They overpaid for crappy electronics that their own employees can't recommend with a straight face. And the music service was over hyped. Crony capitalism.
Let me know when Apple recoups it's $3B investment. Prove me wrong.
This acquisition (Beats) was most unwise, $3 billion for a peripheral device maker and a small audience of streaming music does not justify the price. Apple would be better off acquiring firms that increase the utilization of Siri or better yet, place the $3 billion into developing a non-adversting app alternative to YouTube.
Or developing its own content for its devices like Netflix Amazon and Hulu have done.
As I predicted this $3B deal Apple will come to regret.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
How again will Apple regret the deal?
At first I thought he was confused and thought that Apple bought Bose, not Beats. But what I think he's trying to say is that if Bose wins the lawsuit and Apple has to take all the current Beats headphones off of the market because they violate Bose patents, Apple would regret the deal. And he'd be right.
While Bose does seem to have these patents, the concept of noise reduction goes back many decades and is well known and there are other headphone manufacturers who use it. A microphone picks up the external noise and mixes it with the audio signal, but out-of-phase. The out-of-phase 'noise' mixes with the real noise and they cancel each other out. Very early on, the Grateful Dead used a similar technique to increase volume levels at live shows without feedback. They'd use two microphones out-of-phase. Any background noise (such as the sound coming out of the amplifiers) would get cancelled. When a vocalist approached the mic, they would sing right on top of just one of the microphones. It wasn't a perfect technique because if the singer backed away from the mic and sang, his sound would get cancelled, so I think they eventually abandoned it, but in theory, it's no different than a noise canceling headphone. Maybe Bose is doing something special, like trying to detect the nature of the external noise and treating it differently.
Contracts usually have indemnification clauses. You usually have to warrant that you own what you're trying to sell. Wonder if the Beats acquisition contract had one. If so, Apple would be entitled to reduce the acquisition cost by any infringement costs.
But I think the courts might also wonder why Bose waited until the Apple acquisition to sue Beats. Not that that would affect the outcome of the lawsuit.
As an ex-recording engineer, while I don't like most of Bose's products, I do think their headphones are quite good (but expensive) and certainly better than Beats' headphones, which really sound terrible to me. I think they have a very sweet and well-balanced sound as opposed to the Beats headphones, which are all mushy bottom. (All IMO, of course).
I wonder what Apple is going to do with all the Bose units that they're removing from stock? If they show up at substantial discount somewhere, I'd buy a pair or two.
Who cares. Bose sucks. Totally overpriced garbage, especially in the "premium" home audio space.
Just put a sock in it will you. Bose does not suck even if you think so. You might as well say the same thing the iHater trolls do when they say that only stupid people buy Apple products. Bose, Beats, Apple, Klipsch, all the premium brands didn’t get to where they are by “sucking” or just because of marketing alone.
…place the $3 billion into developing a non-adversting app alternative to YouTube.
I’m to understand that YouTube doesn’t make money even with the ads. Apple only cares about things that are good.
How are you not using AdBlock+Ghostery+DoNotTrackMe by now? Those plus ClickToFlash makes YouTube a wonderful place. No ads, ever, anywhere. No tracking by Google, ever.
At first I thought he was confused and thought that Apple bought Bose, not Beats. But what I think he's trying to say is that if Bose wins the lawsuit and Apple has to take all the current Beats headphones off of the market because they violate Bose patents, Apple would regret the deal. And he'd be right.
While Bose does seem to have these patents, the concept of noise reduction goes back many decades and is well known and there are other headphone manufacturers who use it. A microphone picks up the external noise and mixes it with the audio signal, but out-of-phase. The out-of-phase 'noise' mixes with the real noise and they cancel each other out. Very early on, the Grateful Dead used a similar technique to increase volume levels at live shows without feedback. They'd use two microphones out-of-phase. Any background noise (such as the sound coming out of the amplifiers) would get cancelled. When a vocalist approached the mic, they would sing right on top of just one of the microphones. It wasn't a perfect technique because if the singer backed away from the mic and sang, his sound would get cancelled, so I think they eventually abandoned it, but in theory, it's no different than a noise canceling headphone. Maybe Bose is doing something special, like trying to detect the nature of the external noise and treating it differently.
Contracts usually have indemnification clauses. You usually have to warrant that you own what you're trying to sell. Wonder if the Beats acquisition contract had one. If so, Apple would be entitled to reduce the acquisition cost by any infringement costs.
