|
<!--- The following markup is for the breed table displayed on the page. Scroll down to get to the main text --->
Dr. Bose owns more than 90% of the common shares of the corporation, remains Chairman of the Board, Technical Director,and, effectively, the CEO. [[User:frankatca|frankatca]]
{| border=1 cellspacing=0 align=right cellpadding=2
|- align=center bgcolor=pink
!Australian Cattle Dog
|-align="center"
|[[Image:AustrCattleDogBlue_wb.jpg|thumbnail|250px|none|Blue coat color; this dog's tail is docked.]]
|- align=center bgcolor=pink
!Alternative names
|-
|
{| align=center
|-
|Australian Heeler
|-
|Blue Heeler
|-
|Red Heeler
|-
|Hall's Heeler
|-
|Queensland Heeler
|}
|- align=center bgcolor=pink
!Country of origin
|- align=center
|[[Australia]]
|- align=center bgcolor=pink
!Common nicknames
|- align=center
|Bluey, ACD, Cattledog
|- align=center bgcolor=pink
!Classification and breed standards
|-
|
{| align=center
|[[Fédération Cynologique Internationale|FCI]]: ||Group 1 Section 2 #287
|-
|[[American Kennel Club|AKC]]: ||Herding
|[http://www.akc.org/breeds/australian_cattle_dog/index.cfm Std]
|-
|[[Australian National Kennel Council|ANKC]]: ||Group 5 (Working Dogs)
|[http://www.ankc.aust.com/austcat.html Std]
|-
|[[Canadian Kennel Club|CKC]]: ||Group 7 - Herding Dogs
|[http://www.nwstar.com/~acdcc/standard.htm Std]
|-
|[[Kennel Club (UK)|KC(UK)]]: ||Pastoral
|[http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/discoverdogs/pastoral/p835.htm Std]
|-
|[[New Zealand Kennel Club|NZKC]]: ||Working
|[http://www.nzkc.org.nz/br504.html Std]
|-
|[[United Kennel Club|UKC]]: || Herding Dog Breeds
|[http://www.ukcdogs.com/breeds/herdingdogs/australiancattledog.std.shtml Std]
|-
|}
|}<!-- end of breed table -->
The '''Australian Cattle Dog''' (ACD), also known as the '''Queensland Heeler''', '''Blue Heeler''', and '''Red Heeler''', is a [[herding dog]] developed in Australia for controlling [[cattle]]. It is a medium-sized dog with a lot of energy and an independent streak.
==Appearance==
Why was the material regarding opinions of Bose removed? Given how vitriolic discussions about Bose products can become, a person could concievably come to this page trying to find some perspective on the issue.
[[Image:AustrCattleDogBlueFace_wb.jpg|thumbnail|left|One variant of Blue face markings]]
The Cattle Dog's coat comes in a variety of markings, sometimes quite striking. The basic coat colors are ''blue'' and ''red speckle''. For dog owners whose interest is primarily in their qualification for [[dog show]]s, even markings are preferred over uneven markings, and large solid-color marks on the body are undesireable. For owners who are more interested in their dogs' performance in activities such as [[herding]] or [[dog sports]], the breed's strong work ethic and intelligence are of more importance than the exact coat markings.
The mask is one of the most distinctive features of an ACD. This mask consists of a darker red patch over one or both eyes (for the red speckle coat color) or a black patch over one or both eyes (for the blue coat color). These are called, respectively, ''single mask'' and ''double mask''. ACDs without a mask are called ''plain-faced''. Any of these is correct according to the breed standard, and the only limitation is the owner's preference.
[[Image:AustrCattleDogRed_wb.jpg|thumbnail|left|Red speckle coat color with undocked tail]]
Many Australian Cattle Dogs have a stripe of white hair in the center of the forehead, usually 1/2 inch to 1 inch by 2 inches to 3 inches (about 2 cm by 7 cm) called the ''Bentley Mark''. This is similar in appearance to the blaze markings sometimes found on [[horse]]s. According to legend, a popular dog owned by Tom Bentley passed on this distinctive mark to all Australian Cattle Dogs.
A female Australian Cattle Dog should measure about 17 to 19 inches (43 to 48 cm) at the [[withers]]. A male Australian Cattle Dog should measure about 18 to 20 inches (46 to 51 cm) at the [[withers]]. An ACD is a well-muscled, compact dog with a short, dense coat and a naturally long tail. An ACD in good condition should weigh roughly 40 to 50 pounds (18 to 23 kg).
