uses the surrounding walls to reflect most of the sounds rather than the direct to the listener. This approach seemed doesn't appeal to audio purists as they said it has no clear focus, though Bose claimed their stereo everywhere technology. Bose have admitted that the sound come out may not be as high end as expected by audio conscious individual as they have to consider the limitation of the human ear, by not overcompensating the frequencies in such a way that a listener can listen to music for an extended period of time without developing hearing fatigue. The reason maybe there are no tweeters in the cubes. The bass module (which many said is not a true subwoofer) is meant to hide out of sight and Bose was abled to achieved it by appearing the bass notes to come from the small cubes. The fact many also commended on this feat. But again many have said, Low frequencies is non-directional, that any subwoofer can do it. And further many said Bose bass module sound is muddy.


4. Price (consistently 999USD) - Many have said it is overpriced for a cheap material used and sound it produced, but there also many people said the price is just right (Amazon, Best Buy, Crutchfiled, Ebay, etc.) by thinking it was a good construction due to its outside appearance and they also satisfied with the "pleasing sound" as said.


5. Marketing issue - According to Bose they have to market their goods properly in order to get buyers as much as possible. Many people have said Bose are just good in this sense than product quality. Once, a Bose Store Manager told me "Brother, I know there are so many very very good systems out there very far performance than Bose, even with same or lower price, but we have no choice but to find ways to market our products to the people, and we have abled to achieved it."..... I said "Better sales through marketing?", "so you say" he told me. Due to many competitors on high end system nowadays opened already to the people that can beat Bose sound many times more both on internet and electronic stores, Bose sales has declined already since many years back. Again the bose manager said "but we still keep on selling especially our whooping bose pro division.". I cannot argue on business.


6. Bose Strategy - Bose had made a research not only on sound reproduction but also that of the consumers as well. They capitalize this, on what most people really need about sound listening. And most of the people around do not care about what a high end sound listening should be. 1000USD for a sound system is not an easy money to average consumers, it needs also serious consideration in buying sound system. They are appealed by the Bose ads, demo setup and its pleasing sound they heard of, and other people they know that have already bose system with them, etc.. The Blue Ocean Strategy System will explain more on this chain reaction.


My Conclusion: Bose is just like an Apple. As more quality products come out already to the minds of people today which can beat them many times more in terms of quality, features and functionality, then time comes nearer their market will be neutralize.


Hoping you will not say this is a troll.
Dom Di Stroia and tinhvo like this.

Last edited by Pro-People; 08-07-2015 at 05:53 PM.
Pro-People is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #482 of 496 Old 08-07-2015, 06:20 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 198
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by motrek View Post
The simple fact is that iPhones are provably better than Android phones in most regards. Just read any in-depth review. It's not an arbitrary, subjective statement, so my motive for posting about it is pretty irrelevant
Iphones are objectively worse than many phones because they lack a couple of extremely helpful features, like a user-replaceable battery, microSD slot, standard USB connection, standardised charger socket (combined with the USB slot no less). Yes there are android phones that lack these features but many that have them all, and cheaper than an iphone.

I again direct you to Apple's profit margin in the smartphone sector (link below). "Though the iPhone is just 20 percent of the overall smartphone market, Apple's handset accounted for a colossal 92 percent of the industry's operating income." That was in July 2015. In 2011 the iphone made up about 5-7% of the market and Apple made 60% of all smartphone profits. If its not coming from a large markup on the handsets, please explain where the hell all those billions of dollars are coming from? In the end the numbers don't lie, that money has to come from somewhere, LG and Samsung aren't making nearly as much, yet they're selling many times more phones, I wonder why?

I'm not trying to say that apple's entire business model is predicated on a form over function approach, far from it, but that particular design methodology does exist in some of their products. That, and to a much greater extent the world-class marketing (in the end they're selling a brandname) is the answer to my question in the previous paragraph.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/...ustrys-profits
psgcdn and Dom Di Stroia like this.
Ormy is offline  
post #483 of 496 Old 08-07-2015, 08:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
motrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 566
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 442 Post(s)
Liked: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ormy View Post
Iphones are objectively worse than many phones because they lack a couple of extremely helpful features, like a user-replaceable battery, microSD slot, standard USB connection, standardised charger socket (combined with the USB slot no less). Yes there are android phones that lack these features but many that have them all, and cheaper than an iphone.
These are all design decisions that Apple made, not examples of technical inferiority or shoddy workmanship.

