Despite Patent Settlement, Apple Pulls Bose Merchandise From Its Stores

Apple has long sold Bose headphones and speakers in its retail stores, including in the time since it acquired Bose-competitor Beats Audio, and despite the lawsuit filed by Bose against Apple alleging patent violations on the part of Beats. That's come to an end this week, though: Apple's dropped Bose merchandise both in its retail locations and online, despite recent news that the two companies have settled the patent suit.

Comments

Bose is overpriced crap and always has been

[Anonymous Coward]

And so is Apple.

Re:Bose is overpriced crap and always has been

[Jane Q. Public]

And so is Apple.

Actually, as many review comparisons have noted over the years, Apple's products are priced only a very little bit higher than what other PC manufacturers offer given the exact same hardware.

Further, that slight price difference is fully justified, given the engineering research Apple puts in to ensure that the hardware all works together in complete harmony; most PC manufacturers rely on Microsoft to do that job via drivers and software bridges.

The result is a machine that takes very good advantage of the hardware you do get, and the physical engineering is seldom matched by rivals at anything like the same price point.

So say what you will. Yes, Apples tend to be a bit spendy. But what you get for the price is very fine indeed.

AND -- before I forget -- Macintoshes make some of the best Windows PCs on the market! Without needing VMWare or any third-party VM, Apple (unlike Windows or Linux) fully supports dual-boot out-of-the-box. Just install your favorite version of Windows in Bootcamp, and you have the best of both worlds. Boot into OS X, or Windows. (I know you can do that with other OSes, but they all require 3rd-party VM software to do it. Apple builds it in.)

So when I want to run a game, FPS for example that isn't on Mac... I just restart, and I get the FULL Windows performance... not bogged down via some VM.

But wait! There's more!

I can ALSO install VMWare on the Mac, and if I don't need full performance, I can load THE SAME Bootcamp Windows install via VMWare without rebooting... and while I don't get the same performance as booting Windows, it's not a separate install, it's the same one. I can run all the less-resource-intensive Windows apps all I like, without rebooting.

So it's the best of three worlds. I've got OS X, which is a great OS in many ways, plus I can boot straight into Windows and get full Windows performance, plus I can run less-intensive Windows programs anytime I want via VMWare, without having to install 2 different copies of Windows. It's the same in VM as it is in native boot... down to the very last file.

Nobody else does that.

Long and short: my Mac can kick your PC's ass in most ways (same build date and price range), at being a PC, AND be a Mac as well, with all that comes with that.

If you don't think that justifies a SMALL increase in price for the very same hardware, you haven't tried doing it.

Re:Bose is overpriced crap and always has been

[Anonymous Coward]

[the] price difference is fully justified, given the engineering research Apple puts in to ensure that the hardware all works together in complete harmony

Apparently, autosuggestion is a very powerful marketing tool. :)

Re:Bose is overpriced crap and always has been

[cyn1c77]

And so is Apple.

Apple products are expensive, but generally have good design and performance.

Bose and Beats have good design, but have always been deemed to have poor performance by people who actually review them for their sound qualities.

I'm not hating... check the reviews.

Re:Bose is overpriced crap and always has been

[BronsCon]

Without needing VMWare or any third-party VM, Apple (unlike Windows or Linux) fully supports dual-boot out-of-the-box.

That's a function of the bootloader, not the OS. GRUB, the default bootloader for most Linux distros of any popularity, supports dual-boot, tri-boot, quad-boot, however-the-fuck-many-boot, right out of the box. In fact, the Windows bootloader supports this, as well, though it's a bit more work to set up.

I'm sitting here typing this on a Mac, because the platform does have its advantages, but dual-boot isn't something unique to the Mac.

Re:Bose is overpriced crap and always has been

[qpqp]

Apple's products are priced only a very little bit higher than what other PC manufacturers offer given the exact same hardware

Actually, the high-end Mac Pro is currently cheaper.

I know you can do that with other OSes, but they all require 3rd-party VM software to do it. Apple builds it in.

This has nothing to do with VMs.
Bootcamp is little more than a setup and partition tool. You can have multi-boot (keyword: bootloader) on all PCs including Macs, but you can't just go ahead and install OS X on most of the ones not designed in Cupertino.

Re:Bose is overpriced crap and always has been

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I've priced them out against something like Sony, that's correct.

However, against Asus, who IMO makes better products, they are much more expensive. Let's do it now.

