Talk:Bose Corporation

/List of Bose product sightings

unscientific nonsense

..."as well as the fact that they cannot reproduce a large portion of the audible spectrum."

This is unscientific nonsense. You could argue that it is appropriate for an article advertising a product that relies on technobabble and an easily swayed audience, but the idea ultimately is to tell the truth and expose bogus reasoning, not encourage it. Oh and while we're quoting WP policies, WP:OWN might provide some gentle amusement. Now, obviously you aren't going to get an RS that slams Bose products, the upside is tiny, the downside is a lawyer's paradise. They don't really need to, nobody dies if they buy a poorly constructed piece of gear for an inflated price because the salesman told them it was good. It's a luxury purchase, if you choose to spend your hard-earned cash sending someone else's children to uni, that is your right. Greglocock (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok so I removed this comment saying that I wanted to keep talk page civil. Please WP:Assume good faith So you reverted that saying that I was wikilawyering. I am sorry if you Disagree with 3 different editors, two of which I dont believe have ever edited on this page before, but there is no reason to be uncivil. The reliable source policies on wikipedia are actually a good idea and one that you have championed on other articles I am sure. And your lawyers excuse is very flimsy as our previous conversations have shown. So please be civil and dont try to start arguments for no reason :-( -- Phoenix (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Article format: lead section

I have twice removed bits from the lead section which are not reflected in the article body; specifically about how Bose equipment can be found at this or that well-respected place. The reasoning I have used (twice) is that the lead section, per WP:LEAD should be a summary of the article, and not introduce ideas that are not in the article body.

Beyond the normal formatting of the lead section, I would also resist putting the removed text into the article body, as there is no need in an encyclopedia article for unencyclopedic connections to these other institutions. An encyclopedia article is one that ought to explain connections, not list them. For instance, which Olympic stadiums have Bose gear? What Bose gear is this that is found there? What about the Panasonic, JBL, Meyer, L'Acoustics, Crown, etc. gear that forms the great majority of sound equipment in those stadia? Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok that sounds reasonable. My guess is this should be placed in the history section. -- Phoenix (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

CNET reference

I have pulled out this reference, first because it supported an assertion that Bose made high-end audio gear, and second because it was re-introduced to support the assertion that Bose "specializes in audio equipment", a fact that nobody would ever question.

• http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-7866_7-6218554-1.html C|Net "Classy compacts: high-end CD radios"

This review was used to support the statement that Bose makes high-end audio gear. Bose does not make high-end audio gear, except for noise-canceling headphones and aviation headsets, though other companies such as Grado, Sennheiser, AKG and David Clark make better ones. High-end audio is a term that is very much debatable; one man's meat is another's poison. To most high-end audio enthusiasts, Bose is a joke. Returning to the URL above, CNET's Senior associate editor John Falcone lists Bose as the one company that originated the category "luxury tabletop radio" (a misnomer if I ever heard one), then says that others such as Boston, Polk and Cambridge have picked up and improved upon the market segment. So, Falcone is saying that Bose was, in the past, the founder of the category he calls either "luxury tabletop radios" or "high-end CD radios", but he does not make the same assertion for 2005, the year that his review was written. Nor does he address the 60+ years of tabletop radio products, many makes and models some of which were quite luxurious, that preceded Bose's 1984 entry to the field with the Wave. More generally at CNET, the category "Best Wi-Fi radios", CNET does not list Bose at all. When searching CNET for "high-end CD radios", Bose does not appear in the results. Falcone compares tabletop radios here, but no Bose. Falcone is wrong about Bose originating the category of "luxury tabletop radios" (what about Crosley, Bendix, Wards-Airline, etc.) and he does not list Bose as one of the best "high-end CD radios" of 2005.

Re-introducing the link to support an obvious statement is unnecessary. The link is not needed. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I believe that the High-End statement is a bit weak, but it does show what a lot of people on the street believe and is personified by not only one link but multiple sources. It was talked about before Talk:Bose Corporation/Archive 3#High-end: arbitration? Talk:Bose Corporation/Archive 3#High end citations. The problem with opinions is everyone has them. -- Phoenix (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Another link is this bit at Talk:High-end audio#Citations for Bose being a high-end system where User:ASH1977LAW lists the same old familiar URLs, followed by serious doubts from the only four other editors commenting in the thread... The high-end audio assertion here in this article is not only weak, it is WP:SYNTHESIS to make a general statement composed of a patchwork of lesser statements and throwaway bits. None of the sources says that Bose emphatically, across the board, makes high-end audio products. The third opinion you linked to, requested in 2007, determined that any claims to Bose being "high-end", or to Bose not being "high-end", should not be present in the article as the concept of "high-end" is too hard to define. This is a position I can agree with. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to be blunt on this. I do agree with your assertion, but these are links from valid verifiable and reliable sources. This section is about Opinions on Bose and as such they do back up assertions that people do believe that Bose not only their headphones but their products in general are High-end. Instead of starting an edit war can you bring this conversation to the talk page? Your edits have been good, there are just a few points that disagreements have been found. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is surrounding this statement