But I think the courts might also wonder why Bose waited until the Apple acquisition to sue Beats. Not that that would affect the outcome of the lawsuit.
As an ex-recording engineer, while I don't like most of Bose's products, I do think their headphones are quite good (but expensive) and certainly better than Beats' headphones, which really sound terrible to me. I think they have a very sweet and well-balanced sound as opposed to the Beats headphones, which are all mushy bottom. (All IMO, of course).
I wonder what Apple is going to do with all the Bose units that they're removing from stock? If they show up at substantial discount somewhere, I'd buy a pair or two.
I'd take a Bose SoundLink Mini any day over a Beats Pill which is pure junk.
Just put a sock in it will you. Bose does not suck even if you think so. You might as well say the same thing the iHater trolls do when they say that only stupid people buy Apple products. Bose, Beats, Apple, Klipsch, all the premium brands didn’t get to where they are by “sucking” or just because of marketing alone.
Ironically, Beats actually did get to where they are basically by marketing alone.
Bose has some of the best stuff in the market. It may not be the best sound, but for the size and design, there is little that is comparable.
The Beats acquisition still doesn't make sense to me. And if it, as is rumored, played a role in the silly U2 partnership (and I say this as a U2 fan) then it has already negatively impacted Apple. Even before this drama between Bose and Beats which has soured relations between Apple and Bose.
I understand people criticising Bose as an audiophile solution, their sound is highly coloured (though perhaps pleasing to some, which is fine). But for noise cancelling headphones they simply cannot be beaten. They clearly have superior tech, have patented it, and that deserves to be recognised. I'm all for Apple maximising the potential of Beats in the Apple Store, but they should be a little careful at how they treat other brands.
How do you know Apple actually did infringe Bose's patent...just because Bose claimed so?
As a patent infringement suit filed by Bose against Beats looms, the longstanding retail partnership between Apple and Bose may be coming to an end, with a new report claiming that the premium audio products will be removed from Apple's retail locations.
Citing a "reliable source," MacRumors reported on Friday that instructions are to be sent to employees soon on how to begin changing over inventory starting next week. The change will apparently see the removal of all Bose audio products from Apple Stores, affecting both store shelves as well as demo units coupled with iOS and Mac hardware.
Apple and Bose now compete in the premium-priced audio market, after the company bought Beats Electronics for $3 billion back in May. Like Bose, Beats also makes headphones and speaker systems.
Apple's online store currently lists a total of 17 Bose products, including a range of SoundLink Bluetooth speakers, and the company's popular QuietComfort series of noise-canceling headphones. It's that same noise-canceling technology that prompted Bose Corporation to file a patent lawsuit against Beats in July.
Specifically, Bose has accused the Beats "Studio" and "Studio Wireless," which are advertised to feature "Adaptive Noise Cancellation," of infringing on its patents. Bose asserts to the court that "Beats knows or is willfully blind to the fact that" its products are infringing on its patents.
Bose has been selling its QuietComfort branded headphones with this technology since 2000. For the latest "QuietComfort 20" headphones, Bose says they are protected by U.S. Patent Nos. 6,717,537; 8,073,150; 8,073,151; 8,054,992; and 8,345,888.
The rumored move by Apple also comes as its Beats brand has been barred by the National Football League. The NFL doesn't allow its players to promote unsponsored products, and Bose is the official audio partner of the league.
The issue came to a head this week, after it was revealed that the NFL fined San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick $10,000 for wearing a pair of pink breast cancer awareness-themed Beats headphones at a press conference last Sunday. NFL rules restrict players from endorsing unapproved products when conducting interviews, including 90 minutes following the end of a game.
Beats headphones have already been given a prominent position in Apple's retail stores since the purchase was announced, spotlighting headphones and speakers from the popular brand.
Question: Did Bose think to sue Beats before Apple bought Beats? I, not, that seems like a curious move. I guess Bose is calculating that revenue from Apple stores and associated benefits from an alignment with Apple was not worth it? And Bose enters into an exclusive agreement with the NFL after Apple buys Beats? This all smacks of desperation on the part of Bose that will bite it in the butt.
I'm sure many people here have heard of Bose and may people that regularly fly commercial (that's all you see), but many others in a different market may only have heard of Bose by seeing them at Apple stores.
They overpaid for crappy electronics that their own employees can't recommend with a straight face. And the music service was over hyped. Crony capitalism.
Let me know when Apple recoups it's $3B investment. Prove me wrong.