Holy shit, the only Apple laptop that doesn't use Intel Integrated, is the 15" Macbook Pro with Retina display. It's come along a lot, but still sucks if doing anything 3D that actually uses the graphics card.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...
Differences: +.1GHz Lenovo
256GB SSD (Lenovo) vs 512GB SSD (Apple)
Resolution: 3840 x 2160 (Lenovo) vs 2880 x 1800 (Apple)
Screen size: 15.6 (Lenovo) vs 15.4 (Apple)
Graphics: 860M (Lenovo) vs 750M (Apple)
Weight: 5.29 (Lenovo) vs 4.46 lbs (Apple)
Apple lacks a built in Gigabit Ethernet port. It has 2 Thunderbolt ports (basically can be considered proprietary, given usage at the moment)

Cost?
  $1,269.99 vs $2499
So 2 laptops with almost all specs, exceeding the Apple's specs for the same price. (~230 for a 512GB SSD, if you want to increase storage that way, which still puts it at 60% of the cost)

Re:Bose is overpriced crap and always has been

[Anonymous Coward]

it's part of the OS

When was the last time YOU wrote a fuckin' bootloader? Last time I did that was oh, about... a week ago. It most certainly IS a separate piece of code--maybe bundled with other bits of the OS, but it isn't the same binary. A bootloader needs to be SMALL. A kernel can be quite LARGE (and that is the OS *proper*).

Citation, because I fully expect you to be a dumb shit and claim I'm wrong:

BootX (/System/Library/CoreServices/BootX) is the default bootloader on Mac OS X.

BootX is also the name of an open source bootloader (different from Apple's BootX) that allows dual-booting Mac OS and Linux on "Old World" machines.

At this point, BootX draws the Apple logo splash screen, and starts the spinning cursor. If booting from a network device, a spinning globe is drawn instead.
        Depending on various conditions, BootX tries to retrieve and load the kernel cache file.
        The next step is to "decode" the kernel. If the kernel header indicates a compressed kernel, BootX tries to decompress it (typical LZSS compression is used, as you compress this kind of data once but expand it many times). Since the kernel binary can potentially be a "fat" binary (code for multiple architectures residing in the same binary), BootX checks if it indeed is (fat), and if so, "thins" it (figures out the PowerPC code).
        BootX attempts to decode the file (possibly "thinned") as a Mach-O binary. If this fails, BootX also tries to decode it as ELF.
        If the above fails, BootX gives up, draws the failed boot picture, and goes into an infinite loop.
        If BootX is successful so far, it saves filesystem cache hits, misses and evicts, sets up various boot arguments and values (such as whether this is a graphical or verbose boot, whether there are some flags to be passed to the kernel, the size of installed RAM), and also calls a recursive function to flatten the device tree.
        Finally, BootX "calls" the kernel, immediately before which it "quiesces" Open Firmware, an operation as a result of which any asynchronous tasks in the firmware, timers, or DMA get stopped, etc.

If you mean bundled the same way OS X is, then GRUB is part of the OS too, since distros package it up with the kernel.

You fail. Please do not ever write system software because it would be worse than The Poettering. This comment is on par with you claiming that iOS is part of the "Linux theme". FFS, you keep showcasing how ignorant you are about system dev, so please do us all a favor and SHUT THE FUCK UP.

The worst part is that you make some pretty intelligent comments--until you get into talking shit out of your ass about things you clearly don't know diddly about. So again, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Re:Bose is overpriced crap and always has been

[Dog-Cow]

You are an idiot.

I was using the same NT 4 install as a native boot and under VMWare, under the original VMWare beta. Back before it was Workstation, back before Player or any of the server products existed. Back when you had to build the kernel modules by hand after tweaking the kernel. Back when the only VMware version available outside the company was for Linux. Back before OS X was released.

Re:Bose is overpriced crap and always has been

[Zontar The Mindless]

Admit it, Jane. You not only inhaled--you drank the bong water afterwards.

Re:Bose is overpriced crap and always has been

[Anonymous Coward]

I make my living as a writer and editor

Use your skills where they make a difference, then. Hint: in many cases a "grammar train wreck" is fine as long as the meaning is not ambiguous. Conversations and comments on slashdot are two such cases.

Re:Bose is overpriced crap and always has been

[drinkypoo]

Actually, as many review comparisons have noted over the years, Apple's products are priced only a very little bit higher than what other PC manufacturers offer given the exact same hardware.

