Talk:Bose Corporation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bose Corporation article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This article is within the scope of the Professional sound production WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the technology, equipment, companies and professions related to professional sound production. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Flag of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Portal
Bose Corporation is part of WikiProject Massachusetts, an effort to create, expand, and improve Massachusetts-related articles to a feature-quality standard. For more information on this project or to get involved see the WikiProject Massachusetts project page.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale

/List of Bose product sightings

Archive
Archives
  1. (2004 Sep 19) to (2006 July 20)
  2. (2006 July 21) to (2007 Apr. 20)
  3. (2007 Apr. 20) to (2007 July 08)
Intellexual.net debate archives
  1. (2005 May 15) to (2007 29 Aug)

Contents


[edit] Archives

I have created 2 archives today. The first one is a third archive containing general discussions about Bose. The second one has been pooled from all 3 archives where the Intellexual website is discussed. I hope that this will streamline the archives and make it easier to follow discussions, especially about that controversial web site. -- UKPhoenix79 04:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lighten up or the article gets it

You people are worse than my inbred cousins; lots of firearms and no impulse control, but stuck with each other anyway. Like it or not, my 301s are now responsible for world peace, and none of you can take it back.

I can see how frustrated editors are on both "sides", but I am so not going to hang with Bono at my Nobel Peace Prize party if every edit here ends up as a bitter fight to the death. And nobody else gets to contribute either, so this article will continue to deteriorate…which is such a shame since so much of it successfully incorporates all your edits – those are the sections that shine.

Wikipedia is supposed to be fun for everybody. The editors aren’t going away, but the minefields have got to go….honestly, what is it going to take to get us to Oslo? Flowanda | Talk 19:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I like you, your funny :-) -- UKPhoenix79 04:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you're not offended, and I hope no one else was either...just wanted to insert a little levity. Alas, it seems my speakers' powers are limited to selfless endeavors, so c'mon guys, I've already hired a foam stylist... Flowanda | Talk 23:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] intellexual

I think the reason people like me hate Bose is because they are a decietful company spreading myths about sound reproduction, and destroying the ears of the world to boot. Bose Speakers, to make this 100% clear, are not high end, nor are they professional. They are, however, expensive. For the price of the Bose Packlite Amp, which is 250 w RMS max (no impedance specified), you can get a crown XLS 402D, with over 1,100 w @ 4 ohms mono bridge. Ask any serious engineer what he'd rather have, the Bose top of the line, or the Crown bottom of the line.
if you compare the Bose AM15 series I (about $1k) (edit by UKPhoenix79) http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/1/224927.jpg to the event studio precision 8s ($1300)... http://www.event1.com/index/images/sp8_spec_active.jpg You'll see what I mean.
I found this interesting, it may help clear up some questions. http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html ReignMan (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that the graph is supposed to represent a 7 year old AM15 system that ran for 1k, and is no longer manufactured. The website is unverified and the ONLY place you find such information anyplace on the web is in either this personal website or sites taking information from this personal website. p.s. I edited your text since according to the site is is supposed to be representative of an AM15 series I not a Lifestyle system. Hope you don't mind. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't mind. It's just that, that's the only spec of any bose system I could find. Bose doesn't publish those charts (Event has them right on their website, next to the speaker information) The person who made that chart said it was a Lifestlye system, but I wasn't sure. ReignMan (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yea because Bose doesn't seam to care about defending itself on the net, people just say whatever they want and there is no way to verify what they claim is indeed true. But that chart is indeed supposed to be a $1k system from 2000. It was taken from the intellexual website and then mislabeled, no way to know if it was done on purpose. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree the intellexual link is an excellent read, however the thought police claim it breaks wiki policy (I must actually find out how that CONSENSUS was achieved). However if you HATE Bose then you probably should consider not editing the article. If you just find their marketing annoying and creepy then go right ahead. They aren't destroying anybody's ears, all they are doing is lightening their customer's wallets. Since the customer is a willing participant in the process then it's just a case of caveat emptor. Having said that wiki is no place for spam or marketing and this article veers dangerously towards swallowing Bose' PR and regurgitating it. Greg Locock (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Ads are defiantly wrong (and should be avoided) but so is putting up information that is unverified and unreliable. There is just no way to say for sure that this site did what it said about this one product, after all it is a personal website. Please can you find an independent and reliable source that is not based on this websites claimed tests? I really have looked and have given up because I have not found any that pass the above policies. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsuccessfully HUH?!?!?