You're moving the goalpost on your initial assertion that "Apple will come to regret" the Beats acquisition. Obviously we can't "prove you wrong" on something that will either occur or not occur in the future. But check back in a year or two and we'll have a better idea. Apple does thing with very long time-frames in mind (or at least has done so repeatedly). If in 2016 Apple hasn't done anything interesting in the music space (and if Beats isn't the dominant brand in accessories), then I'll agree that the $3B was probably a poor investment. I'll agree that it's a real puzzler, but I give the Apple management team the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
I much prefer Bose products, especially their headphones. Home theatre not so much, it sounds weird. Beats does have an edge in styling, though it's definitely not to my taste, but apparently a big deal to the younger crowd.
How do you know Apple actually did infringe Bose's patent...just because Bose claimed so?
Well, it's allegedly Beats, not Apple that infringed. And I'm not saying they did. But Bose should have the right to have it considered in court without Apple resorting to this kind of tactic (which is still just a rumour).
Both brands are overpriced, the difference that Beats has improved and will continue to improve. Bose is like Monster, people buy them even though they're complete crap.
Comments
Because the only place you can buy BOSE products is an Apple store.
I do hope that was sarcasm. I live in Dallas and there at least five BOSE stores and outlets near me.
They overpaid for crappy electronics that their own employees can't recommend with a straight face. And the music service was over hyped. Crony capitalism.
Let me know when Apple recoups it's $3B investment. Prove me wrong.
Or developing its own content for its devices like Netflix Amazon and Hulu have done.
Let the Bose hate begin.
Garbage in, garbage out.
As I predicted this $3B deal Apple will come to regret.
How again will Apple regret the deal?
At first I thought he was confused and thought that Apple bought Bose, not Beats. But what I think he's trying to say is that if Bose wins the lawsuit and Apple has to take all the current Beats headphones off of the market because they violate Bose patents, Apple would regret the deal. And he'd be right.
While Bose does seem to have these patents, the concept of noise reduction goes back many decades and is well known and there are other headphone manufacturers who use it. A microphone picks up the external noise and mixes it with the audio signal, but out-of-phase. The out-of-phase 'noise' mixes with the real noise and they cancel each other out. Very early on, the Grateful Dead used a similar technique to increase volume levels at live shows without feedback. They'd use two microphones out-of-phase. Any background noise (such as the sound coming out of the amplifiers) would get cancelled. When a vocalist approached the mic, they would sing right on top of just one of the microphones. It wasn't a perfect technique because if the singer backed away from the mic and sang, his sound would get cancelled, so I think they eventually abandoned it, but in theory, it's no different than a noise canceling headphone. Maybe Bose is doing something special, like trying to detect the nature of the external noise and treating it differently.
Contracts usually have indemnification clauses. You usually have to warrant that you own what you're trying to sell. Wonder if the Beats acquisition contract had one. If so, Apple would be entitled to reduce the acquisition cost by any infringement costs.
But I think the courts might also wonder why Bose waited until the Apple acquisition to sue Beats. Not that that would affect the outcome of the lawsuit.
As an ex-recording engineer, while I don't like most of Bose's products, I do think their headphones are quite good (but expensive) and certainly better than Beats' headphones, which really sound terrible to me. I think they have a very sweet and well-balanced sound as opposed to the Beats headphones, which are all mushy bottom. (All IMO, of course).
I wonder what Apple is going to do with all the Bose units that they're removing from stock? If they show up at substantial discount somewhere, I'd buy a pair or two.
Who cares. Bose sucks. Totally overpriced garbage, especially in the "premium" home audio space.
Just put a sock in it will you. Bose does not suck even if you think so. You might as well say the same thing the iHater trolls do when they say that only stupid people buy Apple products. Bose, Beats, Apple, Klipsch, all the premium brands didn’t get to where they are by “sucking” or just because of marketing alone.
No bridge and definitely not confined to a tunnel.
what bridge are you hiding under now?
I blocked this troll months ago. And so should you.
I’m to understand that YouTube doesn’t make money even with the ads. Apple only cares about things that are good.
How are you not using AdBlock+Ghostery+DoNotTrackMe by now? Those plus ClickToFlash makes YouTube a wonderful place. No ads, ever, anywhere. No tracking by Google, ever.
I'd take a Bose SoundLink Mini any day over a Beats Pill which is pure junk.
Good- besides preferring Bose to Beats,
I prefer Braun to Krupps.
Ironically, Beats actually did get to where they are basically by marketing alone.