--[[User:Johnkarp|Johnkarp]] 20:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Some breeders [[docking|dock]] ACD's tails. This is a controversial practice and, in some countries, is illegal or is prohibited for dogs in the [[dog show|show ring]].
Docking Australian Cattle Dogs' tails is a practice peculiar to the United States - ACD tails are not docked in their country of origin, Australia. This is not to be confused with the Stumpy-tailed Cattle Dog, which is born with a naturally docked, or 'bobbed' tail; this animal strongly resembles the ACD in colouring, but has a slightly taller, leaner conformation.
==Temperament==
I honestly have heard a discussion regarding Bose become vitriolic. (Note: I work for Bose.) Do the opinions of a company belong in an encyclopedia article? Surely there are people with opinions regarding all companies. I'd rather see a "Controversy" section added (Take "Microsoft" wikipedia entry as an example.)
Like many [[herding dog]]s, Cattle Dogs have high energy levels and active minds. They need plenty of exercise and a job to do, such as participating in [[dog sports]], learning tricks, or other activities that engage their minds. Some individuals find repetitive training frustrating and dull, so owners should aim to make training sessions varied and more exciting in order to keep their Dog intrested. Cattle Dogs who do not receive the appropriate exercise and entertainment will invent their own, often destructive, activities. These Dogs are, by nature, timid or wary. They are naturally cautious, and grow more so as they age.Their aggresive nature on strangers make them perfect gaurd dogs.
Cattle Dogs drive cattle by nipping at their heels, but they have also been known to herd other animals, such as ducks or chickens without instruction when left to their own devices. When around people, their instinct to herd is sometimes hard to suppress and they can nip at people to herd them. If these dogs will be around children, they and their owners must have sufficient training to know how to manage or avoid such situations.
==Australian Cattle Dog activities==
The FAQ that was linked to provided no references and was loaded with almost pure opinion; not the type of material I'd like to see in an encyclopedia.
[[Image:Acd_diving.jpg|thumbnail|left|ACDs need and enjoy any activity, such as diving and swimming.]]
Australian Cattle Dogs not only tolerate a high level of physical activity, they almost demand it. Like many other [[herding dog]] breeds, they have active and fertile minds that turn mischievous if not properly channeled. ACDs are highly intelligent and can be very bossy.
--[[User:Siliconwafer|siliconwafer]] 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, some examples of controversy.
When not active, an ACD can be kept occupied with mental puzzles such as a [http://www.kongcompany.com Kong] stuffed with treats or a [http://www.sitstay.com/store/toys/toysd.shtml Buster Cube].
If you look at the first google groups search result page for 'bose', you get:
Among the most popular activities for Australian Cattle Dogs is [[dog agility]]. While the ACD is ideally suited for this work, since it is a [[herding dog|herding breed]] and thus very reactive to the handler's body language, some ACDs become easily frustrated at the repetition and routine necessary to hone agility skills. As for many breeds, frequent brief training sessions are more effective than infrequent long training sessions.
'Why some people claim Bose Systems suck'
For this reason, many handlers find training an ACD to be challenging. It is important to always change the methods and exercises and not allow the dog or handler to get into a rut. ACDs thrive on change and new experiences.
'Re: Why shouldn't someone buy Bose?'
'Re: Bose and name recognition
Like many of you I have gritted my teeth when I heard people brag abut Bose. I am not a Bose lover...'
'Re: Bose Acoustimass® 15 Home Theater Speaker System
Heh. I don't think you COULD find another speaker as bad a value as Bose and also as miserable sounding to MAKE an apple-to-apple comparison.'
[[Image:Acd_scent_articles.jpg|thumbnail|right|An ACD finding a scent article as part of obedience competition.]] Only a few ACDs, therefore, have excelled in [[obedience training|obedience competition]]
Or the arstechnica.com forum, usually a sedate bunch:
For example, the [[American Kennel Club]] awards an "Obedience Trial Championship" (OTCh) to the dog-and-handler team that defeats a large number of other teams in open competition. A handful of ACDs have reached this level. While ACDs enjoy the challenge of obedience competition, such as retrieving a scented article, the majority of ACDs are easily bored with precision drilling.
'No Highs, No Lows, Must be BOSE!!!'
'What's with all the Bose threads?'
'Please save my girlfriend from spending $2400 on a BOSE system...'
'bose? dems fight'n words'
'Yeah, reccomend a bose product. That will go over well...'