So what? Apple makes their decisions on a different basis than I do. They choose parts based on maximum availability and profit. I choose parts based on price:performance ratio. I can build much more machine for significantly less money. Who cares if some other corporations are also trying to milk me?

I can ALSO install VMWare on the Mac

Yeah, I can also install vmware on my PC, and run MacOS in it, because some people have worked around the roadblocks that Apple put in the way to prevent users who pay for their software from doing that. How odd that Microsoft will permit me to virtualize their OS, but Apple won't. It's almost like they're bigger assholes than Microsoft. No, wait. It's exactly like that.

Re:Bose is overpriced crap and always has been

[ray-auch]

But mainly, as I clearly stated above, what you are missing with other products is that you don't have the option of dual-booting AND, at the same time, running the SAME foreign OS install in VMWare or the like. If you want to do that you are stuck with 2 different foreign OS installs, and your files won't be in sync.

I didn't say dual-booting was unique to Mac. Read it again. What I wrote was that it's BETTER. Especially if you have VMWare. While that's a third-party product, it enables you to do what other OSes won't do, even with VMWare.

Without specifying which VMWare product it is a bit difficult to see what you are getting at - workstation or full ring-0 hypervisor like ESX ?

If you mean just the option of booting a virtual disk (vhd) which you can also use in an emulator, Windows has had that for 5 years (since 7) without needing a third party emulator (VirtualPC from MS).

If you mean having the option of booting a vhd and having also a full hypervisor that can run that vhd as a virtual machine, built into the OS, Windows has had that for six years on the server OS versions, and two on client (Windows 8) - Hyper-V is built in along with native-boot-from-vhd.

There are also Linux options for both boot-native-from-vhd and built in hypervisors.

So, struggling a bit to see what it is you think other OSes can't do ?

Re:Bose is overpriced crap and always has been

[The Grim Reefer]

Because you complained about modding like a twat, modbomb on the way to as many posts of yours as I can, once I get me one of them piles of 15 I get regularly.

While I understand the sentiment, as I have been tempted to do the same in the past, I respectfully ask you to not abuse the mod system this way. The mod system is meant to be used to rate each post on it's own merits, not the poster themselves. I'm not judging Jane.q here, but even trolls can make a good point on occasion.

Re:Bose is overpriced crap and always has been

[vux984]

"Actually, as many review comparisons have noted over the years, Apple's products are priced only a very little bit higher than what other PC manufacturers offer given the exact same hardware"

This is true. But give a PC buyer a choice between a PC that comes with a bluetooth keyboard and mouse, thunderbolt, wireless 802.11ac, and 4 usb 3 ports at one price and another PC with the SAME CPU and RAM and harddrive but comes with wifi keyboard and mouse, no thunderbolt, wireless-n, and 2usb3 ports + 2usb2 ports that costs $300+ less and nearly all them will have no reason to justify the expense of the premium model.

That is the issue with Macs. They sell you stuff you don't need, don't care about, and can't use. Wireless-ac being forced down our throats for example... what home user cares about it? What is it going to talk to at 1.3GPs? Or bluetooth peripherals? wifi gear is half the price, tends to do better on battery -- hell logitech makes solar wifi keyboards now. Or thunderbolt?Why exactly is every imac user paying for two of them? I've yet to meet a single home user with a single thunderbolt peripheral.

Save one -- bunches of pissed of macbook pro owners who need a thunderbolt to ethernet dongle because apple didn't deign to give a pro laptop a built in network port.

Re:Bose is overpriced crap and always has been

[Kumiorava]

We can always go and compare a gaming rig to a proper business laptop, but that just doesn't make sense. There are few important things missing from the configuration from Lenovo. First is the IPS panel, you are able to get 4K TFT monitor for far less than retina resolution IPS panel. Second major issue is that Apple comes with proper 8h battery life while Lenovo will run out around 4h. Third is professional Windows license, which OS X certainly compares to.

If you try to get true Lenovo mobile workstation then the $2500 starts to be a bargain. There are valid reasons why you are able to get the machine you linked in that particular price and Lenovo mobile workstations with lesser specifications for far higher price.

Re:Bose is overpriced crap and always has been

[Kumiorava]

Also I forgot to mention that Apple SSD PCIe drives perform about twice as fast as your average SSD on SATA port... which does not come cheap as well. Together with double capacity you are looking at performance that even money cannot buy for this particular Lenovo machine. Higher-end Lenovo's can easily match that, but it comes with a price.