Bose has some of the best stuff in the market. It may not be the best sound, but for the size and design, there is little that is comparable.
The Beats acquisition still doesn't make sense to me. And if it, as is rumored, played a role in the silly U2 partnership (and I say this as a U2 fan) then it has already negatively impacted Apple. Even before this drama between Bose and Beats which has soured relations between Apple and Bose.
I understand people criticising Bose as an audiophile solution, their sound is highly coloured (though perhaps pleasing to some, which is fine). But for noise cancelling headphones they simply cannot be beaten. They clearly have superior tech, have patented it, and that deserves to be recognised. I'm all for Apple maximising the potential of Beats in the Apple Store, but they should be a little careful at how they treat other brands.
How do you know Apple actually did infringe Bose's patent...just because Bose claimed so?
I blocked this troll months ago. And so should you.
I did, too.. a long time ago.
As a patent infringement suit filed by Bose against Beats looms, the longstanding retail partnership between Apple and Bose may be coming to an end, with a new report claiming that the premium audio products will be removed from Apple's retail locations.
Photo via Paul Stamatiou.
Citing a "reliable source," MacRumors reported on Friday that instructions are to be sent to employees soon on how to begin changing over inventory starting next week. The change will apparently see the removal of all Bose audio products from Apple Stores, affecting both store shelves as well as demo units coupled with iOS and Mac hardware.
Apple and Bose now compete in the premium-priced audio market, after the company bought Beats Electronics for $3 billion back in May. Like Bose, Beats also makes headphones and speaker systems.
Apple's online store currently lists a total of 17 Bose products, including a range of SoundLink Bluetooth speakers, and the company's popular QuietComfort series of noise-canceling headphones. It's that same noise-canceling technology that prompted Bose Corporation to file a patent lawsuit against Beats in July.
Specifically, Bose has accused the Beats "Studio" and "Studio Wireless," which are advertised to feature "Adaptive Noise Cancellation," of infringing on its patents. Bose asserts to the court that "Beats knows or is willfully blind to the fact that" its products are infringing on its patents.
Bose has been selling its QuietComfort branded headphones with this technology since 2000. For the latest "QuietComfort 20" headphones, Bose says they are protected by U.S. Patent Nos. 6,717,537; 8,073,150; 8,073,151; 8,054,992; and 8,345,888.
The rumored move by Apple also comes as its Beats brand has been barred by the National Football League. The NFL doesn't allow its players to promote unsponsored products, and Bose is the official audio partner of the league.
The issue came to a head this week, after it was revealed that the NFL fined San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick $10,000 for wearing a pair of pink breast cancer awareness-themed Beats headphones at a press conference last Sunday. NFL rules restrict players from endorsing unapproved products when conducting interviews, including 90 minutes following the end of a game.
Beats headphones have already been given a prominent position in Apple's retail stores since the purchase was announced, spotlighting headphones and speakers from the popular brand.
Question: Did Bose think to sue Beats before Apple bought Beats? I, not, that seems like a curious move. I guess Bose is calculating that revenue from Apple stores and associated benefits from an alignment with Apple was not worth it? And Bose enters into an exclusive agreement with the NFL after Apple buys Beats? This all smacks of desperation on the part of Bose that will bite it in the butt.
I'm sure many people here have heard of Bose and may people that regularly fly commercial (that's all you see), but many others in a different market may only have heard of Bose by seeing them at Apple stores.
They overpaid for crappy electronics that their own employees can't recommend with a straight face. And the music service was over hyped. Crony capitalism.
Let me know when Apple recoups it's $3B investment. Prove me wrong.
You're moving the goalpost on your initial assertion that "Apple will come to regret" the Beats acquisition. Obviously we can't "prove you wrong" on something that will either occur or not occur in the future. But check back in a year or two and we'll have a better idea. Apple does thing with very long time-frames in mind (or at least has done so repeatedly). If in 2016 Apple hasn't done anything interesting in the music space (and if Beats isn't the dominant brand in accessories), then I'll agree that the $3B was probably a poor investment. I'll agree that it's a real puzzler, but I give the Apple management team the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
How do you know Apple actually did infringe Bose's patent...just because Bose claimed so?
Well, it's allegedly Beats, not Apple that infringed. And I'm not saying they did. But Bose should have the right to have it considered in court without Apple resorting to this kind of tactic (which is still just a rumour).
Good. Kick Bose out. Their manufactured sound sucks.
Keep selling Paradigms like this one: