And while Apple Watch now can alert you to noisy high decibel surroundings, I hope this is merely a baby step towards Apple offering...
full fledged AirPod hearing aids,
which I’ll call AirPodEars.
Only Apple has the cachet to overnight rid the perceived stigma of wearing hearing aids (which prevents many folks from even considering them, let alone the high cost of purchase and battery replacements).
Not only that, by virtue of Apple designing them they could actually be fashionable, just as eye glasses are.
And coupled with AppleWatch and/or iPhone control, the AirPodEars would be far simpler, superior and cheaper to purchase and operate.
Come on Apple, I’m sure this must be in development.
A friend has an iPhone app-controlled hearing aid. It is so small I didn’t even notice it until he pointed it out. That being said, I have zero expectation for Apple to build this first-party. Just like how they don’t build printers, scanners, or many other specialty accessories.
I don’t disagree that Apple hearing aids might seem too niche, however:
+ On average 10,000 Americans turn 65 EVERY day, and this baby boom generation will need plenty of hearing help
+ It bears repeating: Only Apple has the cachet to make hearing aids acceptable to the vast majority with no stigma, so much so that they wouldn’t need to be hidden or tiny but rather obvious like AirPods, thus allowing better and rechargeable battery life without the need for expensive battery replacements
+ Replacing $300 AirPodEars would be a lot cheaper than the $2000 or more aids cost now (each for the better ones)
+ In fact, if they look identical to AirPods or AirPod Pros, no one would know if they were regular AirPods or hearing enhancers.
- The only negatives I can see for Apple is that the demographic tends to be older (thus generally less hip) and having lead the way with iPods and everyone blasting music in their ears Apple might be overly sensitive to being associated with helping cause the hearing loss in the first place
+ Apple could offer these readily. Medical device approvals shouldn’t be that difficult with Apple’s R&D capability
+ Apple would be admired for turning a major stigma inside out (from scourge to fashion statement, if one so chooses)
I'm born deaf myself with severe hearing loss on the left and profound on the right, wearing only one digital hearing aid on the left side. I've literally grown up with the HA with a box in a shirt pocket with wires ( think headphones ) from the late 70s all the way to BTE ( behind the ear ) design and can say that digital hearing aids are now the standard. I loved the analog aids due to their bass and volume sound quality, not to mention that they were a lot cheaper in the range of $500-800, sometimes $1,200 for a pair at the most. However, they've been phased out mostly in favor of digital which has to be programmed by the audiologist. My current digital hearing aid is from Phonak and cost about $1,200. Just for one. Fortunately, insurance coverage was available and I have a very good audiologist.
Also, hearing aids are considered 'medical' devices that can be covered by insurance, or if one can afford to pay in cash/credit. An Apple designed hearing aid would require approval to be covered by insurance as a medical device. My problem is with the actual design of AirPods that go right into your ear canal in contrast to the BTE design which is a lot more stable and more powerful ( think Beats Pro headphones with ear hooks ).
And you literally have to have a earmold cast for the hearing aid to fit into your ear properly. Also digital hearing aids that are controlled by an iPhone concerns me in that if you lose the phone, how do you control the HA?
Most importantly, for a hearing aid to work for the person with hearing loss, a hearing test must be done by an audiologist to determine the level of loss and which type of HA works best. Therefore, Apple's 'one size fits all' solution won't work. Consider this. Analog hearing aids are like amplifiers but they're designed to work with someone's specific hearing loss or deafness as they all differ for each person. Trust me, I've tried the 'in your ear' hearing aid years ago and it didn't sound good to me and that was because it wasn't powerful enough to provide 'oomph' and didn't match my hearing loss. This is why I cannot use the regular EarPods that came with the iPhone as they don't fit in my ear at all and have to rely on a HATIS headset that uses telecoil to block out the background noise entirely and only focuses on the audio ( shaped like a hook a wire straight to the headphone jack or adapter ) or use a bluetooth receiver with an 8 hour battery with a neck loop that can stream music or audio ( ie. movies, video calls, etc ) straight from any iOS device or PC. I got the receiver from the audiologist which usually costs over $100.
Cochlear implants, OTOH, are a huge issue right now with the deaf community as an ongoing debate ( which has been viewed for years as a method of identity eugenics of sorts ) and mega expensive which I've heard horror stories about. I've seen the effects of it from a very old classmate I grew up with years ago and felt bad for him when he couldn't hear for two weeks post surgery, waiting to get proper activation.
So in short, if you have vision needs ( ie. astigmatism or such ) with glasses, you go to an eye care professional for this. Same thing goes for hearing loss/deafness. I don't see Apple having the ability to design a hearing aid in an AirPod style design.
And lastly, I do NOT see a practical use for AR goggles to replace the phone for the deaf or hard of hearing. Not one bit. Consider the fact that every deaf person I've known relies completely on texting or video calls to communicate. With AR goggles, it would not solve a long distance phone call as they cannot see each other. You need a camera so that they can see each other's sign language 'face to face'. Even if they're in public, I've heard stories how some have used special iOS live transcription apps to capture conversations in public to communicate. I use app such as Sign or Cardzilla where one types in large text and flashes the message across the room as you hold up the phone, especially handy in noisy environments like nightclubs or such. It works every time.
Plus, they have certain criteria when you use sign language on screen by wearing dark clothing so that the hands can be seen by contrast, especially if they're using a VRS ( video relay service ) who have call operators on screen to follow strict ASL protocol. I don't sign much as I was originally taught to speak orally in an audist program as ASL wasn't allowed at the time but these days, I'm still learning some of them to catch up and use in case of an emergency.
But I would love Apple to build a small bluetooth device that clips on a shirt or stays tucked in clothing as a method to stream iOS music/audio to your hearing aid. There was a outdoor company ( this is the firm: https://www.outdoortechnology.com/ ) that made a rechargeable dongle with a clip and had an iPod like wheel with audio controls but with a headphone jack. Because where I live in New England, products like these are popular for outdoor activities. All you had to do was clip it to your belt or shirt and jack the old school headphones to it and walk around the house listening to music. This product came around around 2011-2012 ( I think) long before AirPods were a thing. And even if I'm driving, wind noise from the car door ( usually with closed windows ) usually masks my voice and I can't always raise Siri to access the map and I've wished there was a small bluetooth microphone to clip to my jacket so I don't have to scream for Siri.
NOTE: by the way, there are some hearing aids that are rechargeable but aren't cheap and most commonly require a battery which you can buy online or at a store, or audiologist. I use a size 675 for this and get huge packs from Amazon from a German company which is cheaper than what you get in the store.
2nd NOTE: I want to mention that a local AR player on Ingress for iOS crossed my path a few times and once I met him in person, he had an in the ear headset for his phone to make calls. I noticed that he kept it in his ear the whole time and he mentioned that he uses it to 'pick up' the conversation with his phone that's set on the table or in front of people. I suggested he talk to an audiologist due to his hearing loss and see if he can get insurance to get a new hearing aid without relying on the headset but I haven't seen him in over a year or so. The point is that headsets such as AirPods are NOT a replacement for hearing aids.
Most people requiring hearing aid assistance are on Medicare -- but traditional Medicare does not cover hearing aids. Some Medicare Advantage plans may, but then your're dealing with all the issues associated with private insurance.
Also, it is slowly coming out that many simply need a sound amplifier rather than all the filters and such medical people specialize in.
Unfortunately, the hearing industry, like the vision industry, has been overwhelmed with exorbitantly priced medicalization that many simply cannot afford. Fortunately those cartels are being challenged by over-the-counter type solutions like Airpods. Or, this summer I was able to prescribe and order a new pair of glasses for myself at less than a third the cost it would have cost me had I used the traditional medical structure. Basically I saved $400-$500 and ended up with what I think are a better pair of glasses than I would have had from an optician. (The last 2 prescriptions I got from eye doctors were way off the mark)
I think it is good that the medicalized hearing and vision structures are beginning to be limited to those who need that high level of care.
Some of the Medicare plans may cover them, even Medicaid from the state. I think it's a state by state basis, however in my state a local organization is trying to push for support on a bill that requires hearing aid insurance coverage so people can benefit from that assistance. For those who are hard of hearing or experiencing hearing loss, some form of amplification is helpful unless it becomes profound to the point that a specialist is required as a last resort.
In regards to vision care, no doubt about that. Glasses are not cheap and I've had one that was almost $350 back in 2011. I got a new one that was about $60 back in 2017 which wasn't bad and now I've a new prescription just for the lenses. So in that sense, I plan to go back to the original frames which were better built but only for the lenses to be replaced and hoping a new insurance plan will cover it via Medicare. I've thought about using the Warby Parker app to do it.
I'm old school and prefer a hearing aid that has a BTE design which is more stable with an earmold compared to a counterpart such as an AirPod which people, from what I'm hearing, keep losing. Even someone posted in a local bulletin board in my town had found a lost AirPod to alert the public. I think an amplifier would only go so far for the hard of hearing
demographic while for the deaf who require a hearing aid or cochlear
implant, the situation would be different. And that means the AirPods would have to go through some industrial design changes for that to work since they still look like headphones.
For me, there is no stigma because I'm used to it and whether people notice my hearing aid doesn't matter much. In winter, it's pretty much covered up with my hat but in warmer seasons, it's there. So I'm mainly responsible for letting people know I need to see what they're saying as I read lips. On the other hand, when it comes to communicating with deaf people, I just switch to sign language mode if needed. I've known some deaf people who don't even wear hearing aids and prefer to just move on with their lives without an audiologist and just sign. Nothing wrong with that, either.
So in a sense, it appears to be the mainstreamed demographic that has a form of hearing loss and needing an amplifier and the other requiring an audiologist to get fitted for the hearing aid and ear mold. Cochlear implantation, from my understanding, takes some adjusting to the sound and going through some form of speech therapy with a specialist if it gets to that point.
Yes, I have no doubt that is true... It would be interesting to find out what proportion would benefit (enough) from simple amplification versus how many need the more sophisticated (and expensive) devices prescribed by a specialist. But then, even there, I suspect the processing power of the iPhone combined with proper software could take care of many those too.
Often technology takes unexpected side turns and off-shoots. I doubt even a visionary like Steve Jobs could imagine his original iPhone becoming the base for a revolution in finance as well as healthcare.
And while Apple Watch now can alert you to noisy high decibel surroundings, I hope this is merely a baby step towards Apple offering...
full fledged AirPod hearing aids,
which I’ll call AirPodEars.