Re:Bose is overpriced crap and always has been

[Skarjak]

Did we just witness the writing equivalent of an internet tough guy?

Re:Bose is overpriced crap and always has been

[AK Marc]

Whether or not the OP was a train wreck, the correction was wrong. Those are separate issues.

Also, English is proscriptive, not descriptive (yes, I know the Grammar Nazis hate that), so if the meaning is clear and unambiguous, and likely to have been used by a native speaker, then it's "correct". His train wreck was correct enough, and more correct than the wrong correction issued after.

One crap audio brand battling with another

[CRCulver]

Both Bose and Beats are fairly ordinary products that have simply learned to dazzle the public with good marketing. An element of fashion is also involved, as Bose used to be marketed in posh fora and Beats has a distinctive look and Dr Dre endorsement. So, I can't feel sorry for either party -- or for Apple whose own acquisition of Beats betrayed their own tradition of fairly decent sound -- in a bitter patent battle. For what it's worth, after evaluating a few Beats 'phones and being immediately disappointed, I invested in a pair of AKG 701s (see my Amazon review) that offer what one immediately recognizes as better sound, and are around the same price (and well below audiophile woo-woo).

Re:One crap audio brand battling with another

[Anonymous Coward]

>Product Description

>There are houses, and then there are mansions; there are cars, and then there are Bentleys, There are headphones, and then there are AKG K 701s — get the idea? AKG K 701s aren't for everybody, only people who demand the best performance from their phones and absolutely will not compromise on sound quality. If that's you, then prepare to be throughly satisfied. From the first time you feel their luxurious 3D-Form ear pads and self-adjusting cushioned leather headband, you'll be throughly impressed by the exquisite craftsmanship and appreciable build quality. And that's before you plug them in.

And this clown has the nerve to whine that Beats "dazzles the public with good marketing", lmao...even Apple wouldn't lay it on that heavy...sheesh.

Re:One crap audio brand battling with another

[_merlin]

AKG isn't even that great. For pro work these days people are moving to Audio-Technica and Shure.

Re:One crap audio brand battling with another

[CRCulver]

That appears to be Amazon's own text, and not AKG's. I can find no reference to this text on AKG's own site, and doing a search on portions of that Product Description bring up only Amazon or sites that have scraped Amazon.

Re:One crap audio brand battling with another

[dgatwood]

I always find it amazing that audiophiles want 'flat'...this is nice is you want to listen to 'audio' as opposed to music. Unless I'm doing sound design work where the stuff is intended to be in a variety of types and styles of music (i.e., owned a company that use to provide instrument samples / libraries for synth companies), I'm not going to want to listen to anything flat.

Audiophiles—at least the ones who competently seek ways to improve quality, as opposed to the pseudoaudiophiles that spend $200 on a power cord—often listen to a wide range of music. For us, flat is a virtue, because any accentuation of frequency ranges that makes one style of music sound better invariably makes another style of music sound worse.

Re:One crap audio brand battling with another

[sound vision]

"Flat" relating to headphones usually means a flat frequency response, unless you are talking to people who don't have a clue (which is a very real possibility). A flat frequency response is the goal of a high fidelity system, the very word "fidelity" means trueness to the original source, which is what you get with a flat frequency response. The idea that a speaker needs to distort the sound because it "sounds good" is absurd, and in fact it's the exact same rationale audiofools have for preferring vinyl. Vinyl inherently has an uneven frequency response (among other things) and it is those characteristics that give it is distinctive sound, leading some to prefer it. It is distinctive but it is low fidelity, just like a poor set of speakers. Besides, if you want the treble or bass jacked up or some other frequency band notched, that's what equalizers are for. Although it should be noted they are called equalizers because the intent is to bring an equal loudness to all frequency bands - aka, a flat frequency response. To compensate for speakers that are not already flat.

Re:One crap audio brand battling with another

[CRCulver]

"Invest" in this case is a venerable old metaphorical usage (see "to make use of for future benefits or advantages" in Merriam-Webster), meant in this case to express my outlay of a considerable amount of money in the expectation that these particular headphones would provide me with such long listening enjoyment that the initial purchase price would hardly seem excessive.

Re:One crap audio brand battling with another

[CRCulver]

You consider $230 a considerable amount of money? Do you live in Sub-Saharan Africa or some shit?

I live in Romania, where the headphones I mention cost around half the average monthly salary. There's a wide range between Third World poverty and your presumably US income, and many Eastern Europeans would balk at spending so much for headphones.

