Tickets prices would still have to go up. You can lower salaries all you want, but franchise value and annual profits CANNOT decrease.
----------
Beats are nowhere near "Hipster" headphones or speakers.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Reportedly Preparing to Remove Bose Audio Products From Retail Stores
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Tickets prices would still have to go up. You can lower salaries all you want, but franchise value and annual profits CANNOT decrease.
----------
Beats are nowhere near "Hipster" headphones or speakers.
So by this logic Apple should also offer Samsung smartphones and Windows computers in their retail stores. Perhaps someone wants an iPad with a Galaxy S5 or an iPhone with a Dell laptop.
End of the day, Apple decided to get into the speaker and headphone business (along with subscription music) with the Beats acquisition. If they choose not to sell competing products in their stores than so be it.
Your quotes are getting sillier
No, good people as in they do their jobs and stay out of trouble. You know, like everyone else in society.
Please re-read my quote. I said for every 1 bad player you can name I can name 10-15 that haven't had any issues. Meaning the vast majority of players do their jobs and stay out of trouble. Again, like everyone else in society. There's no substantial jump in criminality in the NFL vs the population at large.
As for Lance Armstrong, it was widely known "secret" about his doping. Not the best example you could find.
You speak as if you do know what players do behind the scenes.
Even if you knew what some players did, it doesn't give you a blanket license to condemn all players. Unless you know all players, then by all means, condemn away.
Basing an argument on Jerry McGuire? That's gotta be some sort of first. Again, you're focusing on the minority of players and projecting it on the entirety of the group. Very few players on a team are promoted. Most are faceless names on a jersey doing yeoman's work in the trenches. Are there "fast life" players in the NFL? Yup. Always has been, always will be. Just like there are "fast life" people in other segments of society.
You say you remember when there used to be more honesty in Pro Sports? I say you're misremembering <-- I know that's not a real word. There have always been malcontents in sports. In the media back then, it was either conveniently covered up or completely ignored. With today's pervasive media coverage, it's damn near impossible to do anything without someone finding out. It wasn't perfect back then and it isn't perfect now.
Tattoos are also a proud tradition of the men and women in the military who protect this country and others.
Confession: didn't watch video. figured it to be just as spurious as the rest.
No, good people as in they do their jobs and stay out of trouble. You know, like everyone else in society.
Please re-read my quote. I said for every 1 bad player you can name I can name 10-15 that haven't had any issues. Meaning the vast majority of players do their jobs and stay out of trouble. Again, like everyone else in society. There's no substantial jump in criminality in the NFL vs the population at large.
As for Lance Armstrong, it was widely known "secret" about his doping. Not the best example you could find.
You speak as if you do know what players do behind the scenes.
Even if you knew what some players did, it doesn't give you a blanket license to condemn all players. Unless you know all players, then by all means, condemn away.Basing an argument on Jerry McGuire? That's gotta be some sort of first. Again, you're focusing on the minority of players and projecting it on the entirety of the group. Very few players on a team are promoted. Most are faceless names on a jersey doing yeoman's work in the trenches. Are there "fast life" players in the NFL? Yup. Always has been, always will be. Just like there are "fast life" people in other segments of society.
You say you remember when there used to be more honesty in Pro Sports? I say you're misremembering <-- I know that's not a real word. There have always been malcontents in sports. In the media back then, it was either conveniently covered up or completely ignored. With today's pervasive media coverage, it's damn near impossible to do anything without someone finding out. It wasn't perfect back then and it isn't perfect now.
Tattoos are also a proud tradition of the men and women in the military who protect this country and others.
Confession: didn't watch video. figured it to be just as spurious as the rest.
Last edited:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/10/6956409/nfl-player-fined-10k-for-wearing-beats-headphones
http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/4/6907355/nfl-bose-sponsorship-deal-bans-beats-headphones
Am I missing something? Sounds like this was just put in 6 days ago.
Just to bring it up, but why does everyone think to jump to Apple as the one who chose to remove the products? Seems with the lawsuit, Bose may have chosen this route. Or, even more likely, Bose did not feel they were getting the sell through that makes their efforts in Apple stores worth the efforts. They have their own stores as well you know. Perhaps Bose is the reason that Bose is no longer at Apple stores. Maybe the contract simply expired and one or both parties decided to not renew. The timing could just be coincidental.