'I think the major problem isn't that Bose sucks, it's that people are stupid.'
===Australian Cattle Dogs in movies===
Judging from the commentary, you'd think Bose were a tobacco company. Worth a brief mention at least, perhaps in a controversy section as you say.
* ''mad dog'' (blue) and a Dingo (red) in ''[[The Sundowners]]'' ([[1960 in film|1960]])
* ''Dog'' in ''[[Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior]]'' ([[1981 in film|1981]])
* ''Zip'' in ''[[Last of the Dogmen]]'' ([[1995 in film|1995]])
==External links==
--[[User:Johnkarp|Johnkarp]] 05:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
*[http://www.acdca.org Australian Cattle Dog Club of America website]
*[http://www.acdcc.ca Australian Cattle Dog Club of Canada website]
*[http://www.cattledog.com CattleDog.com Centralized repository for all things ''"Cattledog"'']
*[http://www.acdagility.com ACD Agility website]
*[http://www.australiancattledog.com Australian Cattle Dog website: Breed FAQ, Photos, Breeders]
*[http://www.cowdogz.com/ CowDogz.com]
==References==
== Interesting... ==
*Buetow K. ''The Australian Cattle Dog : An Owner's Guide to a Happy Healthy Pet'' ISBN 0876054467.
Hasn't anyone heard of Bose's infamous "Wave Radios," like the ones with big nice buttons on top and credit-card size remotes that no one can ever find the batteries for? (Actually, they're pretty nice machines, my relatives have one...)
<gallery>
== Controversy ==
Image:ACDRedChampion.jpg|Champion Red face markings
Image:Acd_a_frame.jpg|A young ACD at the top of a dog agility A-frame
Image:Acd_jump_chute.jpg|An ACD in a jump chute, practicing [[dog agility]]
Image:Stripepuppy.jpg|Puppy with blue coat color
</gallery>
[[Category:Dog breeds]]
The many heated opinions about the Bose loudspeaker technology are best resolved by each listener for himself or herself. Dr. Bose himself says, and I have heard him say this repeatedly, let your own ears be the judge. Whichever technology appeals to you is the technology you should purchase. There are no absolutes when it to comes to the appreciation of sound quality, only personal value judgments. What Bose DOES assure you is that his designs more closely reproduce in homes the SPATIAL qualities of the incident sound fields experienced typically in live performances, namely that the preponderance of the sound arrives at ones head omnidirectionally, and the high frequencies in particular do so. Whether or not that improves ones appreciation of the music, let your own ears be the judge.
[[de:Australian Cattle Dog]]
As for the "criticism" of BOSE products which follows this comment, it is quite correct that Bose Corporation does not publish the "specs" so beloved by the audio aficianado, not that Bose doesn't know what they are, their research labs are better equipped than most, with a staff of Masters and PhD level graduates from MIT and elsewhere. The problem is that the relevance of the measureable data to perceived audio quality is, by and large, indeterminate -- except in the mind of audiophiles who CAN detect and describe the differences, and to those folks, and to everyone else, the Bose position is: let your ears be your guide.
[[nl:Australische veedrijvershond]]
Frank Ferguson, Lexington, Massachusetts
[[pl:Australian Cattle Dog]]
counterpoint:
Speaker system specifications are not universally loved by audiophiles. In fact, specifications are more highly valued by audio engineers than anyone else. Companies that withhold specifications for certain products do so because they can't measure them, because the specifications in question are not meaningful, or because the specifications look awful. Basic speaker measurement technology has existed for over half a century now, and many speaker measurements (especially frequency response) say a great deal about the speaker.
As for the the "Bose position": while working at a certain retail store, I was told that the Bose systems were always to be kept on their own display, far separate from the rest of the systems. Upon inquiring as to why this was so, I was told that Bose has very strict guidelines for any store that will stock their products, and one of them is something to the effect that their products can not be placed in an area where they can easily be A/Bed with competing products. (You can easily find out why if you do an A/B yourself.)
"Let your ears be your guide" is good advice for speaker buyers, but it does not appear to be what Bose advocates in practice. In fact, the opposite is true; if stores want to carry Bose products, they must set things up to make a normal comparison difficult and inconvenient for the consumer. At the very least, the fact that Bose fail to provide specifications for their products AND actively attempt to prevent direct comparisons between their and competitors' products should be seen as a major, obvious source of controversy.