Re:One crap audio brand battling with another

[Anonymous Coward]

In Sub-Saharan Africa we consider the $2 for the "Samsung galaxy S i9000 replacement earphones (free shipping worldwide)" a considerable sum of money, you insensitive clod. Fucking 1%-ers and your stupid jokes.

Re:One crap audio brand battling with another

[Aighearach]

That's like saying you prefer to look at photos that haven't had any work done in photoshop because it's more true to the source or some shit. Sort of like how audiofools never seem to have a problem wacking off to lossy jpegs but put on an mp3 and you'll never hear the end of it.

No, it is like saying you prefer to look at photos that haven't had any extra photo filters applied after the artist has already completed and distributed the image. Yes, of course the artist uses photoshop; just like the recording professionals use distortion!

The reason you want a flat frequency response from the speakers is because the sound has already been properly distorted by the artist. Just like, a computer monitor with accurate color will reproduce the colors the artist chose in photoslop!

Re:One crap audio brand battling with another

[Lehk228]

I am american, I would balk at spending $230 on headphones, right now I am using a $30 logitech USB headset, and to me that was pricey for headphones, but worth it because being USB it gets it's own sound device when plugged in and I can route certain sources to headphones while others still go to the speakers.

Tit for tat

[93 Escort Wagon]

I imagine Beats/Apple isn't too happy with Bose's shenanigans regarding telling NFL players they can't wear their Beats headphones until 90 minutes after the end of the game.

Of course the players do it anyway, and Beats apparently pays the fines for them... but still.

Incidentally, the NFL isn't doing very well with regards to their endorsement deals - first Microsoft, and now Bose.

Re:Tit for tat

[rmdingler]

True.

And the NFL isn't doing very well with their Beats women & children shenanigans either.

Re:Tit for tat

[tlhIngan]

I imagine Beats/Apple isn't too happy with Bose's shenanigans regarding telling NFL players they can't wear their Beats headphones until 90 minutes after the end of the game.

Of course the players do it anyway, and Beats apparently pays the fines for them... but still.

Incidentally, the NFL isn't doing very well with regards to their endorsement deals - first Microsoft, and now Bose.

The problem is you have a conflict of endorsements.

The NFL is being paid directly by Microsoft and Bose to promote their stuff - Microsoft and Bose can put "Official NFL Product" on those things.

The problem is, the teams and players don't really see much of that money because it goes straight into the league. Sure, they may get a few bucks in the way of stadium improvements and such, but you can bet most of that money isn't going into their paycheques.

So the players and teams often have their OWN endorsement deals. This money goes directly to the team and the players themselves. Sure some goes back to the NFL in terms of league fees and whatnot, but it's extra income for the team and player.

So what's a player to do? Be forced to wear Bose which nets them ZERO dollars in the end? Or wear their Beats which nets them millions in extra dollars in their pocket?

It's obvious why the players are defying the rule. And in fact, you have to admit, it's getting a LOT of marketing for Beats as well - I mean, they're being fined, in public, for wearing Beats. With photos. In the news. Now what is better marketing - the player wearing it on the field or a news conference, or having it plastered all over the news with closeups of the offense with news they're being fined for wearing Beats headphones (and barely a Bose mention!).

It's actually kind of brilliant marketing - Bose gets made out to be the bad guy, and Beats gets plastered all over the news section, so much so that the $10,000 fine is well worth it - marketing expense.

List of NFL Finable Offenses, with fines.

Heck, one wonders if they're going to get a bunch of stickers to stick over their Bose headphones with the iconic "b". I mean, it doesn't get more interesting than that - they wear Bose headphones, but they're sporting the "b" that clearly indicates Beats.

They are competitors

[MikeMo]

It's plain and simple: now that Apple owns Beats, it makes no sense to sell their competitors products. It just isn't done.

lol

[Charliemopps]

So 3 companies, all of whom make electronics that consist of about 99% hype and about 1% tech, sue each other?

What's funny is Bose has been at this a very long time. Don't buy Bose people! It's a scam, it's always been a scam. There are plenty of good stereos and speakers out there, Bose doesn't make any of them. And beats? That's literally the cheapest Chinese headphones they could find this month and they slap a Dr Dre sticker on it.

Re:lol

[TechyImmigrant]

Bose noise cancelling headphones are not a scam. They were qualitatively far far better than anything else on the market when they came out and they still seem to be better today.

I'll be taking my rather ancient set of QC3s on the plane tomorrow.