Only Apple has the cachet to overnight rid the perceived stigma of wearing hearing aids (which prevents many folks from even considering them, let alone the high cost of purchase and battery replacements).
Not only that, by virtue of Apple designing them they could actually be fashionable, just as eye glasses are.
And coupled with AppleWatch and/or iPhone control, the AirPodEars would be far simpler, superior and cheaper to purchase and operate.
Come on Apple, I’m sure this must be in development.
A friend has an iPhone app-controlled hearing aid. It is so small I didn’t even notice it until he pointed it out. That being said, I have zero expectation for Apple to build this first-party. Just like how they don’t build printers, scanners, or many other specialty accessories.
I don’t disagree that Apple hearing aids might seem too niche, however:
+ On average 10,000 Americans turn 65 EVERY day, and this baby boom generation will need plenty of hearing help
+ It bears repeating: Only Apple has the cachet to make hearing aids acceptable to the vast majority with no stigma, so much so that they wouldn’t need to be hidden or tiny but rather obvious like AirPods, thus allowing better and rechargeable battery life without the need for expensive battery replacements
+ Replacing $300 AirPodEars would be a lot cheaper than the $2000 or more aids cost now (each for the better ones)
+ In fact, if they look identical to AirPods or AirPod Pros, no one would know if they were regular AirPods or hearing enhancers.
- The only negatives I can see for Apple is that the demographic tends to be older (thus generally less hip) and having lead the way with iPods and everyone blasting music in their ears Apple might be overly sensitive to being associated with helping cause the hearing loss in the first place
+ Apple could offer these readily. Medical device approvals shouldn’t be that difficult with Apple’s R&D capability
+ Apple would be admired for turning a major stigma inside out (from scourge to fashion statement, if one so chooses)
I'm born deaf myself with severe hearing loss on the left and profound on the right, wearing only one digital hearing aid on the left side. I've literally grown up with the HA with a box in a shirt pocket with wires ( think headphones ) from the late 70s all the way to BTE ( behind the ear ) design and can say that digital hearing aids are now the standard. I loved the analog aids due to their bass and volume sound quality, not to mention that they were a lot cheaper in the range of $500-800, sometimes $1,200 for a pair at the most. However, they've been phased out mostly in favor of digital which has to be programmed by the audiologist. My current digital hearing aid is from Phonak and cost about $1,200. Just for one. Fortunately, insurance coverage was available and I have a very good audiologist.
Also, hearing aids are considered 'medical' devices that can be covered by insurance, or if one can afford to pay in cash/credit. An Apple designed hearing aid would require approval to be covered by insurance as a medical device. My problem is with the actual design of AirPods that go right into your ear canal in contrast to the BTE design which is a lot more stable and more powerful ( think Beats Pro headphones with ear hooks ).
And you literally have to have a earmold cast for the hearing aid to fit into your ear properly. Also digital hearing aids that are controlled by an iPhone concerns me in that if you lose the phone, how do you control the HA?
Most importantly, for a hearing aid to work for the person with hearing loss, a hearing test must be done by an audiologist to determine the level of loss and which type of HA works best. Therefore, Apple's 'one size fits all' solution won't work. Consider this. Analog hearing aids are like amplifiers but they're designed to work with someone's specific hearing loss or deafness as they all differ for each person. Trust me, I've tried the 'in your ear' hearing aid years ago and it didn't sound good to me and that was because it wasn't powerful enough to provide 'oomph' and didn't match my hearing loss. This is why I cannot use the regular EarPods that came with the iPhone as they don't fit in my ear at all and have to rely on a HATIS headset that uses telecoil to block out the background noise entirely and only focuses on the audio ( shaped like a hook a wire straight to the headphone jack or adapter ) or use a bluetooth receiver with an 8 hour battery with a neck loop that can stream music or audio ( ie. movies, video calls, etc ) straight from any iOS device or PC. I got the receiver from the audiologist which usually costs over $100.
Cochlear implants, OTOH, are a huge issue right now with the deaf community as an ongoing debate ( which has been viewed for years as a method of identity eugenics of sorts ) and mega expensive which I've heard horror stories about. I've seen the effects of it from a very old classmate I grew up with years ago and felt bad for him when he couldn't hear for two weeks post surgery, waiting to get proper activation.
So in short, if you have vision needs ( ie. astigmatism or such ) with glasses, you go to an eye care professional for this. Same thing goes for hearing loss/deafness. I don't see Apple having the ability to design a hearing aid in an AirPod style design.
And lastly, I do NOT see a practical use for AR goggles to replace the phone for the deaf or hard of hearing. Not one bit. Consider the fact that every deaf person I've known relies completely on texting or video calls to communicate. With AR goggles, it would not solve a long distance phone call as they cannot see each other. You need a camera so that they can see each other's sign language 'face to face'. Even if they're in public, I've heard stories how some have used special iOS live transcription apps to capture conversations in public to communicate. I use app such as Sign or Cardzilla where one types in large text and flashes the message across the room as you hold up the phone, especially handy in noisy environments like nightclubs or such. It works every time.
Plus, they have certain criteria when you use sign language on screen by wearing dark clothing so that the hands can be seen by contrast, especially if they're using a VRS ( video relay service ) who have call operators on screen to follow strict ASL protocol. I don't sign much as I was originally taught to speak orally in an audist program as ASL wasn't allowed at the time but these days, I'm still learning some of them to catch up and use in case of an emergency.
But I would love Apple to build a small bluetooth device that clips on a shirt or stays tucked in clothing as a method to stream iOS music/audio to your hearing aid. There was a outdoor company ( this is the firm: https://www.outdoortechnology.com/ ) that made a rechargeable dongle with a clip and had an iPod like wheel with audio controls but with a headphone jack. Because where I live in New England, products like these are popular for outdoor activities. All you had to do was clip it to your belt or shirt and jack the old school headphones to it and walk around the house listening to music. This product came around around 2011-2012 ( I think) long before AirPods were a thing. And even if I'm driving, wind noise from the car door ( usually with closed windows ) usually masks my voice and I can't always raise Siri to access the map and I've wished there was a small bluetooth microphone to clip to my jacket so I don't have to scream for Siri.
NOTE: by the way, there are some hearing aids that are rechargeable but aren't cheap and most commonly require a battery which you can buy online or at a store, or audiologist. I use a size 675 for this and get huge packs from Amazon from a German company which is cheaper than what you get in the store.
2nd NOTE: I want to mention that a local AR player on Ingress for iOS crossed my path a few times and once I met him in person, he had an in the ear headset for his phone to make calls. I noticed that he kept it in his ear the whole time and he mentioned that he uses it to 'pick up' the conversation with his phone that's set on the table or in front of people. I suggested he talk to an audiologist due to his hearing loss and see if he can get insurance to get a new hearing aid without relying on the headset but I haven't seen him in over a year or so. The point is that headsets such as AirPods are NOT a replacement for hearing aids.
Most people requiring hearing aid assistance are on Medicare -- but traditional Medicare does not cover hearing aids. Some Medicare Advantage plans may, but then your're dealing with all the issues associated with private insurance.
Also, it is slowly coming out that many simply need a sound amplifier rather than all the filters and such medical people specialize in.
Unfortunately, the hearing industry, like the vision industry, has been overwhelmed with exorbitantly priced medicalization that many simply cannot afford. Fortunately those cartels are being challenged by over-the-counter type solutions like Airpods. Or, this summer I was able to prescribe and order a new pair of glasses for myself at less than a third the cost it would have cost me had I used the traditional medical structure. Basically I saved $400-$500 and ended up with what I think are a better pair of glasses than I would have had from an optician. (The last 2 prescriptions I got from eye doctors were way off the mark)
I think it is good that the medicalized hearing and vision structures are beginning to be limited to those who need that high level of care.
Some of the Medicare plans may cover them, even Medicaid from the state. I think it's a state by state basis, however in my state a local organization is trying to push for support on a bill that requires hearing aid insurance coverage so people can benefit from that assistance. For those who are hard of hearing or experiencing hearing loss, some form of amplification is helpful unless it becomes profound to the point that a specialist is required as a last resort.
In regards to vision care, no doubt about that. Glasses are not cheap and I've had one that was almost $350 back in 2011. I got a new one that was about $60 back in 2017 which wasn't bad and now I've a new prescription just for the lenses. So in that sense, I plan to go back to the original frames which were better built but only for the lenses to be replaced and hoping a new insurance plan will cover it via Medicare. I've thought about using the Warby Parker app to do it.
I'm old school and prefer a hearing aid that has a BTE design which is more stable with an earmold compared to a counterpart such as an AirPod which people, from what I'm hearing, keep losing. Even someone posted in a local bulletin board in my town had found a lost AirPod to alert the public. I think an amplifier would only go so far for the hard of hearing demographic while for the deaf who require a hearing aid or cochlear implant, the situation would be different. And that means the AirPods would have to go through some industrial design changes for that to work since they still look like headphones.
For me, there is no stigma because I'm used to it and whether people notice my hearing aid doesn't matter much. In winter, it's pretty much covered up with my hat but in warmer seasons, it's there. So I'm mainly responsible for letting people know I need to see what they're saying as I read lips. On the other hand, when it comes to communicating with deaf people, I just switch to sign language mode if needed. I've known some deaf people who don't even wear hearing aids and prefer to just move on with their lives without an audiologist and just sign. Nothing wrong with that, either.
So in a sense, it appears to be the mainstreamed demographic that has a form of hearing loss and needing an amplifier and the other requiring an audiologist to get fitted for the hearing aid and ear mold. Cochlear implantation, from my understanding, takes some adjusting to the sound and going through some form of speech therapy with a specialist if it gets to that point.
Absolutely correct, I was referring to people that are merely hard of hearing that could benefit from an Apple solution, not necessarily those with severe hearing loss or those that are practically deaf.
Just to be clear, I don’t wish for the hearing aid industry to suffer should Apple go into this aggressively, but with Apple’s ecosystem advantage and the huge installed base of users, the effect on existing device makers would be painful. And let’s not forget about the resellers of these devices, other than Costco, it seems to be very much a mom and pop industry taking out all those full page ads in newspapers and magazines with tremendous claims (and high markups). It’s ripe for disruption and prices to tumble.
Your insights are very helpful for me to better understand the pros and cons of certain devices, and for that I thank you.