I find it hard to believe that these very serious and multi-billion dollar companies would be that petulant and childish as some of the comments suggest. Acting like you have your butt for a hat usually does not play well in the markets - consumer, partner or investor.
And the NFL did not "ban" Beats, they signed an exclusivity deal with Bose and, as per all exclusive sponsorship deals, established controls on when other brands of audio equipment are visible on their property as worn by the people that have employment and other governing agreements with them, ie the players union and the teams. Just like Nike, Gatorade, Under Armor, etc do with their respective products. The only exception that I know of in the NFL is that players can choose their own shoes and gloves, those can be whatever they personally feel helps them.
All people directly governed by an agreement with the NFL have to abide. Players, teams, coaches, etc. And this deal does not replace or invalidate any sponsorship deal any player has, since their collective bargaining agreement supersedes all other agreements. Players cannot sign deals that attempt to supersede it. As in, they can't have a powerade deal on the field, since the league has a deal in place with Gatorade. They can endorse it as their own persons at a time other than just before, during and just after a game or other specific league functions, but cannot make explicit reference to the NFL or their team without permission, which means in this example powerade would have to pay the NFL for the right to associate with them in order to get an NFL mention. The sponsors know this stuff, the players know this and any company wanting to use sponsorships as a marketing tool understands this factor. Or gets to know it.
Apple has not paid the NFL, only selected players. But neither has Sony, Motorola or any other headphone/audio device maker. So they are "banned" as well, to use the language of the forums. It's not about just one brand, but rather all brands that are not Bose.
None of this is new to the NFL or to any company that uses paid celebrity endorsement, or the endorsement of an organization to promote their brands, in any area of consumer or business products. Think the Olympics and visa or McDonald's or coca-cola.
I imagine this at most is tangentaly related to the NFL deal, but not any kind of deciding factor. If Apple did act in such a way of "I'm taking my ball home" it would be disappointing. But with Tim at the helm, I doubt it.
I find it hard to believe that these very serious and multi-billion dollar companies would be that petulant and childish as some of the comments suggest. Acting like you have your butt for a hat usually does not play well in the markets - consumer, partner or investor.
And the NFL did not "ban" Beats, they signed an exclusivity deal with Bose and, as per all exclusive sponsorship deals, established controls on when other brands of audio equipment are visible on their property as worn by the people that have employment and other governing agreements with them, ie the players union and the teams. Just like Nike, Gatorade, Under Armor, etc do with their respective products. The only exception that I know of in the NFL is that players can choose their own shoes and gloves, those can be whatever they personally feel helps them.
All people directly governed by an agreement with the NFL have to abide. Players, teams, coaches, etc. And this deal does not replace or invalidate any sponsorship deal any player has, since their collective bargaining agreement supersedes all other agreements. Players cannot sign deals that attempt to supersede it. As in, they can't have a powerade deal on the field, since the league has a deal in place with Gatorade. They can endorse it as their own persons at a time other than just before, during and just after a game or other specific league functions, but cannot make explicit reference to the NFL or their team without permission, which means in this example powerade would have to pay the NFL for the right to associate with them in order to get an NFL mention. The sponsors know this stuff, the players know this and any company wanting to use sponsorships as a marketing tool understands this factor. Or gets to know it.
Apple has not paid the NFL, only selected players. But neither has Sony, Motorola or any other headphone/audio device maker. So they are "banned" as well, to use the language of the forums. It's not about just one brand, but rather all brands that are not Bose.
None of this is new to the NFL or to any company that uses paid celebrity endorsement, or the endorsement of an organization to promote their brands, in any area of consumer or business products. Think the Olympics and visa or McDonald's or coca-cola.
I imagine this at most is tangentaly related to the NFL deal, but not any kind of deciding factor. If Apple did act in such a way of "I'm taking my ball home" it would be disappointing. But with Tim at the helm, I doubt it.
Last edited:
The problem with sound equipment is everyone has different tastes. Some people prefer the sound they get with Beats and some prefer Bose. I actually have both and I enjoy them both, I have a Beats Pill that I pair my iPhone with via Bluetooth and for that use, it is great. I have a pair of Bose headphones that I absolutely love, they aren't noise cancelling but they might as well be. I can put them on and no matter what I am listening to, I cannot hear surrounding noise. My husband has a Bose sound dock that we use in our apartment and it fills the whole apartment with sound. For me, I prefer my Pill when I am listening to music with more bass and I prefer the Bose when listening to classical music. But you know what? That is MY OPINION! One is not better than the other, they just meet different needs.