Re:lol

[chromaexcursion]

40, 50, + years ago Bose did original research in speaker design. It changed things.
They patented it.
If physical patents were treated the same way as intellectual property patents are now, Bose would rule audio.
Is Bose over priced? yes. I won't pay for a name, but some will. At least it works.
All Beats has is a good marketing director.

Re:lol

[TechyImmigrant]

I call BS. The Sony's barely worked. I tried them back to back with the Bose.

Active noise cancellation is not about HiFi. It's about high background noise environments like on airplanes or in offices.

Try a set of Bose QC3s in a quiet environment, listening to music through a stereo of any quality will not be better than something with a large seal and a half decent speaker, but that's not the point. I doubt people could actually tell the difference in a quiet environment. If there's nothing to cancel, cancellation doesn't help. But in a high noise environment, the Bose are clearly better.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former audiophile (my ears are getting old), here is my take on Bose. Yes, Bose did some research on speaker design. To say it changed things...? Well, Bose went one direction, whereas the mainstream speaker companies went another direction. And a lot of other companies, and the NRC of Canada also did research. For more info (maybe not much on Bose) see Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms by Floyd Toole (Aug 22, 2008) (book or kindle) if you want too much information.

Research: one thing common in marketing audio, automobiles, --- political ideologies, can be summed up as: we did research (or thunk it up, or it was revealed to us) and we have unique technology/knowledge/beliefs that is superior to any other speakers/ political ideology. Just pick up any issue of Popular Science of Mechanics from 1970 to 1990, or listen to Faux News.

A little thought (gee!) will quickly reach the concept that research or clever insight by one person is rarely exclusive, and rarely exhaustive (there is a lot more going on that their insight doesn't address).

Bose's direct/reflective (I think that's what it's called) technology in it's early 801, 802 and some other models created a large sound-field with a large sweet-spot, or almost no sweet-spot. (A sweet spot is the place the listener sits to get the full stereo effect). This can be, hmm, I'll use the words very different and seductive. On the other hand, those Bose speakers could suffer from comb filtering effects, lumpy frequency response, phase shifting effects, and limited frequency extension at both high and low frequencies. Not exclusive to Boze, sometimes instruments sounded larger than life. The 20 foot long piano.

Other Boze Speakers not using the direct/ eflective lack the large sound-field effect. About 1998 I needed new speakers, and tried with an open mind to check out Bose products. I found:
1. almost exclusively sold at the time in Bose owned stores
2. information, specifically frequency response specification were not provided by the company. this was/is very unusual for a speaker company. I eventually figured out that the entire Bose line at the time had little frequencies below 50hz.

The rest of the speaker/audio community was mostly working toward flat frequency response, reduction of box resonances, controlled dispersion or the sound coming out of the drivers, and greater extension in low and high frequencies.

A joke among audiophiles, in response to the great success of Bose--they sell by far more speakers in America than any other company, is "Friends don't let friends by Bose."
The rational reason (there are irrational reasons) is that Bose does not offer good value. For $X00 spent on Bose, it is almost generally possible to get a better speaker from another company for the same amount of money.

Final issue, look up the lawsuit between Bose and Consumer Reports. Bose sued Consumer reports over a review. Consumer Reports eventually won, but Bose almost bankrupted them. Which may partially explain why you rarely see any reviews of Bose in the audiophile press. And Bose likes it that way.

Re:You could see this coming

[TechyImmigrant]

> I have a feeling that Bose' CFO is not happy but not unhappy. It's business.
I have a feeling that setting the lawyers on an effective retail outlet for your goods is really bad for business.

If someone sued me, I'm certainly not going to do business with them in the future.

such drama

[slashmydots]

And here I am with cheaper Sennheisers that are superior quality. I guess I'm just too darn smart to fall for marketing plugs, celebrity endorsements, and companies slapping their brand name on inferior products in exchange for basically bribes.

Re:You could see this coming

[Kijori]

I'm a commercial litigator. While it's true that companies would prefer not to sue their key partners, in reality it's very common for companies that work together to be involved in litigation. I wouldn't go so far as to say that they like it, but if you work with a company for a long time it's inevitable that you will have some disputes that you can't settle amicably. To an extent it's just a cost of doing business.

seriously... this is news?

[smash]

Seriously, why the hell would a company sell their competitor's stuff in their own store when they had just been sued by them? Even if they weren't sued, apple have their own line of audio gear now. It's just stupid to promote your competitor's product in your own store.