Guess we should not be surprised by consolidation like this…
Awesome. Hopefully just one API in the future 
( that’s the developers perspective here)
1 Like
I can’t say this bothers me, as it’s quite common in the music industry. Home audio, pro audio, instruments, record labels…there are brands changing hands and amalgamating all of the time.
What I find particularly interesting are companies like Mitsubishi and Panasonic who have minimal brand presence at this point in time, but are invested in a ton of different industries.
@rpwongCan say I agree with you one bit.
This stifles competition, research and development, pricing…basically everything. Consolidation is not a good thing.
Audiophiles have always had favorites among audio brands…someone may have preferred the DtoA chips on one brand over the other…some may like the processing or noise field features of another. Keeping multiple brands out there competing in the market keeps everyone on their toes working harder to bring us better quality, features, and pricing…now with all of them under one roof…we’ll start to see less separation of features…same product badged under multiple brand names. and higher prices.
No, it’s not a good thing!
@David_Graeff - From a developer prospective if they want to develop and share a control protocol between all of the brands…I’m right there with you.
You could also say that having more resources brings us better quality, features, and pricing. That’s an equally reasonable statement.
While an audiophile might lament the loss of a favourite DAC or feature, that has to be balanced against the research and engineering that a larger company with more resources and better supply chain can put out. Yes, you might end up with fewer unique products in the market, but you also might end up with better overall products…and lower prices.
I’m not saying that every consolidation works out this way–I just think it’s better to not pass judgment too early. Just because companies consolidate doesn’t mean that they have to be anti-consumer or anti-innovation. In the end, what a company does mostly comes down to how a few individuals choose to run it. If the executives see consolidation as an opportunity to be even better, the I hope they’ll see it through. If they just wanted to make a quick buck, the company was probably screwed either way.
Looking at the list of in-house brands for this organization…it’s way too big, the consumer will suffer.
- Denon
- Definitive Technology
- Boston Acoustics
- Polk Audio
- Marantz
- Pioneer
- Pioneer Elite
- Integra
- Onkyo
- Heos
- Classe
I think you’re confusing correlation with causation. Having many brands does not, on its own, cause suffering for consumers. Running a company poorly does cause suffering for consumers, regardless of how many brands there are.
As someone who is in the industry…think I have great insight into what is about to roll out.
This will cause these brands to wither…and the features to assimilate into a unified offering albeit under different labels.
Which is perfect for developers
I was speaking less about this particular example and more to the generalization that that too many brands under one roof is always bad for consumers. I don’t think that’s always the case.
If Sound United has already demonstrated this behaviour in the past (you would know better than me), I think your concerns are perfectly reasonable. If they have no track record, then I think it’s fair to give them the benefit of the doubt.