In some consumer-level publications, Bose is regarded as a producer of high-end audio systems.

They have been supported by a few sources including the Cnet review mentioned above. But a simple Google News search revealed more. I am sure that many are not appropriate but I believe that there is a general consumer belief about this and that is what the statement is saying. Even though we both dont agree 100% with the statement, I do believe that Bose is perceived as such in the general public. -- Phoenix (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As discussed in 2007, the definition of "high-end audio" is all over the map, and cannot be pinned down. In agreement with the third opinion response, I see no reason at all why this article should include any statement about Bose in relation to high-end audio, let alone the statement "In some consumer-level publications, Bose is regarded as a producer of high-end audio systems." What about high-end audio publications—what do they say?? If that statement is taken out of the article there is no reason to have Tim Gideon provide his rebuttal in PC Mag, so there is a benefit that pro-Bose acolytes can enjoy. On the other hand, if the statement is kept, I will want to expand on Gideon's review, including his statements "not only is Bose equipment's sound quality not up to audiophile standards" and "true sound snobs would roll their eyes at this notion [that Bose is high-end]"; that Bose must "charge a lot ... in order to get across the idea that its product is a luxury item." Bose is all about pricing ordinary audio products high to meet an inflated brand awareness established by marketing, the marketing supported by huge profits dedicated to it rather than folded back in to R&D as stated in the article. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just agree "No DHTs = lowfi"? Any kid can put together a couple EL84s and a Hammond tranny; it takes more than this to actually sound acceptable. CNet is free to ridicule "high-end clock radios" (it definitely made me laugh), and in a sense they are right ($500 for a clock radio is kinda steep), but they are clearly referring to "high end of the market" and nothing else. East of Borschov 16:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to elaborate on your point that they are referring to "high end of the market", that's the rub. Bose is not at the high-end of the market, but is at the high-end of typically low-end segments like clock radios, all-in one systems, boomboxes and satelite speaker systems. They then take that niche positioning and work hard to extend that to their brand. That's a great marketing strategy but it flies in the face of the norm for the industry that depends on measurable performance to define High-end. This aricle does a some to identify this approach of messaging vs. measurement. For me, I'm OK with high-end being used in a focused way to refer to their niches (high-end, expensive clock radios for instance), but other editors have felt it's fine to generalize broadly and conform to the marketing spin. Mattnad (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So for instance, when we refer to their in home speakers, we should be clear that they offer high-end satelite speaker systems. That to me is fair and true. But not that they offer generally speaking high-end audio since expert secondary sources don't support that (e.g. Audio-oriented publications, Consumer Reports).

Yea it is a great idea... and that is why he is used as a source for this statement "Bose is not a producer of high-end audio systems, because it didn't fulfill his expectations of what a high-end system should be". -- Phoenix (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What is a great idea?

I am unsatisfied with the sentence, "A reviewer in PC Magazine stated that he believes Bose is not a producer of high-end audio systems, because it didn't fulfill his expectations of what a high-end system should be." The "because" conclusion does not match what is in the article. Gideon writes that "Bose equipment's sound quality [is] not up to audiophile standards." Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As a general comment, I think we've encountered difficulties here because Bose promotes a wide range of consumer products that include high-fidelity claims and high prices for what are generally speaking not high-end audio form factors: CD/clock radios, boom boxes, and satellite speaker systems connected to integrated minisystems. By design, these are products in classes by themselves and are not expected to compete with full-range audio systems. This article does a very poor job explaining how Bose takes typically pedestrian products and makes them somewhat better and much more expensive. It's not lost on anyone who pays attention to the high-end of the market that Bose's audio offering are typically exercises in compromise. Nothing wrong with that, but most often it means giving something up.