---------------------------------------------------
The only meaningful kind of A/B is one where the listener cannot see the speakers. Anyone who has performed A/Bs knows that if the listener can see the size of the speakers, they will make preconceptions about how they sound. A huge part of accoustics is psychological. A customer in a store cannot do this type of A/B, and therefore, Bose is very justified in seperating their products.
:Counterpoint: While I agree that one's perceptions will color an A/B, I don't think that a non-blind A/B between two different speakers is anywhere near meaningless, and I believe that even if one were to accept that rather questionable point it's still a long leap to your conclusion. Anyone who has performed A/Bs knows that many buyers do not think that bigger speakers = better; in fact, most average buyers seem to think bigger speakers are old technology (don't ask me, I just say what I see) and that Bose speakers sound better and are smaller. Anyone who has performed A/Bs SHOULD also know that the preconception/misconception most commonly generated is that higher price = better. Most customers I saw already thought Bose speakers sounded great, so what would Bose have to lose by having them do an A/B if their speakers even sounded about as good as the competition's and cost more? And what could they POSSIBLY have to lose if their speakers actually sounded _better_?
:In short, I hardly think that Bose is "very justified" in separating their products simply because a MINORITY of consumers would compare based on size and not price. Having done several comparisons (including a double-blind done solely for the record) and an amateur FR analysis since, and having watched customers' reactions with direct speaker comparisons (semi-famous story about that: a guy agrees that rock-bottom Athenas sound better, but buys Bose anyway because they must be better somehow), I feel it is safe to say that Bose does not like A/Bs for reasons other than buyer preconceptions. Having worked retail much too often in my lifetime, I also feel it is safe to say that customer preconceptions would BENEFIT Bose on the whole (and have done so, which is why people buy their products).
== Criticism ==
At the very least there should be facts included. Bose publishes no technical data on any of their speaker line (check their website). Try visiting [http://www.sennheiser.com/sennheiser/icm_eng.nsf Sennheiser], [http://www.onkyousa.com/ Onkyo], [http://www.dali.dk/Page.asp?PID=1 DALI] or any other major audio equipment vendor and you'll find information such as impedence, frequency response and THD listed on their specifications page. The drivers of the Bose Acoustimass system, which retails for around $1300, are sold for $35 a pair [http://layneaudio.hypermart.net/specials.htm here]. The speakers in question contain paper cones in a thin plastic casing.
[http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html This article] contains a number of problems with their system backed up by facts and test results. Until this article becomes balanced rather than PR speak I'm adding a disupted neutrality tag. [[User:Defsac|Defsac]] 06:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I see nothing about the article in its current form that makes it "imbalanced". The article states FACTS about the company, contains no opinion about the products, lists a few products, and links to its website. I see no reason to have a neutrality disputed tag on the article, therefore, I am removing it. Every company out there is criticized or disliked by someone, not just bose.
The article states: "Excessive Bass at the cost of Treble (The lack of Treble bothers Audio Veterans, Audio Engineers, and Audiophiles the most)"<br>
Discussion: Bose designs speakers to deliver flat radiated total power over the audio spectrum rather than to deliver a flat "on axis" frequency response in an anechoic environment, the traditional measure of a loud speaker. Indeed, traditional speakers with front-facing tweeters mounted in a sizable baffle, do demonstrably radiate forward a noticeably higher level of upper frequencies, the baffle-mounted tweeters insuring a strong frontal lobe at the higher frequencies. And the lack of these lobed high freqencies can be interpreted as "inadequate treble." The flat radiated power criterion is directly correlated to the sound fields in a typical live performance space where the dominant received sound is omnidirectional in its arrival at the pina of the ear for virtually all in the audience. In a home, however, the traditional loudspeaker does not attempt to duplicate the spatial fields of a concert hall; BOSE speaker do attempt to do that. If ones criterion is duplication of the sound field of a traditional loudspeaker in a typical home listening environment, then, indeed, the BOSE speakers will be seen as "lacking treble." If, however, the criterion is a recreation of the experience of a live performance, the BOSE design may be judged, correctly, as the better choice. Which experience one prefers is entirely subjective. Hence, the Bose directive is to let your own ears be the judge of which you prefer.
