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.
Bose SoundDock III with Lightning Support Shipping Later This Month for $250
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've got Bose Companion III set up and think it sounds great for the $250 I paid for it. At that price point it is really hard to find another reliably-good sounding system. Maybe it's not pitch perfect but it sounds allot better than comparable systems I've heard. To pay the same for a dock is another matter.
My But it's SLIM!
The chances of something like this having sound any better than dreadful is slim to none. The Dubstep crowd need not even pause to consider this thing.
----------
My understanding is that you cannot get digital audio via Lightning. You need to rely on the DAC inside the telephone.
I have not seen any reviews of the audio quality of the DAC in the i5. But if the past is any indicator, it is not the finest DAC that can be had.
Bluetooth sounds like ass.
----------
They have very good headphones. The price is different issue, however. But if you can just keep breaking them before the year is out, then the price is not a real factor. Other headphones might break in a year too, and not get replaced for free.
Which Bose headphones do you have?
----------
Klipsch and Bose are birds of a feather. In both cases, much better sounding gear is available much cheaper.
The chances of something like this having sound any better than dreadful is slim to none. The Dubstep crowd need not even pause to consider this thing.
----------
My understanding is that you cannot get digital audio via Lightning. You need to rely on the DAC inside the telephone.
I have not seen any reviews of the audio quality of the DAC in the i5. But if the past is any indicator, it is not the finest DAC that can be had.
Bluetooth sounds like ass.
----------
They have very good headphones. The price is different issue, however. But if you can just keep breaking them before the year is out, then the price is not a real factor. Other headphones might break in a year too, and not get replaced for free.
Which Bose headphones do you have?
----------
Klipsch and Bose are birds of a feather. In both cases, much better sounding gear is available much cheaper.
Any audio system in an "acoustically perfect" room will sound just as good or as bad as it is capable of sounding. If you were to put a 1950's pocket sized transistor radio in that room, it would sound like - what? You know the answer.
Just as good speakers will reveal every defect in the audio chain that feeds them, a good room will too reveal every nuance of the sound - good or bad. Great speakers cannot improve bad signals, and great rooms cannot improve bad air vibrations.
----------
Yes, that is correct.
my point exactly, im NOT bias like you are...i know about good products and not just follow the mass public...be a leader not follower... Get a life.
For those who are too lazy to read up on Bose, here is the wiki of the relevant parts
Technical data not published
Amar Bose believes that traditional measures of audio equipment are not relevant to perceived audio quality and therefore does not publish those specifications for Bose products, claiming that the ultimate test is the listener's perception of audio quality according to the listeners preferences.[12][51] Many other audio product manufacturers publish numerical test data of their equipment, however Bose does not[15] In 1968, Amar Bose presented a paper to the Audio Engineering Society titled "On the Design, Measurement and Evaluation of Loudspeakers". In this paper, Amar Bose rejects numerical test data in favor of "more meaningful measurement and evaluation procedures".[51] When tested by independent reviewers, Bose systems often produce inferior results compared to equivalent products from other manufacturers.[52][53]
Opinions about Bose
Discussion of the quality of Bose products can sometimes elicit strong and polarized opinions. There are two major camps: those who see Bose as a maker of high-end equipment, and others who see Bose as a company that uses marketing to make extravagant claims for otherwise ordinary products.
In some non-audio related publications, Bose has been cited as a producer of "high-end audio" products.[3][24][25][26][54][55][56][57][58][59] Commenting on Bose's "high-end" market positioning among audiophiles (people concerned with the best possible sound), a PC Magazine product reviewer stated "not only is Bose equipment's sound quality not up to audiophile standards, but one could buy something that does meet these stringent requirements for the same price or, often, for less."[60] Bose has not been certified by THX for its home entertainment products.[61]
Bose's flagship 901 speaker system was criticized by Stereophile magazine in 1979.[62] In a review of the 901 system, stating that in the magazine's opinion, the system was unexceptional and unlikely to appeal to perfectionists with a developed taste in precise imaging, detail, and timbre; and that these shortcomings were an excessive price to pay for the improvement in impact and ambiance generated by the large proportion of reflected sound [to on-axis sound]. However, the author also stated that the system produced a more realistic resemblance of natural ambiance than any other speaker system.