I do. For decades they have milked the unfortunate hard of hearing in the American public with exorbitantly expensive devices because their choice was to pay the price or not be able to hear. So the industry took advantage of their monopolistic cartel. It's the story of the American healthcare industry over the past 50+ years: Charge as much as the traffic will bear. In other words, pure unabashed, unrestrained capitalist greed -- the worst of capitalism. The kind of capitalism the socialists use as a justification for their ideology.
Yes, they do still serve a function and are needed by some. But I will be happy to see the greedy whittled down to a far smaller niche industry.
And while Apple Watch now can alert you to noisy high decibel surroundings, I hope this is merely a baby step towards Apple offering...
full fledged AirPod hearing aids,
which I’ll call AirPodEars.
Only Apple has the cachet to overnight rid the perceived stigma of wearing hearing aids (which prevents many folks from even considering them, let alone the high cost of purchase and battery replacements).
Not only that, by virtue of Apple designing them they could actually be fashionable, just as eye glasses are.
And coupled with AppleWatch and/or iPhone control, the AirPodEars would be far simpler, superior and cheaper to purchase and operate.
Come on Apple, I’m sure this must be in development.
A friend has an iPhone app-controlled hearing aid. It is so small I didn’t even notice it until he pointed it out. That being said, I have zero expectation for Apple to build this first-party. Just like how they don’t build printers, scanners, or many other specialty accessories.
I don’t disagree that Apple hearing aids might seem too niche, however:
+ On average 10,000 Americans turn 65 EVERY day, and this baby boom generation will need plenty of hearing help
+ It bears repeating: Only Apple has the cachet to make hearing aids acceptable to the vast majority with no stigma, so much so that they wouldn’t need to be hidden or tiny but rather obvious like AirPods, thus allowing better and rechargeable battery life without the need for expensive battery replacements
+ Replacing $300 AirPodEars would be a lot cheaper than the $2000 or more aids cost now (each for the better ones)
+ In fact, if they look identical to AirPods or AirPod Pros, no one would know if they were regular AirPods or hearing enhancers.
- The only negatives I can see for Apple is that the demographic tends to be older (thus generally less hip) and having lead the way with iPods and everyone blasting music in their ears Apple might be overly sensitive to being associated with helping cause the hearing loss in the first place
+ Apple could offer these readily. Medical device approvals shouldn’t be that difficult with Apple’s R&D capability
+ Apple would be admired for turning a major stigma inside out (from scourge to fashion statement, if one so chooses)
I'm born deaf myself with severe hearing loss on the left and profound on the right, wearing only one digital hearing aid on the left side. I've literally grown up with the HA with a box in a shirt pocket with wires ( think headphones ) from the late 70s all the way to BTE ( behind the ear ) design and can say that digital hearing aids are now the standard. I loved the analog aids due to their bass and volume sound quality, not to mention that they were a lot cheaper in the range of $500-800, sometimes $1,200 for a pair at the most. However, they've been phased out mostly in favor of digital which has to be programmed by the audiologist. My current digital hearing aid is from Phonak and cost about $1,200. Just for one. Fortunately, insurance coverage was available and I have a very good audiologist.
Also, hearing aids are considered 'medical' devices that can be covered by insurance, or if one can afford to pay in cash/credit. An Apple designed hearing aid would require approval to be covered by insurance as a medical device. My problem is with the actual design of AirPods that go right into your ear canal in contrast to the BTE design which is a lot more stable and more powerful ( think Beats Pro headphones with ear hooks ).
And you literally have to have a earmold cast for the hearing aid to fit into your ear properly. Also digital hearing aids that are controlled by an iPhone concerns me in that if you lose the phone, how do you control the HA?
Most importantly, for a hearing aid to work for the person with hearing loss, a hearing test must be done by an audiologist to determine the level of loss and which type of HA works best. Therefore, Apple's 'one size fits all' solution won't work. Consider this. Analog hearing aids are like amplifiers but they're designed to work with someone's specific hearing loss or deafness as they all differ for each person. Trust me, I've tried the 'in your ear' hearing aid years ago and it didn't sound good to me and that was because it wasn't powerful enough to provide 'oomph' and didn't match my hearing loss. This is why I cannot use the regular EarPods that came with the iPhone as they don't fit in my ear at all and have to rely on a HATIS headset that uses telecoil to block out the background noise entirely and only focuses on the audio ( shaped like a hook a wire straight to the headphone jack or adapter ) or use a bluetooth receiver with an 8 hour battery with a neck loop that can stream music or audio ( ie. movies, video calls, etc ) straight from any iOS device or PC. I got the receiver from the audiologist which usually costs over $100.
Cochlear implants, OTOH, are a huge issue right now with the deaf community as an ongoing debate ( which has been viewed for years as a method of identity eugenics of sorts ) and mega expensive which I've heard horror stories about. I've seen the effects of it from a very old classmate I grew up with years ago and felt bad for him when he couldn't hear for two weeks post surgery, waiting to get proper activation.
So in short, if you have vision needs ( ie. astigmatism or such ) with glasses, you go to an eye care professional for this. Same thing goes for hearing loss/deafness. I don't see Apple having the ability to design a hearing aid in an AirPod style design.
And lastly, I do NOT see a practical use for AR goggles to replace the phone for the deaf or hard of hearing. Not one bit. Consider the fact that every deaf person I've known relies completely on texting or video calls to communicate. With AR goggles, it would not solve a long distance phone call as they cannot see each other. You need a camera so that they can see each other's sign language 'face to face'. Even if they're in public, I've heard stories how some have used special iOS live transcription apps to capture conversations in public to communicate. I use app such as Sign or Cardzilla where one types in large text and flashes the message across the room as you hold up the phone, especially handy in noisy environments like nightclubs or such. It works every time.
Plus, they have certain criteria when you use sign language on screen by wearing dark clothing so that the hands can be seen by contrast, especially if they're using a VRS ( video relay service ) who have call operators on screen to follow strict ASL protocol. I don't sign much as I was originally taught to speak orally in an audist program as ASL wasn't allowed at the time but these days, I'm still learning some of them to catch up and use in case of an emergency.
But I would love Apple to build a small bluetooth device that clips on a shirt or stays tucked in clothing as a method to stream iOS music/audio to your hearing aid. There was a outdoor company ( this is the firm: https://www.outdoortechnology.com/ ) that made a rechargeable dongle with a clip and had an iPod like wheel with audio controls but with a headphone jack. Because where I live in New England, products like these are popular for outdoor activities. All you had to do was clip it to your belt or shirt and jack the old school headphones to it and walk around the house listening to music. This product came around around 2011-2012 ( I think) long before AirPods were a thing. And even if I'm driving, wind noise from the car door ( usually with closed windows ) usually masks my voice and I can't always raise Siri to access the map and I've wished there was a small bluetooth microphone to clip to my jacket so I don't have to scream for Siri.
NOTE: by the way, there are some hearing aids that are rechargeable but aren't cheap and most commonly require a battery which you can buy online or at a store, or audiologist. I use a size 675 for this and get huge packs from Amazon from a German company which is cheaper than what you get in the store.
2nd NOTE: I want to mention that a local AR player on Ingress for iOS crossed my path a few times and once I met him in person, he had an in the ear headset for his phone to make calls. I noticed that he kept it in his ear the whole time and he mentioned that he uses it to 'pick up' the conversation with his phone that's set on the table or in front of people. I suggested he talk to an audiologist due to his hearing loss and see if he can get insurance to get a new hearing aid without relying on the headset but I haven't seen him in over a year or so. The point is that headsets such as AirPods are NOT a replacement for hearing aids.
Most people requiring hearing aid assistance are on Medicare -- but traditional Medicare does not cover hearing aids. Some Medicare Advantage plans may, but then your're dealing with all the issues associated with private insurance.
Also, it is slowly coming out that many simply need a sound amplifier rather than all the filters and such medical people specialize in.
Unfortunately, the hearing industry, like the vision industry, has been overwhelmed with exorbitantly priced medicalization that many simply cannot afford. Fortunately those cartels are being challenged by over-the-counter type solutions like Airpods. Or, this summer I was able to prescribe and order a new pair of glasses for myself at less than a third the cost it would have cost me had I used the traditional medical structure. Basically I saved $400-$500 and ended up with what I think are a better pair of glasses than I would have had from an optician. (The last 2 prescriptions I got from eye doctors were way off the mark)
I think it is good that the medicalized hearing and vision structures are beginning to be limited to those who need that high level of care.
Some of the Medicare plans may cover them, even Medicaid from the state. I think it's a state by state basis, however in my state a local organization is trying to push for support on a bill that requires hearing aid insurance coverage so people can benefit from that assistance. For those who are hard of hearing or experiencing hearing loss, some form of amplification is helpful unless it becomes profound to the point that a specialist is required as a last resort.
In regards to vision care, no doubt about that. Glasses are not cheap and I've had one that was almost $350 back in 2011. I got a new one that was about $60 back in 2017 which wasn't bad and now I've a new prescription just for the lenses. So in that sense, I plan to go back to the original frames which were better built but only for the lenses to be replaced and hoping a new insurance plan will cover it via Medicare. I've thought about using the Warby Parker app to do it.
I'm old school and prefer a hearing aid that has a BTE design which is more stable with an earmold compared to a counterpart such as an AirPod which people, from what I'm hearing, keep losing. Even someone posted in a local bulletin board in my town had found a lost AirPod to alert the public. I think an amplifier would only go so far for the hard of hearing demographic while for the deaf who require a hearing aid or cochlear implant, the situation would be different. And that means the AirPods would have to go through some industrial design changes for that to work since they still look like headphones.
For me, there is no stigma because I'm used to it and whether people notice my hearing aid doesn't matter much. In winter, it's pretty much covered up with my hat but in warmer seasons, it's there. So I'm mainly responsible for letting people know I need to see what they're saying as I read lips. On the other hand, when it comes to communicating with deaf people, I just switch to sign language mode if needed. I've known some deaf people who don't even wear hearing aids and prefer to just move on with their lives without an audiologist and just sign. Nothing wrong with that, either.
So in a sense, it appears to be the mainstreamed demographic that has a form of hearing loss and needing an amplifier and the other requiring an audiologist to get fitted for the hearing aid and ear mold. Cochlear implantation, from my understanding, takes some adjusting to the sound and going through some form of speech therapy with a specialist if it gets to that point.
Absolutely correct, I was referring to people that are merely hard of hearing that could benefit from an Apple solution, not necessarily those with severe hearing loss or those that are practically deaf.