You might not like the decisions. Millions of people are fine with them. Debating them is fairly pointless. We might as well have a debate about the best favorite color. At the end of the day you find the iPhone to be subjectively worse, not objectively.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ormy View Post
... I again direct you to Apple's profit margin in the smartphone sector (link below). "Though the iPhone is just 20 percent of the overall smartphone market, Apple's handset accounted for a colossal 92 percent of the industry's operating income." That was in July 2015. In 2011 the iphone made up about 5-7% of the market and Apple made 60% of all smartphone profits. If its not coming from a large markup on the handsets, please explain where the hell all those billions of dollars are coming from? In the end the numbers don't lie, that money has to come from somewhere, LG and Samsung aren't making nearly as much, yet they're selling many times more phones, I wonder why? ...
The reason is actually very simple and obvious and you're going to kick yourself that you didn't think of it: Apple doesn't sell cheap phones. The cheapest phone they sell is $550 (off-contract).

The flagship phones from Apple, Samsung, LG, HTC, etc. all have roughly the same (high) profit margin. They cost about the same to make ($250 to $300) and they sell for roughly the same price (around $600 to $650).

But unlike Apple, all the other companies also sell a wide range of other phones, including some very cheap phones where the profit margin is extremely small.

So how can Samsung sell many more phones than Apple but have very low profit margins? This is extremely easy to explain: they don't sell very many of their flagship phones and sell a ton of their cheap phones.
Dom Di Stroia and bear123 like this.
motrek is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #484 of 496 Old 08-07-2015, 08:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Defcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,995
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1611 Post(s)
Liked: 895
Bose has a place in the world. That place is to separate rich yuppies and in general rich fools who buy audio gear solely on looks and brand name to impress others, from their money.

The problem is many normal folk are also suckered into it, esp by WAF pressure, will never hear or know proper audio, and in turn become salesmen for Bose to their friends.

But I wish I had come up with the idea, their profit margins must be obscene.
Laika and pcfriedrich like this.
Defcon is offline  
post #485 of 496 Old 08-07-2015, 09:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 379
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defcon View Post
Bose has a place in the world. That place is to separate rich yuppies and in general rich fools who buy audio gear solely on looks and brand name to impress others, from their money.

The problem is many normal folk are also suckered into it, esp by WAF pressure, will never hear or know proper audio, and in turn become salesmen for Bose to their friends.

But I wish I had come up with the idea, their profit margins must be obscene.
I was suckered. I knew the name "Bose", and knew their "reputation" as one of the best. 20 years ago, I spent a **** load of money on a speaker system that a friend who owned Cerwin Vegas quickly showed me was ****. For a while, I "bargained"... "yeah, that has bigger bass and clearer treble, but listen to how the "direct/reflecting" "fills the room with sound". For about 19 years, I've been tolerating this **** I spent too much money on... Honestly, if they were priced appropriately, I would say that Bose is a great (maybe even perfect) entry level brand. They can make ****ty speakers sound way better than they truly are, to the "average" listener. The system I have has been used and abused regularly for exactly 20 years. Even still, comparing them to Cerwin Vega (which aren't that great), I got ripped off.
Laika likes this.
pcfriedrich is offline  
post #486 of 496 Old 08-07-2015, 10:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Defcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,995
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1611 Post(s)
Liked: 895
Speaking as a devils advocate, I will say that there's a place for a consumer friendly audio experience. The average person is afraid of audio, doesn't even know what any of the terms mean, and the jargon of HT is incomprehensible. It doesn't help that the whole field of audio is entirely subjective, there's no way to quantify or measure, and very little to actually help someone unless they spend years and $$$ trying out things for themselves.

No one wants to do that, people just know they want better sound than their tv, if they even bother to upgrade. Most of them will hear about HT from a salesman or friend. Bose makes the experience friendly and approachable and easy to justify because after all, that much $$ and those looks have to count for something (but like designer anything, they really don't).

If I'd spent $1-3K on a Bose system, and was ignorant of what else existed, I'd probably be happy and would wish to remain ignorant. There's much more to life than stress about these things
Defcon is offline  
post #487 of 496 Old 08-08-2015, 02:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
motrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 566
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 442 Post(s)
Liked: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defcon View Post
Speaking as a devils advocate, I will say that there's a place for a consumer friendly audio experience. ...
From my understanding, Sonos seems to be the real deal. Consumer friendly and not terrible from an audiophile standpoint. I haven't heard a Sonos system but they seem to measure well and everybody seems to agree that they sound great.
Pro-People likes this.
motrek is offline  
post #488 of 496 Old 08-08-2015, 03:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
johnu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 653
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfriedrich View Post
Pro-People, I have a pair of Bose 701s (the really bad-ass towers from the 90's with two 8" woofer, a 6" midrange and two1.5" tweeters), An Accoustimass 7 (3.1, from the 90s, when they still the bad ass 3" drivers), and Accoustimass 5 (2.1, also from the 90s with the super badass 3" drivers). Its an incredible 7 channel surround system, still in mint condition. It could be yours for only $1,500, if you're interested...
Sounds like a great deal. Leave them on the street corner tonight and I'll be by in the morning to pick them up.
Pro-People likes this.
johnu is offline  
post #489 of 496 Old 08-08-2015, 05:26 AM
Member
 