A 2007 review in Audioholics online magazine reiterated that Bose was very expensive for its performance. Of the Bose Lifestyle V20 Home Theater System the reviewer wrote, "The Bose system is very expensive at nearly $2,000 and the sound quality isn't really any better than many other surround systems costing a third of the price." The review includes an interview with a Best Buy sales manager who suggests from his experience some customers still insist on Bose regardless of the sound quality.[63]
A 2005 market study published by Forrester Research reported that Bose's brand name was among several computer and consumer electronics brands most trusted by US consumers including Dell and Hewlett-Packard.[64]
Legal action
Bose is recognized by audio industry professionals as a litigious company.[65][66] In 1981 Bose unsuccessfully sued the magazine Consumer Reports for libel. Consumer Reports reported in a review that the sound from the system that they reviewed "tended to wander about the room." Initially, the Federal District Court found that Consumer Reports "had published the false statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity" when it changed what the original reviewer wrote about the speakers in his pre-publication draft, that the sound tended to wander "along the wall." The Court of Appeals then reversed the trial court's ruling on liability, and the United States Supreme Court affirmed in a 63 vote in the case Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., finding that the statement was made without actual malice, and therefore there was no libel.[67][68][69] In an interview decades later Bose said "We had 37 people at the time. I gathered them in one room and said, 'If we dont do anything, it will probably kill us. But if we do something, we have no credibility since were just a small company and we cant do anything against this.' I said I think we oughtta do something. I wanted a vote. It was unanimous in favor of taking action. Little did we know it would take 14 years to go through the legal process."[12]
Bose sued Thiel Audio in the early 1990s to stop the audiophile loudspeaker maker from using ".2" (point two) at the end of its product model "CS2.2". To comply with Bose's trademark of ".2" associated with the Bose Model 2.2 product,[70] Thiel changed their model name to "CS2 2", substituting a space for the decimal point.[71] Bose did not trademark ".3" so in 1997 when Thiel introduced the next model in the series, they named it the "Thiel 2.3", advertising "the return of the decimal point."[72]
In 1996, Bose sued two subsidiaries of Harman International IndustriesJBL and Infinity Systemsfor violating a Bose patent on elliptical tuning ports on some loudspeaker products.[66] In 2000, the court determined that Harman was to cease using elliptical ports in its products, and Harman was to pay Bose $5.7 million in court costs.[66] Harman stopped using the disputed port design but appealed the financial decision. At the end of 2002 the earlier judgment was upheld but by this time Bose's court expenses had risen to $8 million, all to be paid by Harman.[70]
Bose was successful in blocking QSC Audio Products from trademarking the term "PowerWave" in connection with a certain QSC amplifier technology. In 2002, a court decided that the "Wave" trademark was worthy of greater protection because it was well-known on its own, even beyond its association with Bose.[73]
In 2003, Bose sued the non-profit electronics trade organization CEDIA for use of the "Electronic Lifestyles" trademark[65] which CEDIA had been using since 1997. Bose argued that the trademark interfered with its own "Lifestyle" trademark.[74] Bose had previously sued to protect its "Lifestyle" trademark beginning in 1996 with a success against Motorola and continuing with settlements against New England Stereo, Lifestyle Technologies, Optoma and AMX.[75] In May 2007, CEDIA won the lawsuit after the court determined Bose to be guilty of laches (unreasonable delays), and that Bose's assertions of fraud and likelihood of confusion were without merit.[76] CEDIA was criticized for spending nearly $1 million of its member's money on the lawsuit, and Bose was criticized for "unsportsmanlike action against its own trade association", according to Julie Jacobson of CE Pro magazine.[75]
Technical data not published
Amar Bose believes that traditional measures of audio equipment are not relevant to perceived audio quality and therefore does not publish those specifications for Bose products, claiming that the ultimate test is the listener's perception of audio quality according to the listeners preferences.[12][51] Many other audio product manufacturers publish numerical test data of their equipment, however Bose does not[15] In 1968, Amar Bose presented a paper to the Audio Engineering Society titled "On the Design, Measurement and Evaluation of Loudspeakers". In this paper, Amar Bose rejects numerical test data in favor of "more meaningful measurement and evaluation procedures".[51] When tested by independent reviewers, Bose systems often produce inferior results compared to equivalent products from other manufacturers.[52][53]
Opinions about Bose
Discussion of the quality of Bose products can sometimes elicit strong and polarized opinions. There are two major camps: those who see Bose as a maker of high-end equipment, and others who see Bose as a company that uses marketing to make extravagant claims for otherwise ordinary products.