Just to be clear, I don’t wish for the hearing aid industry to suffer should Apple go into this aggressively, but with Apple’s ecosystem advantage and the huge installed base of users, the effect on existing device makers would be painful. And let’s not forget about the resellers of these devices, other than Costco, it seems to be very much a mom and pop industry taking out all those full page ads in newspapers and magazines with tremendous claims (and high markups). It’s ripe for disruption and prices to tumble.
Your insights are very helpful for me to better understand the pros and cons of certain devices, and for that I thank you.
That's true in the sense resellers do make a difference in the pricing structure and product availability. I usually get a flyer from a hearing aid consultation agency 45 miles north of me when I already have an audiologist in a hospital department ( Audiology dept that accepts insurance. Thank God ) which has professional staff and equipment for testing. Before that, I had another audiologist who had her own business and didn't accept any form of insurance as the only financial assistance she allowed was a voucher from Vocational Rehabilitation. When I moved my documents over to the new one, her business folded a few months later and, if I recall correctly, it got merged with another business. Because I already had insurance, her business made no sense for me while an audiology department does. The most bizarre thing was the old audiologist never used an email system, let alone phone calls for contact but my new one does via a patient portal. That alone made a huge difference.
If the 'hard of hearing' wish to use the AirPod as a form of amplification, one thing to keep in mind is using them for most of the day and presenting the reasons for wearing them at work or school. Right now, or should I say currently, I'm seeing local people ( older than 55 ) wear BTE hearing aids that are actually smaller in size and harder to see including a couple of college students ( maybe one or two of them in the last few years ). My fencing coach uses one that's the 'in the canal' version due to his age and level of hearing loss, as an example.
It's possible Apple could redesign an alternate version of an AirPod that looks more 'acceptable' in public without a microphone sticking out. In other words, schools ( excluding colleges ), hospitals, or workplaces usually have strict regulations on wearing headpieces for phone calls. Some schools don't allow students to carry a phone which has to be put away in a locker. If one were to say to a teacher, "Oh I'm hard of hearing and need to use the AirPod to hear better", then they might have a hard time accepting it. Or a person visiting a courthouse ( the local one here doesn't allow cell/smartphones in the building ) would be asked to put it away.
But with a hearing aid, it makes it more 'sensible'. I do get what you're saying in getting rid of the stigma, even though it still lingers in some demographics and how well they overcome it. And I think AR glasses are going through that similar situation of public acceptance which is going to take some time. I think for the 'hard of hearing' to be able to use AirPods or similar, a redesign would be needed to show that it's not being used all day just for 'music/audio/phone calls' especially in an environment that may not permit smartphones. It's something to consider. I would think an AirPod with a microphone sticking out would be less conspicous.
And while Apple Watch now can alert you to noisy high decibel surroundings, I hope this is merely a baby step towards Apple offering...
full fledged AirPod hearing aids,
which I’ll call AirPodEars.
Only Apple has the cachet to overnight rid the perceived stigma of wearing hearing aids (which prevents many folks from even considering them, let alone the high cost of purchase and battery replacements).
Not only that, by virtue of Apple designing them they could actually be fashionable, just as eye glasses are.
And coupled with AppleWatch and/or iPhone control, the AirPodEars would be far simpler, superior and cheaper to purchase and operate.
Come on Apple, I’m sure this must be in development.
A friend has an iPhone app-controlled hearing aid. It is so small I didn’t even notice it until he pointed it out. That being said, I have zero expectation for Apple to build this first-party. Just like how they don’t build printers, scanners, or many other specialty accessories.
I don’t disagree that Apple hearing aids might seem too niche, however:
+ On average 10,000 Americans turn 65 EVERY day, and this baby boom generation will need plenty of hearing help
+ It bears repeating: Only Apple has the cachet to make hearing aids acceptable to the vast majority with no stigma, so much so that they wouldn’t need to be hidden or tiny but rather obvious like AirPods, thus allowing better and rechargeable battery life without the need for expensive battery replacements
+ Replacing $300 AirPodEars would be a lot cheaper than the $2000 or more aids cost now (each for the better ones)
+ In fact, if they look identical to AirPods or AirPod Pros, no one would know if they were regular AirPods or hearing enhancers.
- The only negatives I can see for Apple is that the demographic tends to be older (thus generally less hip) and having lead the way with iPods and everyone blasting music in their ears Apple might be overly sensitive to being associated with helping cause the hearing loss in the first place
+ Apple could offer these readily. Medical device approvals shouldn’t be that difficult with Apple’s R&D capability
+ Apple would be admired for turning a major stigma inside out (from scourge to fashion statement, if one so chooses)
I'm born deaf myself with severe hearing loss on the left and profound on the right, wearing only one digital hearing aid on the left side. I've literally grown up with the HA with a box in a shirt pocket with wires ( think headphones ) from the late 70s all the way to BTE ( behind the ear ) design and can say that digital hearing aids are now the standard. I loved the analog aids due to their bass and volume sound quality, not to mention that they were a lot cheaper in the range of $500-800, sometimes $1,200 for a pair at the most. However, they've been phased out mostly in favor of digital which has to be programmed by the audiologist. My current digital hearing aid is from Phonak and cost about $1,200. Just for one. Fortunately, insurance coverage was available and I have a very good audiologist.
Also, hearing aids are considered 'medical' devices that can be covered by insurance, or if one can afford to pay in cash/credit. An Apple designed hearing aid would require approval to be covered by insurance as a medical device. My problem is with the actual design of AirPods that go right into your ear canal in contrast to the BTE design which is a lot more stable and more powerful ( think Beats Pro headphones with ear hooks ).
And you literally have to have a earmold cast for the hearing aid to fit into your ear properly. Also digital hearing aids that are controlled by an iPhone concerns me in that if you lose the phone, how do you control the HA?
Most importantly, for a hearing aid to work for the person with hearing loss, a hearing test must be done by an audiologist to determine the level of loss and which type of HA works best. Therefore, Apple's 'one size fits all' solution won't work. Consider this. Analog hearing aids are like amplifiers but they're designed to work with someone's specific hearing loss or deafness as they all differ for each person. Trust me, I've tried the 'in your ear' hearing aid years ago and it didn't sound good to me and that was because it wasn't powerful enough to provide 'oomph' and didn't match my hearing loss. This is why I cannot use the regular EarPods that came with the iPhone as they don't fit in my ear at all and have to rely on a HATIS headset that uses telecoil to block out the background noise entirely and only focuses on the audio ( shaped like a hook a wire straight to the headphone jack or adapter ) or use a bluetooth receiver with an 8 hour battery with a neck loop that can stream music or audio ( ie. movies, video calls, etc ) straight from any iOS device or PC. I got the receiver from the audiologist which usually costs over $100.
Cochlear implants, OTOH, are a huge issue right now with the deaf community as an ongoing debate ( which has been viewed for years as a method of identity eugenics of sorts ) and mega expensive which I've heard horror stories about. I've seen the effects of it from a very old classmate I grew up with years ago and felt bad for him when he couldn't hear for two weeks post surgery, waiting to get proper activation.
So in short, if you have vision needs ( ie. astigmatism or such ) with glasses, you go to an eye care professional for this. Same thing goes for hearing loss/deafness. I don't see Apple having the ability to design a hearing aid in an AirPod style design.
And lastly, I do NOT see a practical use for AR goggles to replace the phone for the deaf or hard of hearing. Not one bit. Consider the fact that every deaf person I've known relies completely on texting or video calls to communicate. With AR goggles, it would not solve a long distance phone call as they cannot see each other. You need a camera so that they can see each other's sign language 'face to face'. Even if they're in public, I've heard stories how some have used special iOS live transcription apps to capture conversations in public to communicate. I use app such as Sign or Cardzilla where one types in large text and flashes the message across the room as you hold up the phone, especially handy in noisy environments like nightclubs or such. It works every time.
Plus, they have certain criteria when you use sign language on screen by wearing dark clothing so that the hands can be seen by contrast, especially if they're using a VRS ( video relay service ) who have call operators on screen to follow strict ASL protocol. I don't sign much as I was originally taught to speak orally in an audist program as ASL wasn't allowed at the time but these days, I'm still learning some of them to catch up and use in case of an emergency.
But I would love Apple to build a small bluetooth device that clips on a shirt or stays tucked in clothing as a method to stream iOS music/audio to your hearing aid. There was a outdoor company ( this is the firm: https://www.outdoortechnology.com/ ) that made a rechargeable dongle with a clip and had an iPod like wheel with audio controls but with a headphone jack. Because where I live in New England, products like these are popular for outdoor activities. All you had to do was clip it to your belt or shirt and jack the old school headphones to it and walk around the house listening to music. This product came around around 2011-2012 ( I think) long before AirPods were a thing. And even if I'm driving, wind noise from the car door ( usually with closed windows ) usually masks my voice and I can't always raise Siri to access the map and I've wished there was a small bluetooth microphone to clip to my jacket so I don't have to scream for Siri.
NOTE: by the way, there are some hearing aids that are rechargeable but aren't cheap and most commonly require a battery which you can buy online or at a store, or audiologist. I use a size 675 for this and get huge packs from Amazon from a German company which is cheaper than what you get in the store.
2nd NOTE: I want to mention that a local AR player on Ingress for iOS crossed my path a few times and once I met him in person, he had an in the ear headset for his phone to make calls. I noticed that he kept it in his ear the whole time and he mentioned that he uses it to 'pick up' the conversation with his phone that's set on the table or in front of people. I suggested he talk to an audiologist due to his hearing loss and see if he can get insurance to get a new hearing aid without relying on the headset but I haven't seen him in over a year or so. The point is that headsets such as AirPods are NOT a replacement for hearing aids.
Most people requiring hearing aid assistance are on Medicare -- but traditional Medicare does not cover hearing aids. Some Medicare Advantage plans may, but then your're dealing with all the issues associated with private insurance.
Also, it is slowly coming out that many simply need a sound amplifier rather than all the filters and such medical people specialize in.
Unfortunately, the hearing industry, like the vision industry, has been overwhelmed with exorbitantly priced medicalization that many simply cannot afford. Fortunately those cartels are being challenged by over-the-counter type solutions like Airpods. Or, this summer I was able to prescribe and order a new pair of glasses for myself at less than a third the cost it would have cost me had I used the traditional medical structure. Basically I saved $400-$500 and ended up with what I think are a better pair of glasses than I would have had from an optician. (The last 2 prescriptions I got from eye doctors were way off the mark)
I think it is good that the medicalized hearing and vision structures are beginning to be limited to those who need that high level of care.
