Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Music Patents Apple

Despite Patent Settlement, Apple Pulls Bose Merchandise From Its Stores 328

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Despite Patent Settlement, Apple Pulls Bose Merchandise From Its Stores

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    And so is Apple.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      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 o

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by 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. :)

      • by BronsCon ( 927697 ) <social@bronstrup.com> on Sunday October 19, 2014 @12:55AM (#48179165) Journal

        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.

      • by qpqp ( 1969898 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @01:05AM (#48179185)

        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 [extremetech.com].

        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.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 19, 2014 @01:18AM (#48179209)

        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/... [newegg.com]
        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)

        • 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 t

          • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

          Microsoft's _business_ is to sell their operating system. Apple's _business_ is to sell computer hardware. If you claim that you can't see the difference then you are either deeply dishonest or an idiot.

      • by vux984 ( 928602 )

        "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

    • by cyn1c77 ( 928549 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @12:47AM (#48179151)

      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.

      • by qpqp ( 1969898 )
        Of course, they're consumer crapware, as opposed to actual pro/hi-fi gear like Sennheiser, Audio Technica, AKG, Bowers & Wilkins, et al.
    • Bose headphones have always been overpriced, and don't hold up under heavy use.

      In my experience, real professionals use Sennheiser. At least, when I worked in radio, about 80% of the DJs and engineers I knew used Sennheisers, and laughed at me when I asked whether Bose was really any good--"on TV, sure".

      • by ihtoit ( 3393327 )

        not a pro, but I do love my Sennheiser flyspeck, and my Audio Research cans are pretty much the best sounding I've ever used. no idea what the coil hardware is, or what the magnets are, but it's like being kissed on the neck by Shahin Badar. I had a Bose radio, it went back because I thought it was broken. Sounded like shit. Or that could've been Radio 1.

    • Beats is worse than either though, by a long way.
  • 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 [amazon.com] (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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by 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

      • by _merlin ( 160982 )

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

      • 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.
  • Tit for tat (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Saturday October 18, 2014 @10:31PM (#48178759)

    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.

    • by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Saturday October 18, 2014 @10:43PM (#48178791) Journal
      True.

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

    • 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.

      This.

      I just wish they'd compete on audio fidelity instead of who can be more petty, since that's one thing that both of those brands are sorely lacking.

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        Reality is by far the majority of products in the modern market place driven largely by 'exclusivity' compete on PR=B$(lies for profit) and idiot pseudo celebrity endorsement (liars for profit) and of course contaminating and corrupting every internet review web site they can. This of course because in the face of reality, the majority would mock the crap out of the rich idiots buying 'exclusivity' like it means something beyond being a poseur douche.

    • Re:Tit for tat (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot@wor[ ]et ['f.n' in gap]> on Sunday October 19, 2014 @02:24AM (#48179341)

      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 [deadspin.com].

      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.

  • by MikeMo ( 521697 ) on Saturday October 18, 2014 @11:01PM (#48178861)
    It's plain and simple: now that Apple owns Beats, it makes no sense to sell their competitors products. It just isn't done.
    • They do sell headphones from several other manufacturers though. They only dropped Bose.
    • Remember when Microsoft used its monopolistic position in one market (OSs) to unfairly favor its product in another market (web browsers)?

      How is that different from Apple using its position in the high-end phone market to unfairly favor its product in the headphone market?

  • lol (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Saturday October 18, 2014 @11:17PM (#48178907)

    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TechyImmigrant ( 175943 ) on Saturday October 18, 2014 @11:41PM (#48178973) Homepage Journal

      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.

    • 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 (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 19, 2014 @01:46AM (#48179269)

        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.

        • by dj245 ( 732906 )

          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...........

          Gee, thanks a lot. You just made good stereo seem terrifically exciting. I have single sided deafness and can never expereince stereo. Nobody, even doctors or audiologists, ever really explained what I am missing out on. Maybe they were being kind.

    • I've had good results with some of their phased array equipment. Then again, most people don't need a phased array.

  • 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.
  • One less inhabitant in Apple's walled garden.

  • by smash ( 1351 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @07:28AM (#48179857) Homepage Journal
    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.

panic: kernel trap (ignored)

Working...