In some non-audio related publications, Bose has been cited as a producer of "high-end audio" products.[3][24][25][26][54][55][56][57][58][59] Commenting on Bose's "high-end" market positioning among audiophiles (people concerned with the best possible sound), a PC Magazine product reviewer stated "not only is Bose equipment's sound quality not up to audiophile standards, but one could buy something that does meet these stringent requirements for the same price or, often, for less."[60] Bose has not been certified by THX for its home entertainment products.[61]
Bose's flagship 901 speaker system was criticized by Stereophile magazine in 1979.[62] In a review of the 901 system, stating that in the magazine's opinion, the system was unexceptional and unlikely to appeal to perfectionists with a developed taste in precise imaging, detail, and timbre; and that these shortcomings were an excessive price to pay for the improvement in impact and ambiance generated by the large proportion of reflected sound [to on-axis sound]. However, the author also stated that the system produced a more realistic resemblance of natural ambiance than any other speaker system.
A 2007 review in Audioholics online magazine reiterated that Bose was very expensive for its performance. Of the Bose Lifestyle V20 Home Theater System the reviewer wrote, "The Bose system is very expensive at nearly $2,000 and the sound quality isn't really any better than many other surround systems costing a third of the price." The review includes an interview with a Best Buy sales manager who suggests from his experience some customers still insist on Bose regardless of the sound quality.[63]
A 2005 market study published by Forrester Research reported that Bose's brand name was among several computer and consumer electronics brands most trusted by US consumers including Dell and Hewlett-Packard.[64]
Legal action
Bose is recognized by audio industry professionals as a litigious company.[65][66] In 1981 Bose unsuccessfully sued the magazine Consumer Reports for libel. Consumer Reports reported in a review that the sound from the system that they reviewed "tended to wander about the room." Initially, the Federal District Court found that Consumer Reports "had published the false statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity" when it changed what the original reviewer wrote about the speakers in his pre-publication draft, that the sound tended to wander "along the wall." The Court of Appeals then reversed the trial court's ruling on liability, and the United States Supreme Court affirmed in a 63 vote in the case Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., finding that the statement was made without actual malice, and therefore there was no libel.[67][68][69] In an interview decades later Bose said "We had 37 people at the time. I gathered them in one room and said, 'If we dont do anything, it will probably kill us. But if we do something, we have no credibility since were just a small company and we cant do anything against this.' I said I think we oughtta do something. I wanted a vote. It was unanimous in favor of taking action. Little did we know it would take 14 years to go through the legal process."[12]
Bose sued Thiel Audio in the early 1990s to stop the audiophile loudspeaker maker from using ".2" (point two) at the end of its product model "CS2.2". To comply with Bose's trademark of ".2" associated with the Bose Model 2.2 product,[70] Thiel changed their model name to "CS2 2", substituting a space for the decimal point.[71] Bose did not trademark ".3" so in 1997 when Thiel introduced the next model in the series, they named it the "Thiel 2.3", advertising "the return of the decimal point."[72]
In 1996, Bose sued two subsidiaries of Harman International IndustriesJBL and Infinity Systemsfor violating a Bose patent on elliptical tuning ports on some loudspeaker products.[66] In 2000, the court determined that Harman was to cease using elliptical ports in its products, and Harman was to pay Bose $5.7 million in court costs.[66] Harman stopped using the disputed port design but appealed the financial decision. At the end of 2002 the earlier judgment was upheld but by this time Bose's court expenses had risen to $8 million, all to be paid by Harman.[70]