So, being a maker of high-end clock radio is not the same as being a high-end maker of audio/video separate components. The fact that high-end is misused or has wide ranging interpretations among writers who are not professionally familiar with high-end as defined by audio oriented publications only confuses the issue more.Mattnad (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well said. Would you be in favor of taking out the phrase "high-end" from this article wherever it appears? Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I think we need to be less sloppy about it's use or offer a substitute that's accurate given their positioning in both the market (really mid-fi when looking at the whole spectrum of audio) and in the segment (their clock radio is by far the most expensive and possibly one of the best out there and potentially "high-end" in that niche). Perhaps "premium" is term that can be used to describe their approach to the market segments they want to compete in. Mattnad (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of challenged references

MIT Inventor of the Week

• http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/bose.html MIT Inventor of the Week Archive

This 1999 puff-piece about Amar Bose says that his loudspeakers "are world-famous for giving high-end performance despite their modest size." It does not say that they are classified as high-end audio products. The article lists the Sistine Chapel and Olympics stadia as being places where Bose gear has been installed. No details are provided, though, no encyclopedic content about what models of Bose gear and why it was chosen, how it is performing, etc. Useful as PR ad copy, this bit is not useful as an encyclopedia reference for saying where Bose gear has been found. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This source verifies that they are found in the Space Shuttle and olympic stadiums. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It is unencyclopedic, unenlightening and uninformative. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to bring up the Space Shuttle or the Sistine Chapel or some stadium, do it with context and detail so that the reader is informed. As an example, check out the LARES article to see how that product is shown to be installed in the Elgin Theatre in Toronto, at Austria's Vienna Festival, in China at the Forbidden City, at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in New York, the Jay Pritzker Pavilion in Chicago and at the Carmel Bach Festival in California. All of these installations are described in terms of when or what or how. They help the reader understand the product. Binksternet (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cisco NASA Publication

• http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/so/neso/vvda/avvid/nasa1_cp.pdf Cisco NASA Publication

This PDF is primarily about an easy telephone-like communications link established between the Space Shuttle and the ground, and Bose is only mentioned in passing: a "laptop with SoftPhone software and a Bose headset". No encyclopedic content is available here; no expansion of what model headset, why it was selected, what the astronauts thought about it, etc. This URL fails to help the reader understand what possible advantage might be obtained by choosing a Bose headset. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This source verifies that they are found in the Space Shuttle. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No context is given. The passing mention does not help the reader understand anything about the product. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial Wiki and FAQ

• http://toonz.ca/bose/wiki Unofficial Wiki and FAQ

This link is to an unreliable source, full of unverifiable assertions, written by anonymous users. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Not used as a source but a link for people who want to learn more. Could be placed in the external links if must be. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What part of unreliable and unverifiable did you miss? You use WP:V and WP:RS as weapons to take out other URLs but you turn a blind eye to this one. It is a wiki edited by anonymous people and it is unreliable, period. Out it goes. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Otherwise we could include the article that's critical of Bose that has been excised by Phoenix79 in the past. Mattnad (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Forbes Magazine

• http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/BVDT.html Forbes Magazine

The editor-written article about Amar Bose in Forbes says that his company is "a major supplier [of factory-installed car stereos] for high-end automobiles" and that "high-end headphones" is one of the company's expanding product lines. The article does not support the statement that the Bose automotive system is a high-end one, but it does support the statement that Bose makes high-end headphones. However, using this URL to support a larger, general statement about Bose being a manufacturer of high-end audio equipment is WP:SYNTHESIS. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Used with other articles to show that consumer magazines have the opinion that bose is a maker of high end products. This one is about Headphones. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! Used in this way it violates WP:SYNTHESIS. Out it goes. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

At most, this supports a claim of high-end headsets and cannot be generalized to all bose products without other supporting reliable sources.Mattnad (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Popular Science

• http://www.popsci.com/popsci/bown/2004/autotech/article/0,22221,750663,00.html Popular Science

A dead link. The text can be found archived here at archive.org.