"Unsuccessfully sued"?!?!?

Don't you guys think it sounds a bit too wordy? The paragraph which the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals reversed Bose's suit—I honestly feel that "Unsuccessfully sued" sounds a bit too wordy to me. 71.57.74.109 03:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange that you focused on shortening one of the shortest sentences in the entire article. A bit of a coincidence given that single word has been a point of contention lately. However, if you'd like to apply more precision to the article, it wouldn't hurt. In the meantime, I'll add that word back in since it helps the reader understand the outcome of the case without having to read the entire paragraph to get there.Mattnad 13:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't look at me, I've stayed away from that for a while now. I think its funny though. I guess I'm not the only one :-) Don't forget, that single word was added very recently. -- UKPhoenix79 18:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply from 71.57.74.109

I'm not going to "see-saw" edit because some people may think that "unsuccessfully" would sound good (but reading the paragraph without the unsuccessfully it should still suffice that the US Supreme Court favored the appeal), but it should be mentioned as being more of a pyrrhic victory since although Bose seems to be confident with their campaign against Consumer Reports, the US Court of Appeals and US Supreme Court appealed in favor of CR since they found no wrongdoing, so it may go either way. But I'm just suggesting the paragraph not to be too wordy but still reflect that the US Supreme Court favored the appeal.

Just my 2 cents. 71.57.74.109 14:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymotic and Ultimate Ears

Bose is NOT a competitor of either of the two because of the reason:

  • Etymotic and Ultimate Ears makes IEMs (In-Ear Monitors). IEMs are "earplugs" that act as earseals to prevent noise from entering your ear canal through a special earseal isolation process.
  • Bose does NOT create IEMs as of this time, instead they only create earbuds and headphones. Sennheiser and Grado would qualify to remain because Bose, Grado, and Sennheiser creates headphones and noise-cancelling headphones, though Grado has no noise-cancelling headphones as I speak.

Unless Bose has a noise isolation "earplug" on the works, then Etymotic and Ultimate Ears shouldn't be considered as competitors because IEMs are different from Headphones and Earbuds. 71.57.74.109 17:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of THX

Like UKPhoenix, I don't think Bose's lack of THX certification is fair as a criticism, but it is evidence that they do not meet high-end specifications for Home Theater. I would think that the article could include this point, just not as a criticism.

Just today I sampled several "high-end" manufacturers of home theater equipment, including Krell, McIntosh Labs, Classe, Pioneer Elite, Carver, Sunfire, Denon, Martin Logan, and a few others. THX certification is always found on the most expensive ($10,000+) speakers and electronics, but becomes less common as you go down-market, usually below $750.00 for either speakers or electronic components.

The THX certification process is pretty stringent with minimum requirements for dynamic range and fidelity. So while it's not per se a bad thing that Bose does not have THX certification, it raises the basic question of "Why not?" If they are actually competing in a segment of the market that always seeks and has this certification, why don't they bother getting this certification? Given that THX certification is a marketing advantage and communicates quality and performance to the consumer, it's weird that Bose would not seek it out just to be different. Rather, it's evidence that their products cannot be THX certified and suggests in Home Theater (which is what THX is about), they are not "high-end."