Bose was successful in blocking QSC Audio Products from trademarking the term "PowerWave" in connection with a certain QSC amplifier technology. In 2002, a court decided that the "Wave" trademark was worthy of greater protection because it was well-known on its own, even beyond its association with Bose.[73]
In 2003, Bose sued the non-profit electronics trade organization CEDIA for use of the "Electronic Lifestyles" trademark[65] which CEDIA had been using since 1997. Bose argued that the trademark interfered with its own "Lifestyle" trademark.[74] Bose had previously sued to protect its "Lifestyle" trademark beginning in 1996 with a success against Motorola and continuing with settlements against New England Stereo, Lifestyle Technologies, Optoma and AMX.[75] In May 2007, CEDIA won the lawsuit after the court determined Bose to be guilty of laches (unreasonable delays), and that Bose's assertions of fraud and likelihood of confusion were without merit.[76] CEDIA was criticized for spending nearly $1 million of its member's money on the lawsuit, and Bose was criticized for "unsportsmanlike action against its own trade association", according to Julie Jacobson of CE Pro magazine.[75]
My opinion is:
For a company that claims "better sound through research", they dispute all standard measurement methodologies and does not publish their own, and therefore all of their claims are subjective and remains unsubstantiated.
This is their original reason for doing psychoacoustic based engineering "research":
"Bose's first loudspeaker product, the model 2201,[13] dispersed 22 small mid-range speakers over an eighth of a sphere. It was designed to be located in the corner of a room, using reflections off the walls to increase the apparent size of the room. An electronic equalizer was used to flatten the frequency spectrum of this system. The results of listening tests were disappointing.[13]
After this research Amar Bose came to the conclusion that imperfect knowledge of psychoacoustics limits the ability to adequately characterize quantitatively any two arbitrary sounds that are perceived differently, and to adequately characterize and quantify all aspects of perceived quality. He believes, for example, that distortion is much overrated as a factor in perceived quality in the complex sounds that comprise music. Similarly, he does not find measurable relevance to perceived quality in other easily measured parameters of loudspeakers and electronics, and therefore does not publish those specifications for Bose products. The ultimate test, Bose insists, is the listener's perception of audible quality (or lack of it) and his or her own preferences.[14][15] This reluctance to publish information is due to Bose's rejection of these measurements in favour of "more meaningful measurement and evaluation procedures".[16]"
That the fact Bose disputes all standard methodologies in measurement and quantification theory, they can't engineer using any available science to form a meaningful feedback between psychoacoustic model research (understanding human hearing) and electromechanical research, because they dispute all electromechanical research on measurement thus far applied to sound.
This is what is said of Amar Bose: "Amar Bose believes that traditional measures of audio equipment are not relevant to perceived audio quality and therefore does not publish those specifications for Bose products".
Notice that he categorizes audio perception and thus reproduction as a "belief". It is no wonder why he doesn't have to substantiate any claim, and can sell you a "belief". Worship him and his cult.
Lastly, recording studios and sound engineers all produce according to measurement. All studio equipment (mixers, DACs, sound monitors, headphones, etc, etc) are ALL rigorously tested and measured to SPECIFICATION. If Bose intends to reproduce faithfully the original sound as intended, then they necessarily MUST have some measure of their own equipment for the public to compare. However, seeing as so much of their desired sound (Wave radio for example) is achieved through DSP processing (read "psychoacoustic processing"), no wonder why they are left out of the bit-perfect, objectively measured, audiophile crowd.
Then you have the REAL pioneers in the audio industry, from the enormously successful Centrance, who developed the DACport and licenses their firmware code to other big names like Bel Canto, Benchmark and Lavry (just to name a few). A product that sounds good (subjectively MOST Of the time) and measures sublimely.