Tom Clynes of Popular Science writes, among other things, that "Bose's rental Cadillac isn't equipped with one of the high-end sound systems for which the Bose name is famous." Clynes has written other articles for the magazine, including ones about a new nail design, radio-controlled airplanes, ultralight airplanes and solar-powered airplanes. For other magazines, he has written about Ebola virus, armed uprisings in Third World countries, and has trekked and backpacked around the world. About Bose, Clynes was saying that he thought Bose made high-end automotive sound systems. Clynes is not an expert on high-end automotive sound systems. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Used with other articles to show that consumer magazines have the opinion that bose is a maker of high end products. This one is about Automotive systems. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your argument misses the point that Clynes has no authority on automotive sound systems. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

PCMag.com

• http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1764153,00.asp PCMag.com

This anonymous review from 2005, entitled "High-End, Affordable and Adaptable", a review of Bose SoundDock Digital Music System and two other competitors, cannot be used because it is unverifiable, having no author. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Used with other articles to show that consumer magazines have the opinion that bose is a maker of high end products. This one is about iPod speakers. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Used to put together a WP:SYNTHESIS. Out it goes. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Consumer reviews are not WP:RS by definition.Mattnad (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Mahalo

• http://www.mahalo.com/bose Mahalo

This URL is to a search site that brings together information taken from a lot of other websites. The other websites are credited in footnotes. Some of the footnoted websites are reliable, some are not (such as Smart Indian, a self-published website containing an essay about Amar Bose.) If the information at Mahalo is found to be useful, Mahalo's source URL should be used as Wikipedia's source. Mahalo is not needed as an intermediary. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that's why I didnt reinsert it. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You reinserted it here and here in apparently unexamined reactionary reversions, but you did not reinsert it after that. Thank you for that consideration. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

intellexual.net

• http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html intellexual.net

This link was commented out so that nobody could see it, with an attached comment reading "This link violates two official policies of the English Wikipedia: WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable source. Please do NOT link this page. Thank you for your cooperation." I removed it completely, but Phoenix79 replaced it each time. I see no reason to put a hidden note about one unverifiable, unreliable URL in the article when there are scads of them. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This was kept here because every week someone tries to re-insert the article. This just made it a lot easier then constant reverts. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that it is discussed on the talk page, perhaps the hidden comment is no longer needed in the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Register

• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/18/review_bose_sounddock/ The Register "Bose SoundDock iPod speakers"

This article is a republished version of one that appeared on pocket-lint.co.uk, with Pocket-Lint owner/editor Stuart Miles credited by The Register with asking the question about Bose getting into the iPod add-on business, "can the company bring its high-end loudspeaker prowess to the world of personal audio?" Miles's rhetorical question was used here on Wikipedia to support a statement saying that Bose is a manufacturer of high-end audio products. Miles has no established authority on the subject of high-end audio, and he does not conclude that the Bose SoundDock he is reviewing is a high-end audio product. Using his throwaway question as a reference on the general topic of Bose being high-end is WP:SYNTHESIS. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Used with other articles to show that consumer magazines have the opinion that bose is a maker of high end products. This one is about iPod speakers. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is funny, because Miles does not conclude that the iPod speakers made by Bose are high-end. Fail. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be WP:SYN by extrapolating a rhetorical comment (with little explanation of which speakers and applications) to iPod speakers.

As an aside, Bose may have some high-end SKU's (like headphones designed for commercial applications and some full-range speakers), this article has at times stretched these niche, flagship applications, to define the overall brand as high-end.

As a parallel example, Ford's GT model does not make the overall company a high performance brand that competes with Ferrari.Mattnad (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources Noticeboard

I brought this conversation to the Reliable sources Noticeboard because there is no equivalent for verifiable sources. I hope that we can get this issue resolved one way or another soon :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that—having more eyes on the problem is a good thing. To me, it looks as if you did not appreciate being the lone voice against two editors describing your favorite sources as unreliable, or their use as synthesis, so you called for reinforcements. My expectation is that your rallying cry will bring a greater number of opinions weighing against the use of the dubious sources and against the construction of a synthesis. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; I think that most of the sources above are reliable and support the broad assertion that "Bose is considered high-end." I sympathize with you that the statement is flawed in the sense that the only thing high end about Bose is their marketing but to deny that Bose is perceived as high end by many, many people is futile and disingenuous. ElKevbo (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see a reliable source state, plainly, that Bose is considered high end by many, or that Bose is a manufacturer of high-end audio products. You have not brought such a source to the argument—instead you brought an opinion based on personal observation. Certainly, it would be interesting to discuss why Bose's marketing has succeeded, but I cannot find a source ballsy enough to tackle this subject. Bose's legal department is heavy handed, making objective discussions of Bose very scarce in mainstream publications. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Bose is definitely considered high end. I used to sell electronics, and we had a saying "no highs, no lows, must be Bose". Still, customers thought it was a fancy, high quality brand. I don't think it's that controversial of a statement, so it doesn't require the highest quality peer reviewed source from academe. Not sure which of the above is the best, or if there is a better one, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)