LOL at all the Beats bashers........ - Page 11  

Because small companies that did that failed so they stayed small. Those who fleeced their way to become a big sucessful company don't deserve the sucess.

I really have to correct you as once again you are taking my words out of context and using them to paint a conclusion that does not compute. I'm saying that "beats bashers" are common because beats are common. By comparison, a smaller company, call it Bubba's Homemade Headphone Co. Has nowhere near as much exposure, therefore less people know about it, and by extension less people have opinions on it, good or bad.
Conversely, beats can be purchased from everywhere, can be demoed anywhere, and are seem more than any other single headphone line by the general public. Its not hard to form an opinion. Please try to understand and stop putting words in my mouth. Your conclusion is yours, not mine.

I have not been putting words in your mouth, you have not been articulating your argument properly.  Sometimes people do not realize the manner in which they say something says unintended things as well.  The statement you made was very short, which I addressed entirely.  You are now finally trying to fully state your opinion, which is useful.  Do not expect to make a short statement and have people read into it what you intended.

 

Yes, I agree that beats has reached a saturation level in the market that is most likely rivaled by none.  I also firmly believe that there is personal responsibility for the consumer to research and see what options are available and what might best suit them.  Yes, it is difficult for people to know about options that are unadvertised, but that in no way makes it impossible.

 

Threads like this have a tendency to increase tensions to the point where even people who are on the same side start arguing.  A person who expects to be attacked can see attacks where none are made or intended, its human nature.  These kinds of threads can have a constructive purpose, as long as civility and reasonable thinking continues.  All I can suggest is to take a breath, relax for a moment, and in my case, quit getting annoyed at people's reactions that just don't make sense to me.

 

Er, I believe you might be talking about the kind of person you are, but not about the kind of person most people are, and especially not the kind of person who buys Beats. These are in the main teenagers, which--sorry, teenagers--often translates into easily led, or easily influenced, especially when we're talking 14 or 15 year olds. I believe companies have a duty to these people, not to say "our product is crap", but to not make clearly false statements that cause the gullible to say to themselves, "Gee, a major company wouldn't have said that unless it was true." 

Not to get philosophical here, but doesn't this kind of fundamentally disagree with the concept of the free-market and the notion of individualism and free-will that is so heavily espoused in the West? I mean, if you just want a nanny that comes behind everyone and cleans up that's fine, but it seems like a pretty unrealistic expectation - is it really so much to ask for some personal responsibility? I mean we're talking 14-15, not 4-5.

well for me i never got into the beats hype, i was in my first or second year of college (im a fourth year now), i wanted something better than my 10 bucks sony earbuds, i was thinking about the bose ie2. at that time it just came out too. my friend advertised against it and told me to do some research before buying. he said he likes his klipsch s4 more than the bose, he doesnt like bose that much. then i did some research and got the etymotic research hf5 and thats how i end up here. just telling my story, nothing much...

 

Actually I thought the concept of consumerism specifically forbids false and misleading advertising. And as for personal responsibility, what about corporate responsibility toward the individual, especially the individual of tender years? 14-15 years olds may not be 4-5 year olds, but in terms of consumer discrimination they may as well be. When was the last time you heard a 14 year old say, "I was going to get Beats like all my mates, but as I'm an individual and don't have to follow the herd, I won't take Beat's claims of 'sound as the artist intended' on trust but will instead Google reviews to see what other phones might actually be closer to the original sound."? Ain't gunna happen.

Maybe if you live in a totally libertarian society, but most places have several laws in place to protect consumers.

 

From a legal standpoint though Beats are probably right on the line and have good enough lawyers to stay behind it. A lot of the stuff is up to interpretation, like what is considered a "major" studio, or what the hell they mean by putting quality back into compressed files. Saying it sounds like the artist intended couldn't really get them in any trouble either, artists intended for their music to be listened to on a variety of sound systems.

 

A lot of the things they say are misleading, but probably too vague to be considered false advertising. IMO there are much worse offenders in the audiophile industry.

Kinda like saying: "don't worry i won't to pot" but ends up doing crack or ice.
Technically correct but very much against what people would generally interpret them to be.

Its called hyperbole - an intentional exaggeration (based on some truth) for comedic effect. Its a joke. The article talks about how they went on a mission to sue every business using the name "Monster" - even a vintage clothing store. They also have/had a very anti-competitive dealer kickbacks program. 

 

It is, however, not an exaggeration to say Monster is one of the slimiest companies out there.

First, I would say, only in the purest ideal of "free market". Most Americans, even the most conservative, agree with limits and regulation at some level.

Second, this would only be an issue if we are suggesting government to come in and punish the company.

 

What we are doing here is a perfect example of how a free market with free speech can sometimes take care of these issues. When a company lies and is unscrupulous, people talk about it. If they piss enough people off, it can ruin the company. I don't think Monster or Beats has anything to worry about in that regard (they have enough of a marketing budget to compensate), but that is always the risk you take with lying and running false advertising.

as far as I know, every product advertisement is an exaggeration. every brand boast about it's products more than its capable of.
u wear a deo and get chicks faster than James Bond in ads.
likewise there are many.
even sennheiser does it.
I bought HD 518, and the label it had was ''deep rich bass sound'',that was misleading to a newbie. I wasn't cause I knew years before buying it that open headphones are low on bass and so wasn't expecting it.
I also know quality vs quantity thing.. tight controlled bass and all,but that too wasn't there.
their bass is neither tight nor deep and rich nor is the amount high enough to be labeled as muddy . infact it doesn't deserve the label.
I don't know about beats much other than name of dre and a couple times I visited it's website.
but regarding false advertising ,every brand does it.

 

1. Nobody that knows what they're doing in the studio is using Beats to produce music. Dre himself used the audio-technica M50 in the studio (don't know what he uses currently, or if he's even producing music anymore) 

2. Putting quality back into compressed files = Beats have such a lack of detail and recession in the highs that you'll be hard pressed to hear compression artifacts, making 128k MP3's sound like lossless audio. 

3. "Sounds like what the artist intended" - what you say is true. Artists and their producers anticipate that music will be listened to on a variety of sound systems. However, anyone who knows about the Loudness War knows that record companies, save for some indie/boutique labels, are clearly not producing music with audiophiles and their gear in mind. So if you're listening to David Guetta or LMFAO on some Beats, then, yeah, those guys intended for their music to be loaded with midbass and not much else. But I don't think classical music composers intended for their music to be played back on a pair of headphones where 100 hertz is almost twice as loud as 1000.

 

Dre hasn't released an album in this millenium, and has done very little actual music work since 2001; I don't know how he has the nerve to say anything about modern studio monitors.

Also, props to him for selling a special edition Detox version, promoting an album that has been in development hell for the last thirteen years and will probably never be released due to the incompetence of all parties involved.

That's longer than Duke Nukem Forever which took forever