Then there is the smaller, DIY names like NwAvGuy, who developed the O2 amplifier and ODAC, showing once and for all, that an objectively designed, well engineered audio product can compete with much more expensive products with weaker designs. I'm sure many of MacRumors readers are familiar with Centrance, Benchmark, Bel Canto and the minute budget O2 and ODAC.
To give credit where credit is clearly due, BOSE HAS been able to make low level, casual entertainment listening a joy for many. And where audiophile-like precision is not required, psychoacoustic processing can be interesting to the listener when it is not distracting. However, to be FAIR to other pioneers, there were LOTS of psychoacoustic models that did different things like "Q-Sound, A3D (which was awesome), Virtual Dolby, SRS3D and SRS WOW, etc, etc". But don't for a single minute confuse Bose with Pro Audio quality, or even Hi-Fi.
For a company that claims "better sound through research", they dispute all standard measurement methodologies and does not publish their own, and therefore all of their claims are subjective and remains unsubstantiated.
This is their original reason for doing psychoacoustic based engineering "research":
"Bose's first loudspeaker product, the model 2201,[13] dispersed 22 small mid-range speakers over an eighth of a sphere. It was designed to be located in the corner of a room, using reflections off the walls to increase the apparent size of the room. An electronic equalizer was used to flatten the frequency spectrum of this system. The results of listening tests were disappointing.[13]
After this research Amar Bose came to the conclusion that imperfect knowledge of psychoacoustics limits the ability to adequately characterize quantitatively any two arbitrary sounds that are perceived differently, and to adequately characterize and quantify all aspects of perceived quality. He believes, for example, that distortion is much overrated as a factor in perceived quality in the complex sounds that comprise music. Similarly, he does not find measurable relevance to perceived quality in other easily measured parameters of loudspeakers and electronics, and therefore does not publish those specifications for Bose products. The ultimate test, Bose insists, is the listener's perception of audible quality (or lack of it) and his or her own preferences.[14][15] This reluctance to publish information is due to Bose's rejection of these measurements in favour of "more meaningful measurement and evaluation procedures".[16]"
That the fact Bose disputes all standard methodologies in measurement and quantification theory, they can't engineer using any available science to form a meaningful feedback between psychoacoustic model research (understanding human hearing) and electromechanical research, because they dispute all electromechanical research on measurement thus far applied to sound.
This is what is said of Amar Bose: "Amar Bose believes that traditional measures of audio equipment are not relevant to perceived audio quality and therefore does not publish those specifications for Bose products".
Notice that he categorizes audio perception and thus reproduction as a "belief". It is no wonder why he doesn't have to substantiate any claim, and can sell you a "belief". Worship him and his cult.
Lastly, recording studios and sound engineers all produce according to measurement. All studio equipment (mixers, DACs, sound monitors, headphones, etc, etc) are ALL rigorously tested and measured to SPECIFICATION. If Bose intends to reproduce faithfully the original sound as intended, then they necessarily MUST have some measure of their own equipment for the public to compare. However, seeing as so much of their desired sound (Wave radio for example) is achieved through DSP processing (read "psychoacoustic processing"), no wonder why they are left out of the bit-perfect, objectively measured, audiophile crowd.
Then you have the REAL pioneers in the audio industry, from the enormously successful Centrance, who developed the DACport and licenses their firmware code to other big names like Bel Canto, Benchmark and Lavry (just to name a few). A product that sounds good (subjectively MOST Of the time) and measures sublimely.
Then there is the smaller, DIY names like NwAvGuy, who developed the O2 amplifier and ODAC, showing once and for all, that an objectively designed, well engineered audio product can compete with much more expensive products with weaker designs. I'm sure many of MacRumors readers are familiar with Centrance, Benchmark, Bel Canto and the minute budget O2 and ODAC.
To give credit where credit is clearly due, BOSE HAS been able to make low level, casual entertainment listening a joy for many. And where audiophile-like precision is not required, psychoacoustic processing can be interesting to the listener when it is not distracting. However, to be FAIR to other pioneers, there were LOTS of psychoacoustic models that did different things like "Q-Sound, A3D (which was awesome), Virtual Dolby, SRS3D and SRS WOW, etc, etc". But don't for a single minute confuse Bose with Pro Audio quality, or even Hi-Fi.
