I don’t really think HiFi Rose is necessarily dishonest. I think they may have just not realized they didn’t have the talent on the SW/FW side to match the hardware, which IMO is quite capable.
1 Like
That’s always a challenge.
There’s a lot more to software development especially when you have a lot of moving pieces.
I believe it is time to revisit this thread and, respectfully, ask for an update from @ROSEHAN and the moderation team (@moderators).
When the open letter, “Strengthening Stability, Quality and Support,” was published, it outlined a commitment to improving the ownership experience for HiFi Rose customers. Many of us welcomed that message and viewed it as an acknowledgment of the concerns that had been repeatedly raised by the community.
Since then, a considerable amount of time has passed, and I think it is fair for customers to ask: What progress has been made against those commitments? Which initiatives have been completed, which remain in progress, and what measurable improvements should customers expect to see?
This is not intended as criticism, but rather as a request for transparency and accountability. The best way to rebuild confidence is not through promises, but through visible results and regular communication regarding those results.
I would genuinely appreciate an update on the deliverables outlined in that letter and how HiFi Rose measures its progress against those objectives. Many of us continue to support the brand and want to see it succeed, which is precisely why these questions remain important.
I think that there has been a concerted effort on the part of Rose.
Better communication here.
A consistent update routine on the Rose One app.
Things like that.
I don’t know if they have worked w local distributors to improve customer sat though.
I live in the US where Mofi (RoseUSA) seems to have done a good job. Of course YMMV depending on where you live.
1 Like
Really feeling disappointed. I have purchased 4 Rose products over the past 2 years. The last purchase a RS130. The other day came home and the unit clicks on and off but blank screen nothing happens. I called for service and although I have owned it for less than 2 years it was manufactured 2 years and a few months so out of warranty. I can send the unit in for repair but looking at $1,000 or more for repair as an estimate. At this point I guess I’m stuck with no other choice.
Warranty should be 2 years from date of purchase, not manufacture date.
3 Likes
Unfortunately, @spkbmw007’s experience is exactly why I believe this thread and the commitments HiFi ROSE made in it deserve to be revisited.
The original statement was not vague. HiFi ROSE made specific commitments regarding hardware quality, after-sales support, distributor support, parts availability, response times, transparency, and communication with customers experiencing problems.
In particular, HiFi ROSE stated:
“Our goal is to give every customer peace of mind when using HiFi Rose products…”
It also committed to stronger pre-shipment inspections, proactive after-sales support, a strengthened service network, improved distributor resources, faster solution-focused responses, and clearer warranty, repair and replacement processes.
Those are meaningful commitments. But ultimately they have to be measured against actual customer experiences.
Now we have @spkbmw007, who says he has purchased four HiFi ROSE products in two years , reporting that his RS130 will click but no longer boot and displays a blank screen. More troubling, he says that despite owning the RS130 for less than two years, he was told it is outside warranty because it was manufactured more than two years ago and that he could potentially be facing a repair costing $1,000 or more.
If that warranty information is accurate—and I would very much like @ROSEHAN to clarify it—that is extremely concerning.
A customer has no control over how long a product sits between its manufacture date and its eventual retail sale. If HiFi ROSE’s warranty is actually being calculated from the manufacturing date rather than the customer’s documented purchase date, that policy deserves a clear explanation here. If @spkbmw007 was given incorrect information, then HiFi ROSE should clarify that as well and help him obtain the warranty coverage to which he is entitled.
There is another reason his report concerns me.
We now have @Rasidaba documenting a recurring RS130 failure involving a unit that clicks but does not start, despite previous replacement of major internal components. We now have @spkbmw007 describing what appears, at least superficially, to be a similar click/no-boot/blank-screen symptom. I have personally had an RS130 replaced following a complete display failure.
None of that, by itself, proves that the RS130 has a systemic design defect, and I don’t think we should make that assertion without failure-rate and engineering data that only HiFi ROSE possesses.
But it absolutely justifies asking HiFi ROSE for greater transparency.
That is especially true because the original statement in this very thread told customers that HiFi ROSE had investigated reported hardware failures and determined that they were attributable to “variances in specific components in a limited number of units,” rather than design or circuit defects.
So I think some reasonable follow-up questions now exist:
Have the more recent RS130 failures been investigated and compared with the failures referenced in the original statement?
Are the same components involved?
Were any components or manufacturing processes subsequently revised?
What did the promised “stronger pre-shipment inspections” actually entail?
Has HiFi ROSE measured whether those changes reduced hardware failures?
And when a customer experiences repeated major failures, at what point does HiFi ROSE move beyond another repair and consider replacement or extended warranty protection?
These aren’t “gotcha” questions. They are exactly the type of accountability that should follow a public statement titled “Strengthening Stability, Quality and Support.”
There is also a significant new development since @Smegel’s June response. At that time, he reasonably pointed to MoFi’s U.S. support as an example of something that appeared to be working well.
MoFi is no longer the U.S. distributor.
HiFi ROSE has now assumed responsibility for U.S. distribution through HiFi ROSE USA, and the transition itself has exposed additional communication and coordination problems that have been extensively documented elsewhere on this forum.
That makes an update to this thread even more appropriate.
HiFi ROSE told us it would establish measurable improvements in quality, support and communication. Several months later, I think customers are entitled to something more substantive than another assurance that improvements are being made.
Tell us what was implemented.
Tell us what remains outstanding.
Tell us what the response-time SLA actually is and whether it is being met.
Tell us what changed in hardware quality-control procedures.
Tell us how warranty and replacement decisions are being handled.
Tell us how distributor performance is being measured.
And where the results haven’t met HiFi ROSE’s expectations, simply acknowledge that and explain what happens next.
I continue to believe HiFi ROSE makes some excellent products. That’s what makes these issues so frustrating. Customers spending thousands of dollars on premium audio equipment shouldn’t have to wonder whether meaningful support will be available when something goes wrong.
The original post ended with this promise:
“HiFi Rose will continue to listen closely to the voices of our customers, uphold the commitments we make, and place customer satisfaction at the heart of everything we do.”
I think now would be an excellent opportunity for HiFi ROSE to demonstrate exactly what that means.
@ROSEHAN, respectfully, where do things stand today against the commitments HiFi ROSE made in this thread?
2 Likes