Some of the Medicare plans may cover them, even Medicaid from the state. I think it's a state by state basis, however in my state a local organization is trying to push for support on a bill that requires hearing aid insurance coverage so people can benefit from that assistance. For those who are hard of hearing or experiencing hearing loss, some form of amplification is helpful unless it becomes profound to the point that a specialist is required as a last resort.
In regards to vision care, no doubt about that. Glasses are not cheap and I've had one that was almost $350 back in 2011. I got a new one that was about $60 back in 2017 which wasn't bad and now I've a new prescription just for the lenses. So in that sense, I plan to go back to the original frames which were better built but only for the lenses to be replaced and hoping a new insurance plan will cover it via Medicare. I've thought about using the Warby Parker app to do it.
I'm old school and prefer a hearing aid that has a BTE design which is more stable with an earmold compared to a counterpart such as an AirPod which people, from what I'm hearing, keep losing. Even someone posted in a local bulletin board in my town had found a lost AirPod to alert the public. I think an amplifier would only go so far for the hard of hearing demographic while for the deaf who require a hearing aid or cochlear implant, the situation would be different. And that means the AirPods would have to go through some industrial design changes for that to work since they still look like headphones.
For me, there is no stigma because I'm used to it and whether people notice my hearing aid doesn't matter much. In winter, it's pretty much covered up with my hat but in warmer seasons, it's there. So I'm mainly responsible for letting people know I need to see what they're saying as I read lips. On the other hand, when it comes to communicating with deaf people, I just switch to sign language mode if needed. I've known some deaf people who don't even wear hearing aids and prefer to just move on with their lives without an audiologist and just sign. Nothing wrong with that, either.
So in a sense, it appears to be the mainstreamed demographic that has a form of hearing loss and needing an amplifier and the other requiring an audiologist to get fitted for the hearing aid and ear mold. Cochlear implantation, from my understanding, takes some adjusting to the sound and going through some form of speech therapy with a specialist if it gets to that point.
Absolutely correct, I was referring to people that are merely hard of hearing that could benefit from an Apple solution, not necessarily those with severe hearing loss or those that are practically deaf.
Just to be clear, I don’t wish for the hearing aid industry to suffer should Apple go into this aggressively, but with Apple’s ecosystem advantage and the huge installed base of users, the effect on existing device makers would be painful. And let’s not forget about the resellers of these devices, other than Costco, it seems to be very much a mom and pop industry taking out all those full page ads in newspapers and magazines with tremendous claims (and high markups). It’s ripe for disruption and prices to tumble.
Your insights are very helpful for me to better understand the pros and cons of certain devices, and for that I thank you.
I do. For decades they have milked the unfortunate hard of hearing in the American public with exorbitantly expensive devices because their choice was to pay the price or not be able to hear. So the industry took advantage of their monopolistic cartel. It's the story of the American healthcare industry over the past 50+ years: Charge as much as the traffic will bear. In other words, pure unabashed, unrestrained capitalist greed -- the worst of capitalism. The kind of capitalism the socialists use as a justification for their ideology.
Yes, they do still serve a function and are needed by some. But I will be happy to see the greedy whittled down to a far smaller niche industry.
It's not the first time I've seen independent 'hearing aid services' send out mailers or advertisement that they're the solution to the problem, promising to erase the social stigma of isolation with their devices. Even mentioning cochlear implants. However, when I go to their offices, the first thing I look for is their certification and diplomas on the wall to see if they are what they are and how qualified.
To date, I've had about 7 audiologists in my lifetime. I had 3 in the 1970s/80s from an actual hearing and speech center when I got first diagnosed with deafness, the second one was in a corner department within SEARS ( we're talking old school ), and one from inside a school program I grew up in ( we were required to wear special hearing equipment provided by Phonak at the time with a microphone attached to the teacher. It made for nice espionage when the teacher leaves the room to chat to someone when I can pick up what's happening due to my level of residual hearing. Not kidding ). Then a 4th one in high school in the 80s and a 5th one within an Otolaryngologist's office. Number six was the previous audiologist that folded. Now, number seven is the current one in a hospital department.
But you're right, there are some who don't know what they're doing or are just out for greed as I rather deal with a qualified professional with credentials.
And while Apple Watch now can alert you to noisy high decibel surroundings, I hope this is merely a baby step towards Apple offering...
full fledged AirPod hearing aids,
which I’ll call AirPodEars.
Only Apple has the cachet to overnight rid the perceived stigma of wearing hearing aids (which prevents many folks from even considering them, let alone the high cost of purchase and battery replacements).
Not only that, by virtue of Apple designing them they could actually be fashionable, just as eye glasses are.
And coupled with AppleWatch and/or iPhone control, the AirPodEars would be far simpler, superior and cheaper to purchase and operate.
Come on Apple, I’m sure this must be in development.
A friend has an iPhone app-controlled hearing aid. It is so small I didn’t even notice it until he pointed it out. That being said, I have zero expectation for Apple to build this first-party. Just like how they don’t build printers, scanners, or many other specialty accessories.
I don’t disagree that Apple hearing aids might seem too niche, however:
+ On average 10,000 Americans turn 65 EVERY day, and this baby boom generation will need plenty of hearing help
+ It bears repeating: Only Apple has the cachet to make hearing aids acceptable to the vast majority with no stigma, so much so that they wouldn’t need to be hidden or tiny but rather obvious like AirPods, thus allowing better and rechargeable battery life without the need for expensive battery replacements
+ Replacing $300 AirPodEars would be a lot cheaper than the $2000 or more aids cost now (each for the better ones)
+ In fact, if they look identical to AirPods or AirPod Pros, no one would know if they were regular AirPods or hearing enhancers.
- The only negatives I can see for Apple is that the demographic tends to be older (thus generally less hip) and having lead the way with iPods and everyone blasting music in their ears Apple might be overly sensitive to being associated with helping cause the hearing loss in the first place
+ Apple could offer these readily. Medical device approvals shouldn’t be that difficult with Apple’s R&D capability
+ Apple would be admired for turning a major stigma inside out (from scourge to fashion statement, if one so chooses)
I'm born deaf myself with severe hearing loss on the left and profound on the right, wearing only one digital hearing aid on the left side. I've literally grown up with the HA with a box in a shirt pocket with wires ( think headphones ) from the late 70s all the way to BTE ( behind the ear ) design and can say that digital hearing aids are now the standard. I loved the analog aids due to their bass and volume sound quality, not to mention that they were a lot cheaper in the range of $500-800, sometimes $1,200 for a pair at the most. However, they've been phased out mostly in favor of digital which has to be programmed by the audiologist. My current digital hearing aid is from Phonak and cost about $1,200. Just for one. Fortunately, insurance coverage was available and I have a very good audiologist.
Also, hearing aids are considered 'medical' devices that can be covered by insurance, or if one can afford to pay in cash/credit. An Apple designed hearing aid would require approval to be covered by insurance as a medical device. My problem is with the actual design of AirPods that go right into your ear canal in contrast to the BTE design which is a lot more stable and more powerful ( think Beats Pro headphones with ear hooks ).
And you literally have to have a earmold cast for the hearing aid to fit into your ear properly. Also digital hearing aids that are controlled by an iPhone concerns me in that if you lose the phone, how do you control the HA?
Most importantly, for a hearing aid to work for the person with hearing loss, a hearing test must be done by an audiologist to determine the level of loss and which type of HA works best. Therefore, Apple's 'one size fits all' solution won't work. Consider this. Analog hearing aids are like amplifiers but they're designed to work with someone's specific hearing loss or deafness as they all differ for each person. Trust me, I've tried the 'in your ear' hearing aid years ago and it didn't sound good to me and that was because it wasn't powerful enough to provide 'oomph' and didn't match my hearing loss. This is why I cannot use the regular EarPods that came with the iPhone as they don't fit in my ear at all and have to rely on a HATIS headset that uses telecoil to block out the background noise entirely and only focuses on the audio ( shaped like a hook a wire straight to the headphone jack or adapter ) or use a bluetooth receiver with an 8 hour battery with a neck loop that can stream music or audio ( ie. movies, video calls, etc ) straight from any iOS device or PC. I got the receiver from the audiologist which usually costs over $100.
Cochlear implants, OTOH, are a huge issue right now with the deaf community as an ongoing debate ( which has been viewed for years as a method of identity eugenics of sorts ) and mega expensive which I've heard horror stories about. I've seen the effects of it from a very old classmate I grew up with years ago and felt bad for him when he couldn't hear for two weeks post surgery, waiting to get proper activation.
So in short, if you have vision needs ( ie. astigmatism or such ) with glasses, you go to an eye care professional for this. Same thing goes for hearing loss/deafness. I don't see Apple having the ability to design a hearing aid in an AirPod style design.
And lastly, I do NOT see a practical use for AR goggles to replace the phone for the deaf or hard of hearing. Not one bit. Consider the fact that every deaf person I've known relies completely on texting or video calls to communicate. With AR goggles, it would not solve a long distance phone call as they cannot see each other. You need a camera so that they can see each other's sign language 'face to face'. Even if they're in public, I've heard stories how some have used special iOS live transcription apps to capture conversations in public to communicate. I use app such as Sign or Cardzilla where one types in large text and flashes the message across the room as you hold up the phone, especially handy in noisy environments like nightclubs or such. It works every time.
Plus, they have certain criteria when you use sign language on screen by wearing dark clothing so that the hands can be seen by contrast, especially if they're using a VRS ( video relay service ) who have call operators on screen to follow strict ASL protocol. I don't sign much as I was originally taught to speak orally in an audist program as ASL wasn't allowed at the time but these days, I'm still learning some of them to catch up and use in case of an emergency.
But I would love Apple to build a small bluetooth device that clips on a shirt or stays tucked in clothing as a method to stream iOS music/audio to your hearing aid. There was a outdoor company ( this is the firm: https://www.outdoortechnology.com/ ) that made a rechargeable dongle with a clip and had an iPod like wheel with audio controls but with a headphone jack. Because where I live in New England, products like these are popular for outdoor activities. All you had to do was clip it to your belt or shirt and jack the old school headphones to it and walk around the house listening to music. This product came around around 2011-2012 ( I think) long before AirPods were a thing. And even if I'm driving, wind noise from the car door ( usually with closed windows ) usually masks my voice and I can't always raise Siri to access the map and I've wished there was a small bluetooth microphone to clip to my jacket so I don't have to scream for Siri.