This charges your iPhone, and is a dock.it's a different product for people with different needs.
Have you seen the new Google Device "wireless charging"? It's insane. I never even fathomed that to be possible.
I think it's called the Nexus Charging Orb, or something like that. Here's a link about if and when Apple will follow suit: http://www.slashgear.com/if-googles-nexus-line-gets-wireless-charging-will-apple-follow-suit-26254222/
It would mean wireless "docks" and then should outlast different connector configuratioins.
All true. Bose delivers very mediocre sound performance, comparable to any other entry-level audio equipment. The only difference is, they charge mid-level price premiums. It's all marketing.
It's not asinine when it's true.
For the guys bashing Bose for being overpriced for what you get...... ummm you own Apple products
Just keeping it real! you can get the same results for a lot less, but your prepared to pay a premium for the design and better UX. I just laugh when I see Apple fans bash Bose. Ahhh the Irony!!!!
Completely different. There IS no "design" and "UX" associated with sound quality. There is only ONE measure - the sound reaching your ear. With Apple products, there are many measures that come into play: the display quality, durability, features, design (of a product you are touching and manipulating regularly), OS, ease of use, etc. etc.
To suggest that paying a price premium for Bose can somehow be equated to paying a price premium for Apple is laughable.
You should probably trust your "expert" friends more, then. The low quality of Bose speakers is simply not an issue of contention among those who know audio (you know, your "expert" friends). This is an Apple forum. Most people here know computers and electronics. Go do some research and check out what audiophiles think of Bose. Check out what professional audio reviewers think of Bose. It's just so well established that they produce substandard sound that it's not really debated anymore. If you have a Bose product that you enjoy...great. Just don't go around touting the "high quality" of Bose - there is no such thing.
(And I had the premium Bose system in my Cayenne S. Don't laugh - it came with it!)
It might be a delightful throwback to a simpler time. Wireless charging seems new at first sight, but remember that the first radios (google crystal radios) didn't need power at all. You can get one today (as a full unit or a kit), and use the AM radio waves to energize the transducer to directly produce sound. So the device is literally powered off the radio waves in the air!
In a similar fashion, someone proposed (a few years ago, I think), wireless energy harvesting by capturing stray radio waves (from routers, radios, microwaves, etc, etc) and trickle charge batteries in a principle not dissimilar to the first AM radios, in a way.
I remember reading about Tesla proposing a novel method in his time to transmit power over large distances using EM waves, but can't remember the details at this moment. And there was blimp-balloon based wind farms idea that would "beam" back intense waves of EM to be captured on the ground via antennae and transformed back into plain electricity.
Or they could just make systems that don't have issues, none of my equipment has ever failed, and blows away anything that BOSE makes for about half the cost. That includes build quality.
If you have Airplay and a decent setup, try these guys for speakers.
http://www.cerwinvega.com/#
That is very original!
It is funny whenever the topic of Bose comes up you always have two very strong sides. One of course is the bashers and the other are the people that have actually bought the product and are very happy with their purchase.
If Bose was so terrible how in the world do they have one of the highest customer satisfaction ratings in the whole consumer electronics industry? Why do people keep coming back to the company? Marketing will only get them in the door. If your product is horrible or defective customers will not come back.
Many like to state that Bose does not publish specifications in the name of marketing, but this is no new idea. Dr. Bose didn't publish specifications from the very beginning. He was opposed to it and said that the only thing that matters is how it sounds to you. If you like how it sounds you buy it. If you don't you look at another product.
Most of the bashing about Bose could also be said about Apple. You can buy a PC that will perform as well (or in the case of Pro desktops better) for less money. You can buy a tablet with just as good of processor or a phone that is just as fast and will probably do more for less. Why then do people keep coming back to Apple? Because it just works, it looks nice and the company stands behind the product. Sure some of it is because of the logo on it and that is true for Bose and Apple, but make no mistake both of these companies operate in a very similar fashion.