:I take it this is some sort of objection to the statement, maybe a request to change it? If so, do you have '''any''' evidence for your statement from a source other than Bose? If not, I'm afraid it must remain as is. Tens of properly executed FR measurements (regardless of whether or not you understand how they could possibly be correct when Bose's marketing department says otherwise) far outweigh what a company says about its own products. [[User:SVI|SVI]]
As for A/B comparisons, they are notoriously difficult to do fairly and well; small differences in volume, say 3dB, will be judged by most listeners as quality differences rather than differences of sound level. The louder speaker will often be heard as having the "better" sound--a reality that is well known to audio salesmen who arrange for the speaker they wish to sell -- the speaker of the week whose manufacturer has the highest current "spiff"--to be played at a very slightly louder volume in an A/B test.
:A/B comparisons are actually quite easy to do fairly and well so long as you're not trusting a salesman to set it up for you. All you need is a trusted friend and an SPL meter to carry out a good, scientific test.[[User:SVI|SVI]] 02:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
== Watch your language guys ==
I had to edit some parts of the page because of the foul language being used in this page. I don't know what motivated someone to use foul language here, but let's keep Wikipedia PG-friendly.
== some cleanup ==
Cleaned out a lot of messy POV stuff (including an entire section that basically said Bose's radio system was groundbreaking and sounded better than conventional space-wasting systems-- the former is simply untrue, the latter is an opinion and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia) and added a controversy section (seems merited given how Bose discussions can get in audio circles, though it's usually just all the particularly immature veterans lining up to insult Bose).
If anyone has any objections to this poor newbie's cleanups, please go ahead and state them. I'd like to think that I've moved this article towards NPOV, but I guess we all like to think that. Any thoughts?
[[User:SVI|SVI]] 02:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I would love to have a Bose noise cancelling aviation headset, but at $1,000 I will buy one the Lightspeed (about $350). I can't believe that Bose really needs to charge that much for this headset, and I suspect the Lightspeed performs comparably.
:IMHO, you are probably right, but be sure to demo both (if possible, see if you know someone with a pair if there's no other way) if you're looking to buy. I'm not much into aviation, but I do have some experience in the horrible world of audio, and I can safely say that most buyers tend to advocate what they own for a variety of reasons (and most of the time, they advocate them because they bought them, not the other way 'round). Off-topic, I know. [[User:SVI|SVI]] 05:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I've decided to link to that semi-famous intellexual.net rant. Is it unbiased? Of course not. Is it worth LINKING, at least? Yes, easily, by my measure. MANY articles on more controversial subjects (politics and others) link rather partisan sites.. they're linked to show one point of view, not to advocate it (advocacy would mean the rant was treated as fact instead of just linked to under "related links").
If anyone wants to provide a link to a perspective from the other side of the fence (it only seems fair, right?), go right ahead. Only reason I haven't is that I don't know of any. [[User:SVI|SVI]] 16:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
It seems as though Bose, like many other former high-end audio manufacturers (Marantz, Fisher, etc.) has evolved from high-end products to the mass market. The old 901 was an excellent speaker, though at the time its low efficiency (necessitated by the use of aggressive active equalization to shore up the low frequency end using small drivers and a small enclosure) required high power amplifiers (at least 50 watts per channel or so) which used to be very expensive. Bose speakers these days are popular in rock groups, PA systems, background music in stores, and home theatre systems. Those applications don't require particularly high quality.
The Bose active noise cancelling headset (both the aviation and general-use versions) are based upon adaptive telephone echo-canceller technology that was developed by Bell Labs in the 1960s. While Bose's patents may be unique to applying the technology to headsets or for acoustic noise cancelling in particular, the basic idea was patented in 1970 by Sondhi, et. al, of Bell Labs. I have several patents in this area (application of echo canceller to measurement of echoes) so I think I speak from some base of knowledge.
:Well, why not edit the article to include that, then? That's the point of having an open encyclopedia, and I doubt anyone would be surprised to learn that Bose has not actually done as much research on noise cancelling (or any subject, really) as they claim. [[User:SVI|SVI]] 17:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Fact: Bose Corporation spends well over $100 million a year in research and engineering and has a 70,000 sq. ft. building in Framingham, Massachusetts, entirely devoted to that effort.