At a minimum, we should probably review the list of competitive products given that Bose's Home Theater systems are probably not on par with brands that are THX certified. Thoughts? Mattnad 16:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I solicit comments on this. And to UK Phoenix, if you have an issue with including on Bose's lack of THX certification in the article, please explain why? Simply reverting is not helpful. Regards. Mattnad (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
As stated before by another editor "Not sure the lack of a THX certification qualifies as a fair criticism - after all, there are many great systems without that label" sorry. Lacking THX is not a criticism that is realistic and is nothing that is expected. THX is not a Technology only a test.
If Specific Receiver with this many min & that max using this wire that has a tolerance of a but not b using these speakers that have a dimension of such with decibel ratings of such are placed in this specific sized room with a width height and distance from points 1 through 6 where the speakers mist be placed using specific sized screen with projector that has a luminance of such at a specific distance from the screen you have THX certification.
If one component is not to Specs you do not have THX certification. When you go to a Movie theater that is THX that is great when you have home theater equipment that is THX it means nothing unless everything else including your room is also THX certified. Since A LOT of great High end Audio Equipment do not have THX certification (for good reason) that is not a just criticism. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the distinction isn't about Home Audio but Home Theater. You have misunderstood the point. Furthermore, it's not a criticism (although you seem to take it that way). The comment you have removed was in the section that talks about whom Bose competes with - in the context of home theater, the absence of THX is relevant. It's a fact so why not include it? What is your objection here? Mattnad (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Still doesn't make sense just because you have a system that is THX certified you must have a room that is as well. Not only that it makes it seam that almost all companies that Bose competes against are THX certified when a good portion are not. Not only that have you gone through the list and noted beside each company who does and does not have THX? Is this something so severe that it should be stated on each companies wiki page, or is this something that should be mentioned only on the Bose page? If a company still only did Dolby Pro Logic when everyone out there did Dolby Digital then that would be a notable fact, but this is just not the case. THX is indeed a great marketing tool but in real world situations that is all it is and not really notable for its absence. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's the issue, if Bose is "High-end" in home theater, then it's unique in that they don't have THX certification for ANY of their HT products - not a one. Given how mainstream and pervasive THX is, I don't really think it's a non issue here. Your opinion on the validity of THX in "real world situations" does not negate this fact. Moreover, your opinion on THX is not justification for leaving out a true, and accurate detail in the article. Other editors have introduced the absence of THX - perhaps to broadly in my view which is why I've tried to include it where it makes most sense. I'm putting it back in, as specified, in the home theater section. Mattnad (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly what the hell, though it may seem that THX should be standard in high-end systems, some manufacturers chose not to deploy THX compliance and for good reason. While I am displeased and agitated about Mattnad's insertion of "non-THX compliance" in this article, keep in mind that a company shouldn't be slammed if they create high-end products without THX. I will have to do an Internet search about this issue, but it may be accreditation issues and/or possible conflicts of interest that Bose might not have chose to make its systems THX-compliant. More in a future message. 71.57.74.109 (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: THX is more like a certifying/accreditation company which caters mainly to filmmakers, game developers, and musicians, but one thing is for sure: it may be possible that either THX chose not to accredit Bose neither Bose chose to obtain THX accreditation. THX requires a certain "quota" to have a certain product and/or idea to be accredited and to state that Bose lacks THX is just WAY OUT of the question, so to make it a bit more neutral it should state that Bose has not sought to accredit its products with THX. Bose has reasons why they chose not to accredit their products with THX--they believe that it would increase the price of the products, as accrediting products with THX accreditation costs money too. So although Bose products might not be THX-accredited, it shouldn't really mean that Bose should be one-handedly slammed for lacking THX certification. 71.57.74.109 (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit commentary: I'm not going to nuke the THX clause but I will have to tone down the language because it sounds a bit too outrageous and a bit too POV. If it is deduced that stating that a Bose product is not THX-accredited turns out to be biased, then action is likely going to be taken. When mentioning that Bose products aren't THX-accredited, it's imperative not to slam Bose's lack of THX accreditation too harsh that a possible flame war might erupt. So, toning down the language so that it doesn't sound too harsh for now!!! 71.57.74.109 (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Please avoid coloring this with hyperbolic terms like "outrageous" and "slamming". There's nothing "outrageous" about noting this difference between Bose and other high-end products in the Home Theater (HT) segment. I personally found early inclusions about THX too broad which is why I removed them as well. The sentence was focused on HT, and there THX is a factor. You've muddied the waters a bit by eliminating the context, but what ever floats your boat....