Much appreciated. I must confess though, I have broken character and gotten down in the dirt before. Further confession, I immediately regretted it. So now when I see things going sideways I simply tell the poster "You win" and exit. It's not worth it. There are too many good people on the MR forum to waste time engaging the more aggressive among us.
But yeah Bose has a definite litigious reputation. Besides Beats, they have sued Consumer Reports, Thiel Audio, JBL, Infinity Systems, QSC Audio, Motorola, CEDIA, New England Stereo, Lifestyle Technologies, Optoma, and AMX. Merit aside, they are no stranger to a courtroom.
And when Apple owns stores, they have a right to decide what those stores sell and don't sell. They've decided, likely as a result of Bose entering into a contract that bars some Apple-subsidiary products from being displayed at NFL venues by NFL employees, that it no longer makes good business sense to continue promoting products in their stores from a vendor which entered into an agreement which excluded them elsewhere. It's actually pretty simple.
Related: I wonder if the NFL ban applies to other products as well? If an NFL player has AKG, or Bang and Olufsen, or Telefunken, or SkullCandy, or Sony, or Panasonic headphones on their ears, do they get a $10,000 fine? What about white Apple EarPods?
Last edited:
I know... 20 pages of noise, and still nobody has read the article
Nowhere does it say Apple is the one behind the Bose removal. In fact it says Bose may have been the one to choose this.Yet people magically know Evil Apple did it... And the exact reasons too
And then they throw in buzzwords like freedom and choice and babies and puppies...
I love my Bose SoundLink Mini. Great sound and really portable.
----------
Beats headphones = $300
Kaepernick fine = $10K
Free advertising each time a player gets fined = $ priceless
----------
Beats headphones = $300
Kaepernick fine = $10K
Free advertising each time a player gets fined = $ priceless
I sense that Apple's newest ambitions this year are not what Mr. Jobs would have approved of. I think Apple will hit a giant wall sooner than later.
I have to agree, the SoundLink Mini (pictured in the article) is the best sounding small bluetooth speaker I have heard. The depth of the bass coming out of that little box is amazing. Of course, it might not take much time for other manufacturers like Beats to copy the design..
No highs, no lows?
Must be BOSE.
Glad to see Apple getting rid of such a horrible audio brand.
Even Beats is better, and it's essentially just an equalizer applied to their headphones.
Not all of us like artificial bass or artificial sounding gear. I'll save up for a pair of HD800's. They can reproduce 14 to 44.1kHz with a high degree of linearity and accuracy. Beats Pro headphone reproduce...... Um, they won't tell you because they are too ashamed to actually tell you the performance specs. Great for DJ's because you can use them with one ear covered, but I'm not a freakin DJ.
What bothers me about Beats is they don't even tell you anything of the performance specs, which is always nice to know. I guess the average consumer doesn't care what to even look for.
No it isn't. It's like comparing a Honda to a Toyota. They are both in the same fundamental price category, they are both low fi audio products.
If you want to compare a Honda to a Ferrari, then you are comparing Bose/Beats to a Stax, Audeze, or high end Sennheiser HD800's.
How so? Bose has their own retail outlets, Apple can stock whichever headphone companies they want to. They are, by no means, obligated to stock Bose products, especially when Bose has basically gotten one of Beats' biggest sponsored athletes fined $10,000 less than a week after their deal with the NFL. Bose just declared war on Beats by doing so.
I am also a professional audio engineer and can also attest to the fact that I've never seen Bose products being used in any studio or post-production facility throughout California from Todd AO to Skywalker Sound. When it comes to headphones, professionals use the Sony MDR-V600 and MDR-7506, Sennheiser, Beyerdynamic and AKG K240 because they have a flat frequency response that is not sweetened at the high end, or in the case of Beats, at the low end.
As for more recent brands, the Focal Spirit Professional and KRK KNS-8000 have very detailed but flat frequency responses. Bose and Beats don't have any role in professional studios.
As for audiophile brands, Grado SR80 or Reference series, V-Moda M-100, Bowers & Wilkins P7 & Sennheiser Momentums are what I would recommend.