NOTE: by the way, there are some hearing aids that are rechargeable but aren't cheap and most commonly require a battery which you can buy online or at a store, or audiologist. I use a size 675 for this and get huge packs from Amazon from a German company which is cheaper than what you get in the store.
2nd NOTE: I want to mention that a local AR player on Ingress for iOS crossed my path a few times and once I met him in person, he had an in the ear headset for his phone to make calls. I noticed that he kept it in his ear the whole time and he mentioned that he uses it to 'pick up' the conversation with his phone that's set on the table or in front of people. I suggested he talk to an audiologist due to his hearing loss and see if he can get insurance to get a new hearing aid without relying on the headset but I haven't seen him in over a year or so. The point is that headsets such as AirPods are NOT a replacement for hearing aids.
Most people requiring hearing aid assistance are on Medicare -- but traditional Medicare does not cover hearing aids. Some Medicare Advantage plans may, but then your're dealing with all the issues associated with private insurance.
Also, it is slowly coming out that many simply need a sound amplifier rather than all the filters and such medical people specialize in.
Unfortunately, the hearing industry, like the vision industry, has been overwhelmed with exorbitantly priced medicalization that many simply cannot afford. Fortunately those cartels are being challenged by over-the-counter type solutions like Airpods. Or, this summer I was able to prescribe and order a new pair of glasses for myself at less than a third the cost it would have cost me had I used the traditional medical structure. Basically I saved $400-$500 and ended up with what I think are a better pair of glasses than I would have had from an optician. (The last 2 prescriptions I got from eye doctors were way off the mark)
I think it is good that the medicalized hearing and vision structures are beginning to be limited to those who need that high level of care.
Some of the Medicare plans may cover them, even Medicaid from the state. I think it's a state by state basis, however in my state a local organization is trying to push for support on a bill that requires hearing aid insurance coverage so people can benefit from that assistance. For those who are hard of hearing or experiencing hearing loss, some form of amplification is helpful unless it becomes profound to the point that a specialist is required as a last resort.
In regards to vision care, no doubt about that. Glasses are not cheap and I've had one that was almost $350 back in 2011. I got a new one that was about $60 back in 2017 which wasn't bad and now I've a new prescription just for the lenses. So in that sense, I plan to go back to the original frames which were better built but only for the lenses to be replaced and hoping a new insurance plan will cover it via Medicare. I've thought about using the Warby Parker app to do it.
I'm old school and prefer a hearing aid that has a BTE design which is more stable with an earmold compared to a counterpart such as an AirPod which people, from what I'm hearing, keep losing. Even someone posted in a local bulletin board in my town had found a lost AirPod to alert the public. I think an amplifier would only go so far for the hard of hearing demographic while for the deaf who require a hearing aid or cochlear implant, the situation would be different. And that means the AirPods would have to go through some industrial design changes for that to work since they still look like headphones.
For me, there is no stigma because I'm used to it and whether people notice my hearing aid doesn't matter much. In winter, it's pretty much covered up with my hat but in warmer seasons, it's there. So I'm mainly responsible for letting people know I need to see what they're saying as I read lips. On the other hand, when it comes to communicating with deaf people, I just switch to sign language mode if needed. I've known some deaf people who don't even wear hearing aids and prefer to just move on with their lives without an audiologist and just sign. Nothing wrong with that, either.
So in a sense, it appears to be the mainstreamed demographic that has a form of hearing loss and needing an amplifier and the other requiring an audiologist to get fitted for the hearing aid and ear mold. Cochlear implantation, from my understanding, takes some adjusting to the sound and going through some form of speech therapy with a specialist if it gets to that point.
Absolutely correct, I was referring to people that are merely hard of hearing that could benefit from an Apple solution, not necessarily those with severe hearing loss or those that are practically deaf.
Just to be clear, I don’t wish for the hearing aid industry to suffer should Apple go into this aggressively, but with Apple’s ecosystem advantage and the huge installed base of users, the effect on existing device makers would be painful. And let’s not forget about the resellers of these devices, other than Costco, it seems to be very much a mom and pop industry taking out all those full page ads in newspapers and magazines with tremendous claims (and high markups). It’s ripe for disruption and prices to tumble.
Your insights are very helpful for me to better understand the pros and cons of certain devices, and for that I thank you.
I do. For decades they have milked the unfortunate hard of hearing in the American public with exorbitantly expensive devices because their choice was to pay the price or not be able to hear. So the industry took advantage of their monopolistic cartel. It's the story of the American healthcare industry over the past 50+ years: Charge as much as the traffic will bear. In other words, pure unabashed, unrestrained capitalist greed -- the worst of capitalism. The kind of capitalism the socialists use as a justification for their ideology.
Yes, they do still serve a function and are needed by some. But I will be happy to see the greedy whittled down to a far smaller niche industry.
It's not the first time I've seen independent 'hearing aid services' send out mailers or advertisement that they're the solution to the problem, promising to erase the social stigma of isolation with their devices. Even mentioning cochlear implants. However, when I go to their offices, the first thing I look for is their certification and diplomas on the wall to see if they are what they are and how qualified.
To date, I've had about 7 audiologists in my lifetime. I had 3 in the 1970s/80s from an actual hearing and speech center when I got first diagnosed with deafness, the second one was in a corner department within SEARS ( we're talking old school ), and one from inside a school program I grew up in ( we were required to wear special hearing equipment provided by Phonak at the time with a microphone attached to the teacher. It made for nice espionage when the teacher leaves the room to chat to someone when I can pick up what's happening due to my level of residual hearing. Not kidding ). Then a 4th one in high school in the 80s and a 5th one within an Otolaryngologist's office. Number six was the previous audiologist that folded. Now, number seven is the current one in a hospital department.
But you're right, there are some who don't know what they're doing or are just out for greed as I rather deal with a qualified professional with credentials.
I didn't mean to suggest that they didn't know what they were doing. I was simply protesting the systemic greed in the profession: If you wanted a hearing aid you needed to pay for a prescription and then pay for some very expensive equipment.
A few years back my next door neighbor, the father of an old friend, was living on a Social Security check and barely scrapping by. But, when his hearing aid started to go bad they wanted thousands from him for new ones and he simply could not afford it. His hearing loss was from an injury during WW-II so he may have required that level of expertise and sophisticated equipment. But I am still happy to see people having the option of using consumer grade and priced equipment.
And while Apple Watch now can alert you to noisy high decibel surroundings, I hope this is merely a baby step towards Apple offering...
full fledged AirPod hearing aids,
which I’ll call AirPodEars.
Only Apple has the cachet to overnight rid the perceived stigma of wearing hearing aids (which prevents many folks from even considering them, let alone the high cost of purchase and battery replacements).
Not only that, by virtue of Apple designing them they could actually be fashionable, just as eye glasses are.
And coupled with AppleWatch and/or iPhone control, the AirPodEars would be far simpler, superior and cheaper to purchase and operate.
Come on Apple, I’m sure this must be in development.
A friend has an iPhone app-controlled hearing aid. It is so small I didn’t even notice it until he pointed it out. That being said, I have zero expectation for Apple to build this first-party. Just like how they don’t build printers, scanners, or many other specialty accessories.
I don’t disagree that Apple hearing aids might seem too niche, however:
+ On average 10,000 Americans turn 65 EVERY day, and this baby boom generation will need plenty of hearing help
+ It bears repeating: Only Apple has the cachet to make hearing aids acceptable to the vast majority with no stigma, so much so that they wouldn’t need to be hidden or tiny but rather obvious like AirPods, thus allowing better and rechargeable battery life without the need for expensive battery replacements
+ Replacing $300 AirPodEars would be a lot cheaper than the $2000 or more aids cost now (each for the better ones)
+ In fact, if they look identical to AirPods or AirPod Pros, no one would know if they were regular AirPods or hearing enhancers.
- The only negatives I can see for Apple is that the demographic tends to be older (thus generally less hip) and having lead the way with iPods and everyone blasting music in their ears Apple might be overly sensitive to being associated with helping cause the hearing loss in the first place
+ Apple could offer these readily. Medical device approvals shouldn’t be that difficult with Apple’s R&D capability
+ Apple would be admired for turning a major stigma inside out (from scourge to fashion statement, if one so chooses)
I'm born deaf myself with severe hearing loss on the left and profound on the right, wearing only one digital hearing aid on the left side. I've literally grown up with the HA with a box in a shirt pocket with wires ( think headphones ) from the late 70s all the way to BTE ( behind the ear ) design and can say that digital hearing aids are now the standard. I loved the analog aids due to their bass and volume sound quality, not to mention that they were a lot cheaper in the range of $500-800, sometimes $1,200 for a pair at the most. However, they've been phased out mostly in favor of digital which has to be programmed by the audiologist. My current digital hearing aid is from Phonak and cost about $1,200. Just for one. Fortunately, insurance coverage was available and I have a very good audiologist.
Also, hearing aids are considered 'medical' devices that can be covered by insurance, or if one can afford to pay in cash/credit. An Apple designed hearing aid would require approval to be covered by insurance as a medical device. My problem is with the actual design of AirPods that go right into your ear canal in contrast to the BTE design which is a lot more stable and more powerful ( think Beats Pro headphones with ear hooks ).
And you literally have to have a earmold cast for the hearing aid to fit into your ear properly. Also digital hearing aids that are controlled by an iPhone concerns me in that if you lose the phone, how do you control the HA?
Most importantly, for a hearing aid to work for the person with hearing loss, a hearing test must be done by an audiologist to determine the level of loss and which type of HA works best. Therefore, Apple's 'one size fits all' solution won't work. Consider this. Analog hearing aids are like amplifiers but they're designed to work with someone's specific hearing loss or deafness as they all differ for each person. Trust me, I've tried the 'in your ear' hearing aid years ago and it didn't sound good to me and that was because it wasn't powerful enough to provide 'oomph' and didn't match my hearing loss. This is why I cannot use the regular EarPods that came with the iPhone as they don't fit in my ear at all and have to rely on a HATIS headset that uses telecoil to block out the background noise entirely and only focuses on the audio ( shaped like a hook a wire straight to the headphone jack or adapter ) or use a bluetooth receiver with an 8 hour battery with a neck loop that can stream music or audio ( ie. movies, video calls, etc ) straight from any iOS device or PC. I got the receiver from the audiologist which usually costs over $100.