As an aside, I find it interesting that this fact so upsets the similarly voluble Bose defenders. It's fair to say this is one more area that Bose avoids (or fails to meet) third-party testing of their products. I suspect that concern among UKP and the anonymous editor has to do with the dissonance between Bose's so-called "high end" positioning but not having THX when the other expensive, HT brands, do. Is it possible that Bose matches them only in price but not performance? Mattnad (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Rebuttal to Mattnad's comment: Honestly "things" sound more neutral if you just said "X product is NOT THX-certified instead of criticising a premium product for not being THX-certified. From what I can see it appears that you seem to be biased towards THX certification in high-end products. The reason why I toned that statement to "Bose products are not THX-certified" was to state that Bose products have no THX certification on a more neutral tone. Period. Likely action is going to be taken on this clause, but honestly, if you decide that Bose's lack of THX has to stay, it's better to say "X products are not THX-certified" than to deduce THX as being a prerequisite for a high-end product, as not all high-end products are accredited by THX. There could be also some reasons why Bose didn't want to pursue THX accreditation on their products and amongst them could be a possible conflict of interest with their technologies. I'm not being too biased, but holding the fact that not all high-end products are accredited by THX, it would be more neutral to say "X products are NOT THX-certified", don't you think? Think about your bias towards this "THX prerequisite" on the long run. 71.57.74.109 (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm open to learning. If you can find other premium home theater lines that are not THX certified, then present them. When I looked, the non-Bose premium products HT all have it. It's the cheaper lines that don't have THX. So perhaps Bose doesn't want to compete with brands that are THX certified - then we can mention that. You may not agree, but THX is a recognized certification process. Assume all you want about Bose's reasons but it doesn't change this fact. I believe you see this as a criticism because you want Bose to be represented as a premium product in all respects. Unfortunately for Bose, THX is one premium label they don't have and that's interesting and notable. And beyond this, what's the purpose of eliminating any criticism (real or imagined) of Bose's approach to the market. It's out there - are we just a brochure for Bose products? Mattnad (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, and I don't want to argue any further (since this leads to a possible flame war)—should Bose have the guts to certify their products under THX accreditation, then they would have to share their protected patents with other THX-accredited manufactuers, a key reason why Bose refuses to accredit their products under THX—a possible conflict of interest. In fact, you should also see whether or not Bang and Olufsen are accredited with THX as some high-end guys chose not to accredit with THX—as THX requires that you share your technologies and work as a team to improve on other technologies and to somewhat "daisy-chain" all technologies to a point where the sound output is optimized. Bose is NOT limited to the HT market as they compete in multiple markets and that's why to mention THX is highly discouraged. You should look at other manufacturers to see whether or not they also compete outside the HT market as just putting all your eggs in one basket is much like judging a book by its cover. 71.57.74.109 (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
If we want to go there we need to list this on ever page out there that does not have THX, we also need to specify that these are one of the few systems out there that self adjust to the rooms acoustics, or that it is among some of the others that have HDMI audio pass through, or comes with heavy gauge wire in the box, that they come standard with radio frequency universal remotes unlike all others listed, and they have smaller sized speakers, or that they are an American made company with phone support in the US not India.... It just gets silly. Either the Lack of THX is a criticisms or it is not because including it in the list of competing companies with the statement that it does not support THX make it seam like a criticism. But even since Bose does not support THX it means very little unless your a movie theater or a recording studio that has built there rooms to THX specifications. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow. A pretty high hurdle you've set for this point - if you want to edit every other page out there go for it. But in the meantime, we can still have this point. I also like your idea of mentioning Bose's auto-calibration - that's a helpful and useful fact. I personally don't think we need to go to every single other article on audio equipment to have standardized specification lists (which is hard since Bose doesn't publish measurements like most manufacturers). Bose has set themselves apart from other makers in many ways. THX is one of them. Relax - it's not the end of your world to have it here. Mattnad (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