*More cleanup. No offense, Vesther, but some of the addition seemed kind of like weasel language-- there hasn't reportedly been controversy, there HAS been controversy, and the general consensus in audio circles is without a doubt that audio is highly subjective. Most of your changes were perfectly fine, I just modified them a little, like with sorting the manufacturers into alphabetical order (might as well be in some order, I guess) and modifying the list (condensed, changed). If there are any objections to my edits, I'd be happy to listen. [[User:SVI|SVI]] 19:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I think that the sound-quality-to-power ratio remains a main concern to Audiophiles SVI, since audiophiles tend to sample and/or judge the headphones, earbuds, and other audio products by how rich and powerful the sound is and actually conceive how strong the value is. I usually say "sound power" as opposed to sound quality since people wants to know if the price they are paying equate to very powerful sound. Apparently you are paying high prices if the product apparently have very powerful sound, but in the matter of Bose, I think you are paying more for the Bose name and Bose's patents, but I think you're right about the fact that Bose is somewhat overpricing some of their products, and in fact Bose has a bad habit of pricing the products too high. -- [[User:Vesther|Vesther]] 23:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
:I think we're referring to the same thing with "sound power" and "sound quality": how good, rich, crisp, accurate, powerful, high-fidelity, _____ the thing sounds. I say sound quality because it's what I'm used to hearing, and because power makes people think of RMS power ratings. By sound-quality-to-power ratio, do you mean sound-quality-to-price ratio / sound-power-to-price ratio?
:I also think that Bose's products are often badly overpriced, and that people are paying for the name, not for good sound. Some would differ, though, and audio quality IS subjective, so it's only fair to leave things up to the reader. [[User:SVI|SVI]] 23:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
::I think '''Sound Quality''', after reading the article over and over again, makes more sense, since it's what many headphone aficionados, audiophiles, loudspeaker aficionados, and audio veterans use the quality of the sound overall to perceive how "in-sync" the products are priced. I don't think '''Sound Power''' makes any sense whatsoever, since the type of magnets used in loudspeakers, headphones, and even earbuds determine the power of how much bass and treble you will be listening to. Therefore, I'm just gonna say that ''Sound Power is how the companies utilize the sound magnets to maximize the clarity of the bass and treble of sound''. '''Sound Quality''', as how I define it, is the measure of how efficient companies use their proprietary technologies to make sound as life-like as possible, plus it defines if a sound company is making full use of sound magnets, proprietary technologies they have, and other sound-enhancing amneties which determines if the sound turns out to be crisp. Oftenly I play Coldplay's "Clocks" and "Speed of Sound" plus Pet Shop Boys' "West End Girls" and "Opportunities (Let's Make lots of money)" to judge sound, though people have different ways of measuring the sound quality IMO. I would stay at "Sound Quality", since many sound aficionados measure the value by the sound quality alone, since 105% of the time they might use sound quality to measure whether the product is priced right or too high. -- [[User:Vesther|Vesther]] 16:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
== Competition/Alternatives ==
I added some companies on the Market Share section of the area, but I feel that it should either be called Competition, Alternatives, and/or Competition/Alternatives instead of Market Share, since there's a lot of sound variety in today's sound market.
In addition to what I'm suggesting, I also have to make a point that a few sound companies are catering iPod users and it's no mistake that Bose is one of them, but I'm pretty sure that there are alternatives for iPod users as well, since Bose is known to cater to iPod users pretty much, but Altec-Lansing, Etymotic Research, JBL, Klipsch, and some other companies aren't willing to go down without a fight to convince the iPod aficionado that there's an alternative to Bose products. -- [[User:Vesther|Vesther]] 00:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
:Looks good to me. As for title, how about "Market Share and Competition"? wrt alternatives, I think providing the competition and relevant links/complaints from critics (the intellexual rant, providing reviews couldn't hurt if you know of any) should do the job while keeping the article NPOV. Anyone interested enough to actually look Bose up should have no problems following these along if they're interested in alternatives. [[User:SVI|SVI]] 01:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
== "many" vs. "some" ==
'''______''' audio veterans, audio engineers, loudspeaker aficionados, and audiophiles (mainly the vendor-neutral niche) have historically raised the following issues/criticisms/concerns with Bose in the following areas:
It is a fact that the vast majority of audio engineers and audiophiles hold opinions about Bose that are negative to varying degrees. Evidence for this is easily acquired, at least as far as any opinions are acquired for a given group. Hi-fi magazines, forums, and mailing lists all show a strong, common negative opinion regarding Bose, and the few polls that have been conducted back this up.
I am not advocating or agreeing with whatever issues these people raise. I AM, however, saying that it is unfair (and rather weaselly) to say that "some" hold them when it is quite obvious to anyone with even a toe in the hi-fi community that most members hold fairly strong negative opinions about Bose. [[User:SVI|SVI]] 02:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
| 