Bose and Apple do not allow resellers to put their products "on sale" unless corporate allows it and then each must match the sale price. Both of them are big on proprietary technology and will go to court to defend it and both use a lot of the same sort of marketing techniques. Check out an Apple store then go look at a Bose store. Bose bashers complain that Bose doesn't have other brands of speakers in their store to compare them or that Bose has it's own area set up in larger department or electronics stores. Go look at what Apple does? Hmm...
Pretty much all of my audio equipment is Bose. I will never go on record saying it is the best, but I like how it sounds. Period. I also like that it lasts and lasts and if there is a problem I know that they can service it. If a Bose product breaks you don't throw it away. You call customer service and send it back to the factory in North Carolina. Even if it is out of warranty almost every repair has a low flat rate charge and I know a few people that never even received a bill in the end. Buy what you want, but if you don't own the product or would never consider owning the product then your opinion doesn't matter much as far as I am concerned.
That is why I went with the SoundLink Mobile. It has a little less power, but is a great product and is portable. It works very well and is well built.
And the elephant (sized cock-up) in the room?
Apple should never have changed the origiinal dock connector and this conversation wouldn't have taken place.
Old Jobs' Apple-Good
New (Change For Changes Sake Cos We've Run Out Of Ideas) Apple-Bad
It Wasn't Broken ....
Yea because under Steve Jobs the Lightning connector would had never been released. I am sure the Lighting connector had been in some kind of design stage before Jobs sadly left us.
BOSE's thinking makes no sense.
Think if a car manufacturer told you "We make the best cars" or "Our cars drive the best."
Yet, they won't tell you their top speed, how much horsepower, how many pounds of torque, how well they handle and corner, how safe they are, and would reject all tests by Car and Driver magazine.
Their evidence would be to tell you that "people that drive our car like the way they drive." with their test audience being people that have never driven a car before.
Think if a car manufacturer told you "We make the best cars" or "Our cars drive the best."
Yet, they won't tell you their top speed, how much horsepower, how many pounds of torque, how well they handle and corner, how safe they are, and would reject all tests by Car and Driver magazine.
Their evidence would be to tell you that "people that drive our car like the way they drive." with their test audience being people that have never driven a car before.
You forgot the most important point:
.5: What Bose product are you actually talking about?
They have too many to simply say "Bose sucks" without some frame of reference.
My wife noticed the vastly improved sound quality going from our 04 MDX to our current 09 with the Pioneer system.
I've had my stereo in my Z06 on less than a few times because it has the crappy bose speakers. The exhaust has far better sound quality
At least for the headphones that is unfortunatelly true. I have the QuiteComfort 15 and although the noise cancellation is the best i've ever experienced, the sound is not even average. The biggest issue is that they almost have no bass (which makes 'em good for movies though). On the other side I can not say that about the sound docks - I actually like the sound of them.
I take it you don't own any Bose equipment nor would you ever own any so why is this all such a big deal to you? We are talking about buying a dang speaker here not trying to convert someone to a new religion. I can only speak about my experiences with the product and the company. The fact remains most Bose customers just like Apple customers are happy with and enjoy their purchase. They are listening to it and your not.
Car and Driver or any other sort of automobile rag for that matter is the last place I would go to when researching a new car or truck purchase. I would go look at quality studies and Consumers Reports surveys first. Then I would go out on the Internet and talk to some current owners and last I would test drive each car. It is sort of like buying a speaker. You don't buy it because you read about some specs in some magazine. You buy it because you listened to it and like how it sounds and works.
One thing that is often overlooked especially when it comes to surround systems is the complexity of it all. Have you ever looked at most surround receivers that have 100 buttons on the front all with labels that most people don't even understand? This is a big selling point of the Lifestyle systems. They are very intuitive to use and there are only a few settings. I mean they even tell you if you have it hooked up right or not. Yes sound matters, but user experience does as well. Once again most people that really take the time to try and stop people from buying Bose are not people that had a bad Bose ownership experience, but they are people who would never buy the products in the first place.