look its simple this is a criticism so it belongs in the criticism section not the competitor section... if it is an unfair criticism then it doesnt belong in the article.

Is it just me, or does this look like waaaaaaaay too much effort to include a basically innocuous note that Bose doesn't (yet) have THX. It's not that big a deal guys. I love my Bose gear, but not because it's the pinnacle of great sound. They make a great compact and well designed package for smaller spaces. Yep it costs more - and I pay for that because the aesthetics are also important to me (like B&O mentioned above). There's only so much you can do with little speakers - they know it, we know it, and that's OK. To the Bose goal tenders, step back for a second and really see what you're doing here. Bruno23 (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rant from an Anon

THX is NOT exclusive to HT products--certain products outside HT are also eligible for THX accreditation provided that they are willing to share their patents and/or formula with the association. Take computer speakers for example. [1]

Conflict of interest may be a reason why Bose chose not to accredit with THX. I really don't think that THX should be a hard criticism IMO, but other people may think that should be so. So be it—THX shouldn't be limited to just HT products, so see the citation from my rant if you don't believe me. 71.57.74.109 (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thank you for letting us know that Bose is missing this certification in their computer speaker products as well ;-) BTW, you keep bringing up the conflict of interest rationale for Bose not having THX. Where do you get that from? Is this from Bose or your personal guesswork? Mattnad (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I wish not to side with anyone, but if you have time mister, please go to http://www.thx.com. From what I can gather and understand, THX is more of a trade organization which companies have to "share their ideas" and be willing to adhere to the organization's strict technology and/or audio performance standards. Some companies just don't want to share their patents and/or ideas so from my own point-of-view, some firms refuse to accredit themselves with THX. Take Bang and Olufsen for example. The conflict of interest is from my own point-of-view. Trade organizations are a coalition of firms sharing some sort of interest in some sort of industry, in this case, THX is a set of audio firms that share an interest in improving the overall audio performance of the industry. I don't want to go off-topic any further, so further discussions I will have to ensure it stays within the borders of this article. Bose believes that their inventions are for them only, and only for them alone so they exercised the right not to accredit with THX, and some companies also believe that Bose being THX-accredited also creates a conflict of interest to their inventions as well. 71.57.74.109 (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early History

This statement in the current version is somewhat inaccurate: "The principal weakness, in Bose's view, was that the overall design of the electronics and speaker failed to account for psychoacoustics, i.e. the listener is part of the system."

While it is true that Amar Bose eventually came to the belief that consideration of psychoacoustics would improve listener experience, his initial belief as an electrical engineer was that the problem was frequency response. As the third President of Bose Corporation, I have heard Amar Bose explain his slow journey away from the tradtional "linear" electrical engineers view of speaker design to his current more complex view that includes psychoacoustics.

His puzzlement over how speakers that measured well in the lab could sound harsh led him to some years of research in which he slowly came to an understanding that improvements were less a matter of improved frequency response and lower distortion than issues of then little understood psychoacoustics, and in partiuclar the issues of directionality of the higher frequencies in their arrival at the receiving diffraction object, the human head and pinna of the ears. He discusses these issues in some detail in the 1968 Audio Engineering Society paper "On the Design, Measurement and Evaluation of Loudspeakers." Frank E. Ferguson Frankatca (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mmph...

Stores located in UK airports, and factory outlets discount prices on some products and sell both new and factory renewed (retested open-box) products.