Cochlear implants, OTOH, are a huge issue right now with the deaf community as an ongoing debate ( which has been viewed for years as a method of identity eugenics of sorts ) and mega expensive which I've heard horror stories about. I've seen the effects of it from a very old classmate I grew up with years ago and felt bad for him when he couldn't hear for two weeks post surgery, waiting to get proper activation.
So in short, if you have vision needs ( ie. astigmatism or such ) with glasses, you go to an eye care professional for this. Same thing goes for hearing loss/deafness. I don't see Apple having the ability to design a hearing aid in an AirPod style design.
And lastly, I do NOT see a practical use for AR goggles to replace the phone for the deaf or hard of hearing. Not one bit. Consider the fact that every deaf person I've known relies completely on texting or video calls to communicate. With AR goggles, it would not solve a long distance phone call as they cannot see each other. You need a camera so that they can see each other's sign language 'face to face'. Even if they're in public, I've heard stories how some have used special iOS live transcription apps to capture conversations in public to communicate. I use app such as Sign or Cardzilla where one types in large text and flashes the message across the room as you hold up the phone, especially handy in noisy environments like nightclubs or such. It works every time.
Plus, they have certain criteria when you use sign language on screen by wearing dark clothing so that the hands can be seen by contrast, especially if they're using a VRS ( video relay service ) who have call operators on screen to follow strict ASL protocol. I don't sign much as I was originally taught to speak orally in an audist program as ASL wasn't allowed at the time but these days, I'm still learning some of them to catch up and use in case of an emergency.
But I would love Apple to build a small bluetooth device that clips on a shirt or stays tucked in clothing as a method to stream iOS music/audio to your hearing aid. There was a outdoor company ( this is the firm: https://www.outdoortechnology.com/ ) that made a rechargeable dongle with a clip and had an iPod like wheel with audio controls but with a headphone jack. Because where I live in New England, products like these are popular for outdoor activities. All you had to do was clip it to your belt or shirt and jack the old school headphones to it and walk around the house listening to music. This product came around around 2011-2012 ( I think) long before AirPods were a thing. And even if I'm driving, wind noise from the car door ( usually with closed windows ) usually masks my voice and I can't always raise Siri to access the map and I've wished there was a small bluetooth microphone to clip to my jacket so I don't have to scream for Siri.
NOTE: by the way, there are some hearing aids that are rechargeable but aren't cheap and most commonly require a battery which you can buy online or at a store, or audiologist. I use a size 675 for this and get huge packs from Amazon from a German company which is cheaper than what you get in the store.
2nd NOTE: I want to mention that a local AR player on Ingress for iOS crossed my path a few times and once I met him in person, he had an in the ear headset for his phone to make calls. I noticed that he kept it in his ear the whole time and he mentioned that he uses it to 'pick up' the conversation with his phone that's set on the table or in front of people. I suggested he talk to an audiologist due to his hearing loss and see if he can get insurance to get a new hearing aid without relying on the headset but I haven't seen him in over a year or so. The point is that headsets such as AirPods are NOT a replacement for hearing aids.
Most people requiring hearing aid assistance are on Medicare -- but traditional Medicare does not cover hearing aids. Some Medicare Advantage plans may, but then your're dealing with all the issues associated with private insurance.
Also, it is slowly coming out that many simply need a sound amplifier rather than all the filters and such medical people specialize in.
Unfortunately, the hearing industry, like the vision industry, has been overwhelmed with exorbitantly priced medicalization that many simply cannot afford. Fortunately those cartels are being challenged by over-the-counter type solutions like Airpods. Or, this summer I was able to prescribe and order a new pair of glasses for myself at less than a third the cost it would have cost me had I used the traditional medical structure. Basically I saved $400-$500 and ended up with what I think are a better pair of glasses than I would have had from an optician. (The last 2 prescriptions I got from eye doctors were way off the mark)
I think it is good that the medicalized hearing and vision structures are beginning to be limited to those who need that high level of care.
Some of the Medicare plans may cover them, even Medicaid from the state. I think it's a state by state basis, however in my state a local organization is trying to push for support on a bill that requires hearing aid insurance coverage so people can benefit from that assistance. For those who are hard of hearing or experiencing hearing loss, some form of amplification is helpful unless it becomes profound to the point that a specialist is required as a last resort.
In regards to vision care, no doubt about that. Glasses are not cheap and I've had one that was almost $350 back in 2011. I got a new one that was about $60 back in 2017 which wasn't bad and now I've a new prescription just for the lenses. So in that sense, I plan to go back to the original frames which were better built but only for the lenses to be replaced and hoping a new insurance plan will cover it via Medicare. I've thought about using the Warby Parker app to do it.
I'm old school and prefer a hearing aid that has a BTE design which is more stable with an earmold compared to a counterpart such as an AirPod which people, from what I'm hearing, keep losing. Even someone posted in a local bulletin board in my town had found a lost AirPod to alert the public. I think an amplifier would only go so far for the hard of hearing demographic while for the deaf who require a hearing aid or cochlear implant, the situation would be different. And that means the AirPods would have to go through some industrial design changes for that to work since they still look like headphones.
For me, there is no stigma because I'm used to it and whether people notice my hearing aid doesn't matter much. In winter, it's pretty much covered up with my hat but in warmer seasons, it's there. So I'm mainly responsible for letting people know I need to see what they're saying as I read lips. On the other hand, when it comes to communicating with deaf people, I just switch to sign language mode if needed. I've known some deaf people who don't even wear hearing aids and prefer to just move on with their lives without an audiologist and just sign. Nothing wrong with that, either.
So in a sense, it appears to be the mainstreamed demographic that has a form of hearing loss and needing an amplifier and the other requiring an audiologist to get fitted for the hearing aid and ear mold. Cochlear implantation, from my understanding, takes some adjusting to the sound and going through some form of speech therapy with a specialist if it gets to that point.
Absolutely correct, I was referring to people that are merely hard of hearing that could benefit from an Apple solution, not necessarily those with severe hearing loss or those that are practically deaf.
Just to be clear, I don’t wish for the hearing aid industry to suffer should Apple go into this aggressively, but with Apple’s ecosystem advantage and the huge installed base of users, the effect on existing device makers would be painful. And let’s not forget about the resellers of these devices, other than Costco, it seems to be very much a mom and pop industry taking out all those full page ads in newspapers and magazines with tremendous claims (and high markups). It’s ripe for disruption and prices to tumble.
Your insights are very helpful for me to better understand the pros and cons of certain devices, and for that I thank you.
That's true in the sense resellers do make a difference in the pricing structure and product availability. I usually get a flyer from a hearing aid consultation agency 45 miles north of me when I already have an audiologist in a hospital department ( Audiology dept that accepts insurance. Thank God ) which has professional staff and equipment for testing. Before that, I had another audiologist who had her own business and didn't accept any form of insurance as the only financial assistance she allowed was a voucher from Vocational Rehabilitation. When I moved my documents over to the new one, her business folded a few months later and, if I recall correctly, it got merged with another business. Because I already had insurance, her business made no sense for me while an audiology department does. The most bizarre thing was the old audiologist never used an email system, let alone phone calls for contact but my new one does via a patient portal. That alone made a huge difference.
If the 'hard of hearing' wish to use the AirPod as a form of amplification, one thing to keep in mind is using them for most of the day and presenting the reasons for wearing them at work or school. Right now, or should I say currently, I'm seeing local people ( older than 55 ) wear BTE hearing aids that are actually smaller in size and harder to see including a couple of college students ( maybe one or two of them in the last few years ). My fencing coach uses one that's the 'in the canal' version due to his age and level of hearing loss, as an example.
It's possible Apple could redesign an alternate version of an AirPod that looks more 'acceptable' in public without a microphone sticking out. In other words, schools ( excluding colleges ), hospitals, or workplaces usually have strict regulations on wearing headpieces for phone calls. Some schools don't allow students to carry a phone which has to be put away in a locker. If one were to say to a teacher, "Oh I'm hard of hearing and need to use the AirPod to hear better", then they might have a hard time accepting it. Or a person visiting a courthouse ( the local one here doesn't allow cell/smartphones in the building ) would be asked to put it away.
But with a hearing aid, it makes it more 'sensible'. I do get what you're saying in getting rid of the stigma, even though it still lingers in some demographics and how well they overcome it. And I think AR glasses are going through that similar situation of public acceptance which is going to take some time. I think for the 'hard of hearing' to be able to use AirPods or similar, a redesign would be needed to show that it's not being used all day just for 'music/audio/phone calls' especially in an environment that may not permit smartphones. It's something to consider. I would think an AirPod with a microphone sticking out would be less conspicous.
Here’s a perfect example of the gray area of “invisible tech” that you’re describing and where it should or shouldn’t be used, and this is regarding Senators caught wearing AppleWatches on the senate floor during the impeachment hearing where no electronics are allowed... https://apple.news/AnOZnSgFFRje9eTWY0Eqy7w
And while Apple Watch now can alert you to noisy high decibel surroundings, I hope this is merely a baby step towards Apple offering...
full fledged AirPod hearing aids,
which I’ll call AirPodEars.
Only Apple has the cachet to overnight rid the perceived stigma of wearing hearing aids (which prevents many folks from even considering them, let alone the high cost of purchase and battery replacements).
Not only that, by virtue of Apple designing them they could actually be fashionable, just as eye glasses are.
And coupled with AppleWatch and/or iPhone control, the AirPodEars would be far simpler, superior and cheaper to purchase and operate.
Come on Apple, I’m sure this must be in development.
A friend has an iPhone app-controlled hearing aid. It is so small I didn’t even notice it until he pointed it out. That being said, I have zero expectation for Apple to build this first-party. Just like how they don’t build printers, scanners, or many other specialty accessories.
I don’t disagree that Apple hearing aids might seem too niche, however:
+ On average 10,000 Americans turn 65 EVERY day, and this baby boom generation will need plenty of hearing help
+ It bears repeating: Only Apple has the cachet to make hearing aids acceptable to the vast majority with no stigma, so much so that they wouldn’t need to be hidden or tiny but rather obvious like AirPods, thus allowing better and rechargeable battery life without the need for expensive battery replacements
+ Replacing $300 AirPodEars would be a lot cheaper than the $2000 or more aids cost now (each for the better ones)
+ In fact, if they look identical to AirPods or AirPod Pros, no one would know if they were regular AirPods or hearing enhancers.