Pro-People's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 102
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ormy View Post
Iphones are objectively worse than many phones because they lack a couple of extremely helpful features, like a user-replaceable battery, microSD slot, standard USB connection, standardised charger socket (combined with the USB slot no less). Yes there are android phones that lack these features but many that have them all, and cheaper than an iphone.

I again direct you to Apple's profit margin in the smartphone sector (link below). "Though the iPhone is just 20 percent of the overall smartphone market, Apple's handset accounted for a colossal 92 percent of the industry's operating income." That was in July 2015. In 2011 the iphone made up about 5-7% of the market and Apple made 60% of all smartphone profits. If its not coming from a large markup on the handsets, please explain where the hell all those billions of dollars are coming from? In the end the numbers don't lie, that money has to come from somewhere, LG and Samsung aren't making nearly as much, yet they're selling many times more phones, I wonder why?

I'm not trying to say that apple's entire business model is predicated on a form over function approach, far from it, but that particular design methodology does exist in some of their products. That, and to a much greater extent the world-class marketing (in the end they're selling a brandname) is the answer to my question in the previous paragraph.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/...ustrys-profits
iPhone is gradually losing popularity due to many alternative smartphones come out which are much more powerful and lots of features but which more cheaper.
Pro-People is offline  
post #490 of 496 Old 08-08-2015, 05:46 AM
Member
 
Pro-People's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 102
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defcon View Post
Bose has a place in the world. That place is to separate rich yuppies and in general rich fools who buy audio gear solely on looks and brand name to impress others, from their money.

The problem is many normal folk are also suckered into it, esp by WAF pressure, will never hear or know proper audio, and in turn become salesmen for Bose to their friends.

But I wish I had come up with the idea, their profit margins must be obscene.


I guess, its time to teach this general rich fools of what a high end music should be heard.
Pro-People is offline  
post #491 of 496 Old 08-08-2015, 08:20 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 379
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by motrek View Post
These are all design decisions that Apple made, not examples of technical inferiority or shoddy workmanship.

You might not like the decisions. Millions of people are fine with them. Debating them is fairly pointless. We might as well have a debate about the best favorite color. At the end of the day you find the iPhone to be subjectively worse, not objectively.
"Design Decisions" is a misnomer. It is an "ensure that within 18 to two years the phone is a worthless piece of crap, so the idiot will spend another $600 on a telephone" decision. Apple does make a quality product. But, it isn't that much better than my $19 Samsung Galaxy Lite to justify spending (literally) 30 times as much money. $650 for a phone when you can get one free and clear for $19 is just friggin' idiotic. Unless, of course, you are running a business from your phone or something like that.
psgcdn and Ormy like this.
pcfriedrich is offline  
post #492 of 496 Old 08-08-2015, 09:17 AM
Advanced Member
 
motrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 566
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 442 Post(s)
Liked: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfriedrich View Post
"Design Decisions" is a misnomer. It is an "ensure that within 18 to two years the phone is a worthless piece of crap, so the idiot will spend another $600 on a telephone" decision. Apple does make a quality product. But, it isn't that much better than my $19 Samsung Galaxy Lite to justify spending (literally) 30 times as much money. $650 for a phone when you can get one free and clear for $19 is just friggin' idiotic. Unless, of course, you are running a business from your phone or something like that.
It's tough to tell people what they should spend their money on.

Why get a BMW when the cheapest Kia will get you from point A to point B just as well? Why get a Rolex when a $20 Timex from Wal-mart will tell time more accurately?

And isn't it "friggin' idiotic" to spend hundreds of dollars on an amp and speakers when your TV came with built-in speakers that, for all practical purposes, function just as well?

Spending hundreds of dollars on a cell phone doesn't seem unreasonable to me. People these days use their cell phones many times per day, for minutes or even hours at a time. Why not spend a little coin on something you use 365 days per year to make sure the experience is nice?

When you say that iPhones turn into worthless pieces of crap after 18-24 months, I imagine you're referring to the battery wearing out. First of all, just because your phone's battery wears out in a couple years doesn't mean that iPhones suffer from the same problem. That's an advantage of spending a little more on a phone--you get a battery that isn't crap. I know several people who are still rocking their original iPhone 4s or 4Ss that are 4-5 years old now and their batteries are fine. But second, regardless, Apple offers a battery replacement service for $79. Of course they don't sell a $650 device that's literally worthless after 2 years. Assuming they do is just slack reasoning.
motrek is offline  
post #493 of 496 Old 08-08-2015, 01:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 379
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by motrek View Post
It's tough to tell people what they should spend their money on.