Don't you think this sounds a bit like marketing language guys? Need your feedback on this. Not making radical edits but I would like to get a verdict on your feelings on this. 71.57.74.109 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit promotional, but not offensive. I suppose we could limit it to mentioning they have retail outlets if there are no objections from other editors. Mattnad (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest trying to tone down the "Retail Store" clause a bit just to simply reflect that Bose owns and operates retail outlets and/or sells its products through authorized third-parties, just to avoid any marketing being imminent. 71.57.74.109 (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why UK airport thing got added recently. So I think that should be removed since its kinda silly, but the rest works for me. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Does anybody know how to pronounce "Bose"? I think it'd be handy to have it in the article, if anybody does know. The Baroness of Morden (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Big clue. It rhymes with "no highs, no lows". Greg Locock (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the question. I added the Pronunciation to the page (pronounced /buːws/). -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, UKPhoenix79, it is appreciated. The Baroness of Morden (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad you like :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It was a joke with a serious point. Since the original source that cannot be named provides objective proof of the little ditty it can scarcely be claimed to be untrue- bear in mind that for much less than the cost of a court case I could get the frequency response of a Bose system measured by another third party. I agree, the little ditty does imply that the performance of the said speakers is rather inadequate. If repeating that is defamatory, in the USA, I would be most surprised (in the UK, sadly, the same standards do not apply. That is, in the UK a true statement can still be legally defamatory). I also have no hesitation in calling idiots, idiots, and liars, liars, and lying scumbags, lying scumbags. Do you have a problem with that? I hope not. And never, ever, delete my comments without asking me. Greg Locock (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Man you need to mellow out. Please Wikipedia:No personal attacks you have a bad habit of that here. I realized that what you said was a joke and removed it because it can be taken as Defamation and not appropriate on an encyclopedia. so I removed a joke... nothing less... and then you got ticked off and removed my comment.... Kinda hypocritical would you say?
The laws are very similar in both the UK and US (common law) but I don't know what you mean by true statements can still be defamatory, can you elaborate on that since I'm intrigued. That site you mentioned is anything but objective! But if you were to listen to Bose products you'd realize that the saying is actually false in every way. It should be All highs and All lows, since most of them lack good mids. Go and listen to them and see what I mean. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Respectively;I made no personal attack, it was a warning, take it seriously or not as you choose. Since wiki doesn't operate under UK law then there is no defamation (see later). The Talk page is not part of the encyclopaedic article, obviously. I removed your comment precisely because you removed mine. In the UK you can still be successfully sued for libel even if the statement is true. I am lead to believe that in the USA the truth is an adequate defence. The site that cannot be named is not especially objective (few audio magazines are), the measurements made and displayed in that article, are objective, that is they are made with measuring instruments, and do not rely on anybody's opinion. I have listened to various Bose products, over the past 28 years of listening to audio systems - as a result I have never felt even slightly inclined to buy any Bose gear, except their antinoise headphones, which are a decent, albeit expensive, piece of kit. Greg Locock (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The removal was why I said it was hypocritical, and really but basically git off that high hoss? I'll assume that you meant to say get not slyly trying to call me a git (even though I & E are nowhere near each other on keyboards). Your statement that you can be sued for stating a fact in the UK is not showing me cases or articles in wikipedia showing me this fact. According to wikipedia Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). The link you mentioned is NOT from an audio magazine as you claim but from a personal website that CLAIMS that the tests are real & that the testing facilities are authentic. So the data is actually in real question. But I do agree about the headphones and the prices. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
English defamation law"it was no defence that the pamphlet repeated claims already published, or that the defendants believed them to be true " "a large multinational corporation should be allowed to sue for defamation, and need not prove the allegations were false ". Emphasis mine. McDonalds vs a couple of people, in the UK. McDs won. I'm glad I don't live there. If I wanted to call you a git I would have done so. To be honest that is so far down on my spectrum of insults it would be akin to paying you a compliment. Greg Locock (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Fascinating thanks for the clarification. Nice that they got a higher court to change those laws (much like the us supreme court). But at least things like that never happens in the US! But please watch your words, they do come off as aggressive even if you did not intend it, and watch your spelling too. Use Mozilla Firefox at least it lets you know if you misspelled something. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, Phoenix, wouldn't (pronounced /buːws/) sound more like "booze", or am I misunderstanding the pronunciation somehow? MadCabbit (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL I think your right!!! So I decided to see what Rose would be since it sounds the same. They say rohz, so I guess it should be bohz... Funnny!! Thanks for catching that silly mistake. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jamo link

The Jamo link re-directs users to a page about the hangul language, not an audio manufacturers page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.107.1 (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I fixed the link and directed it to the companies website. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Market share and "the lists"

It's been a while since I've looked at this article, and now the market share section stands out to my eye. What's the purpose or value of a long list of company names that Bose may (or may not) compete with? It's actually a little boring to read and seems arbitrary - especially because it's just business names. In the spirit of brevity and focus, might we eliminate these lists? I haven't seen similar lists with name only for other product-oriented articles. Comments? Mattnad (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. Anybody know of a reason to keep it? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. I moved the "In 2006 Bose ranked second in Home Audio retail, behind Sony (based on retail point-of-sale data for the period of January through October, 2006)." to the intro paragraph since it's high level and relevant. Mattnad (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Along the same lines, the statement "100 percent of its profits are reinvested back into the company" is no longer supported by the reference given (may or may not be true). --Garagefloor (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That page still supports the statement (look carefully), but in reality it's meaningless. They don't explain how they calculate their profits. For instance, the owners, who are also active in management, could give themselves large bonuses which are expensed before net profits are calculated. Likewise, they could choose to issue dividends to their investors and then calculate the final profit after all of that. Mattnad (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)