Why get a BMW when the cheapest Kia will get you from point A to point B just as well? Why get a Rolex when a $20 Timex from Wal-mart will tell time more accurately?

And isn't it "friggin' idiotic" to spend hundreds of dollars on an amp and speakers when your TV came with built-in speakers that, for all practical purposes, function just as well?

Spending hundreds of dollars on a cell phone doesn't seem unreasonable to me. People these days use their cell phones many times per day, for minutes or even hours at a time. Why not spend a little coin on something you use 365 days per year to make sure the experience is nice?

When you say that iPhones turn into worthless pieces of crap after 18-24 months, I imagine you're referring to the battery wearing out. First of all, just because your phone's battery wears out in a couple years doesn't mean that iPhones suffer from the same problem. That's an advantage of spending a little more on a phone--you get a battery that isn't crap. I know several people who are still rocking their original iPhone 4s or 4Ss that are 4-5 years old now and their batteries are fine. But second, regardless, Apple offers a battery replacement service for $79. Of course they don't sell a $650 device that's literally worthless after 2 years. Assuming they do is just slack reasoning.
That's how I learned you couldn't replace the battery. A friend was complaing how fast their battery died on their iPhone that was a year and half old; constantly having to charge it. I asked "why don't you just buy a new one?" "You can't". I can get a new battery for my Samsung for $7. No reason not to carry a spare charged battery in your car and at your place of work. Running low on storage? Buy a bigger SD card. Can't do that with iPhone. Why? Because Apple is more concerned with taking your money than producing a product that is convenient to use in the long run. I in no way said they produce an inferior product. I simply said they are ripping you off. That is where iPhone came up in a thread about Bose. It is a company that produces and markets a product designed to separate fools from their money. But, just like Bose, if that is what you are happy with, go for it. There are just comparable, and many would argue better products on the market for the same or even less money.
psgcdn and Ormy like this.

Last edited by pcfriedrich; 08-08-2015 at 01:27 PM.
pcfriedrich is offline  
post #494 of 496 Old 08-08-2015, 02:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Defcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,995
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1611 Post(s)
Liked: 895
BMW vs Kia is a bad analogy and fallacy. BMW and other luxury car makers spend far money on research/parts, they have measurably better technology and features.

A MacBook Pro has the exact same internals as a Dell that costs 1/2, actually its usually worse since Apple is never competitive on specs. The construction is no better either, you just need to see the results of structural integrity tests, reliability reports etc. iPhones have much worse specs, usually years behind, their competitors.

The simple fact is if you allowed Windows to run on MB, or Android to run on iPhones, no one would buy Apple hardware, the only reason they can sell so much is planned obscolescence, a captive audience with lockin, and the power of marketing and hype. This doesn't mean they are bad products, but they are certainly not better. Apple's history with products can be summed up as -

make product lacking features X,Y,Z.
claim that said features are useless and no one needs them.
insult competition publicly.
wait a few years and iterations.
introduce X,Y,Z with Apple branded fancy names and proprietary lockin.
suddenly claim X,Y,Z has been invented by Apple and is the best thing in the world.
rinse and repeat.
Ormy likes this.
Defcon is offline  
post #495 of 496 Old 08-08-2015, 03:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
motrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 566
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 442 Post(s)
Liked: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfriedrich View Post
That's how I learned you couldn't replace the battery. A friend was complaing how fast their battery died on their iPhone that was a year and half old; constantly having to charge it. I asked "why don't you just buy a new one?" "You can't". ...
Then your friend, and you, are misinformed. Apple themselves will replace an iPhone battery for you for $79:

https://www.apple.com/batteries/service-and-recycling/

There are plenty of 3rd party local shops and mail-order places which will do the same service for cheaper.

This information is easy to find if you bother to Google for a few seconds. I wonder if this friend of yours actually exists. I have a hard time imagining that someone is so poorly informed and so unwilling to use Google to solve their problems.
motrek is offline  
post #496 of 496 Old 08-08-2015, 03:13 PM
Super Moderator
 
markrubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 21,126
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1785 Post(s)
Liked: 3557
thank you
cctvtech and Pro-People like this.

please take the high road in every post:do not respond to or quote a problematic post: report it
HDMI.org:what a mess HDCP = Hollywood's Draconian Copy Protection system
LG C9 OLED owner


markrubin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread Speakers

Tags
blose

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off