- The only negatives I can see for Apple is that the demographic tends to be older (thus generally less hip) and having lead the way with iPods and everyone blasting music in their ears Apple might be overly sensitive to being associated with helping cause the hearing loss in the first place
+ Apple could offer these readily. Medical device approvals shouldn’t be that difficult with Apple’s R&D capability
+ Apple would be admired for turning a major stigma inside out (from scourge to fashion statement, if one so chooses)
I'm born deaf myself with severe hearing loss on the left and profound on the right, wearing only one digital hearing aid on the left side. I've literally grown up with the HA with a box in a shirt pocket with wires ( think headphones ) from the late 70s all the way to BTE ( behind the ear ) design and can say that digital hearing aids are now the standard. I loved the analog aids due to their bass and volume sound quality, not to mention that they were a lot cheaper in the range of $500-800, sometimes $1,200 for a pair at the most. However, they've been phased out mostly in favor of digital which has to be programmed by the audiologist. My current digital hearing aid is from Phonak and cost about $1,200. Just for one. Fortunately, insurance coverage was available and I have a very good audiologist.
Also, hearing aids are considered 'medical' devices that can be covered by insurance, or if one can afford to pay in cash/credit. An Apple designed hearing aid would require approval to be covered by insurance as a medical device. My problem is with the actual design of AirPods that go right into your ear canal in contrast to the BTE design which is a lot more stable and more powerful ( think Beats Pro headphones with ear hooks ).
And you literally have to have a earmold cast for the hearing aid to fit into your ear properly. Also digital hearing aids that are controlled by an iPhone concerns me in that if you lose the phone, how do you control the HA?
Most importantly, for a hearing aid to work for the person with hearing loss, a hearing test must be done by an audiologist to determine the level of loss and which type of HA works best. Therefore, Apple's 'one size fits all' solution won't work. Consider this. Analog hearing aids are like amplifiers but they're designed to work with someone's specific hearing loss or deafness as they all differ for each person. Trust me, I've tried the 'in your ear' hearing aid years ago and it didn't sound good to me and that was because it wasn't powerful enough to provide 'oomph' and didn't match my hearing loss. This is why I cannot use the regular EarPods that came with the iPhone as they don't fit in my ear at all and have to rely on a HATIS headset that uses telecoil to block out the background noise entirely and only focuses on the audio ( shaped like a hook a wire straight to the headphone jack or adapter ) or use a bluetooth receiver with an 8 hour battery with a neck loop that can stream music or audio ( ie. movies, video calls, etc ) straight from any iOS device or PC. I got the receiver from the audiologist which usually costs over $100.
Cochlear implants, OTOH, are a huge issue right now with the deaf community as an ongoing debate ( which has been viewed for years as a method of identity eugenics of sorts ) and mega expensive which I've heard horror stories about. I've seen the effects of it from a very old classmate I grew up with years ago and felt bad for him when he couldn't hear for two weeks post surgery, waiting to get proper activation.
So in short, if you have vision needs ( ie. astigmatism or such ) with glasses, you go to an eye care professional for this. Same thing goes for hearing loss/deafness. I don't see Apple having the ability to design a hearing aid in an AirPod style design.
And lastly, I do NOT see a practical use for AR goggles to replace the phone for the deaf or hard of hearing. Not one bit. Consider the fact that every deaf person I've known relies completely on texting or video calls to communicate. With AR goggles, it would not solve a long distance phone call as they cannot see each other. You need a camera so that they can see each other's sign language 'face to face'. Even if they're in public, I've heard stories how some have used special iOS live transcription apps to capture conversations in public to communicate. I use app such as Sign or Cardzilla where one types in large text and flashes the message across the room as you hold up the phone, especially handy in noisy environments like nightclubs or such. It works every time.
Plus, they have certain criteria when you use sign language on screen by wearing dark clothing so that the hands can be seen by contrast, especially if they're using a VRS ( video relay service ) who have call operators on screen to follow strict ASL protocol. I don't sign much as I was originally taught to speak orally in an audist program as ASL wasn't allowed at the time but these days, I'm still learning some of them to catch up and use in case of an emergency.
But I would love Apple to build a small bluetooth device that clips on a shirt or stays tucked in clothing as a method to stream iOS music/audio to your hearing aid. There was a outdoor company ( this is the firm: https://www.outdoortechnology.com/ ) that made a rechargeable dongle with a clip and had an iPod like wheel with audio controls but with a headphone jack. Because where I live in New England, products like these are popular for outdoor activities. All you had to do was clip it to your belt or shirt and jack the old school headphones to it and walk around the house listening to music. This product came around around 2011-2012 ( I think) long before AirPods were a thing. And even if I'm driving, wind noise from the car door ( usually with closed windows ) usually masks my voice and I can't always raise Siri to access the map and I've wished there was a small bluetooth microphone to clip to my jacket so I don't have to scream for Siri.
NOTE: by the way, there are some hearing aids that are rechargeable but aren't cheap and most commonly require a battery which you can buy online or at a store, or audiologist. I use a size 675 for this and get huge packs from Amazon from a German company which is cheaper than what you get in the store.
2nd NOTE: I want to mention that a local AR player on Ingress for iOS crossed my path a few times and once I met him in person, he had an in the ear headset for his phone to make calls. I noticed that he kept it in his ear the whole time and he mentioned that he uses it to 'pick up' the conversation with his phone that's set on the table or in front of people. I suggested he talk to an audiologist due to his hearing loss and see if he can get insurance to get a new hearing aid without relying on the headset but I haven't seen him in over a year or so. The point is that headsets such as AirPods are NOT a replacement for hearing aids.
Most people requiring hearing aid assistance are on Medicare -- but traditional Medicare does not cover hearing aids. Some Medicare Advantage plans may, but then your're dealing with all the issues associated with private insurance.
Also, it is slowly coming out that many simply need a sound amplifier rather than all the filters and such medical people specialize in.
Unfortunately, the hearing industry, like the vision industry, has been overwhelmed with exorbitantly priced medicalization that many simply cannot afford. Fortunately those cartels are being challenged by over-the-counter type solutions like Airpods. Or, this summer I was able to prescribe and order a new pair of glasses for myself at less than a third the cost it would have cost me had I used the traditional medical structure. Basically I saved $400-$500 and ended up with what I think are a better pair of glasses than I would have had from an optician. (The last 2 prescriptions I got from eye doctors were way off the mark)
I think it is good that the medicalized hearing and vision structures are beginning to be limited to those who need that high level of care.
Some of the Medicare plans may cover them, even Medicaid from the state. I think it's a state by state basis, however in my state a local organization is trying to push for support on a bill that requires hearing aid insurance coverage so people can benefit from that assistance. For those who are hard of hearing or experiencing hearing loss, some form of amplification is helpful unless it becomes profound to the point that a specialist is required as a last resort.
In regards to vision care, no doubt about that. Glasses are not cheap and I've had one that was almost $350 back in 2011. I got a new one that was about $60 back in 2017 which wasn't bad and now I've a new prescription just for the lenses. So in that sense, I plan to go back to the original frames which were better built but only for the lenses to be replaced and hoping a new insurance plan will cover it via Medicare. I've thought about using the Warby Parker app to do it.
I'm old school and prefer a hearing aid that has a BTE design which is more stable with an earmold compared to a counterpart such as an AirPod which people, from what I'm hearing, keep losing. Even someone posted in a local bulletin board in my town had found a lost AirPod to alert the public. I think an amplifier would only go so far for the hard of hearing demographic while for the deaf who require a hearing aid or cochlear implant, the situation would be different. And that means the AirPods would have to go through some industrial design changes for that to work since they still look like headphones.
For me, there is no stigma because I'm used to it and whether people notice my hearing aid doesn't matter much. In winter, it's pretty much covered up with my hat but in warmer seasons, it's there. So I'm mainly responsible for letting people know I need to see what they're saying as I read lips. On the other hand, when it comes to communicating with deaf people, I just switch to sign language mode if needed. I've known some deaf people who don't even wear hearing aids and prefer to just move on with their lives without an audiologist and just sign. Nothing wrong with that, either.
So in a sense, it appears to be the mainstreamed demographic that has a form of hearing loss and needing an amplifier and the other requiring an audiologist to get fitted for the hearing aid and ear mold. Cochlear implantation, from my understanding, takes some adjusting to the sound and going through some form of speech therapy with a specialist if it gets to that point.
Absolutely correct, I was referring to people that are merely hard of hearing that could benefit from an Apple solution, not necessarily those with severe hearing loss or those that are practically deaf.
Just to be clear, I don’t wish for the hearing aid industry to suffer should Apple go into this aggressively, but with Apple’s ecosystem advantage and the huge installed base of users, the effect on existing device makers would be painful. And let’s not forget about the resellers of these devices, other than Costco, it seems to be very much a mom and pop industry taking out all those full page ads in newspapers and magazines with tremendous claims (and high markups). It’s ripe for disruption and prices to tumble.
Your insights are very helpful for me to better understand the pros and cons of certain devices, and for that I thank you.
I do. For decades they have milked the unfortunate hard of hearing in the American public with exorbitantly expensive devices because their choice was to pay the price or not be able to hear. So the industry took advantage of their monopolistic cartel. It's the story of the American healthcare industry over the past 50+ years: Charge as much as the traffic will bear. In other words, pure unabashed, unrestrained capitalist greed -- the worst of capitalism. The kind of capitalism the socialists use as a justification for their ideology.
Yes, they do still serve a function and are needed by some. But I will be happy to see the greedy whittled down to a far smaller niche industry.
It's not the first time I've seen independent 'hearing aid services' send out mailers or advertisement that they're the solution to the problem, promising to erase the social stigma of isolation with their devices. Even mentioning cochlear implants. However, when I go to their offices, the first thing I look for is their certification and diplomas on the wall to see if they are what they are and how qualified.
To date, I've had about 7 audiologists in my lifetime. I had 3 in the 1970s/80s from an actual hearing and speech center when I got first diagnosed with deafness, the second one was in a corner department within SEARS ( we're talking old school ), and one from inside a school program I grew up in ( we were required to wear special hearing equipment provided by Phonak at the time with a microphone attached to the teacher. It made for nice espionage when the teacher leaves the room to chat to someone when I can pick up what's happening due to my level of residual hearing. Not kidding ). Then a 4th one in high school in the 80s and a 5th one within an Otolaryngologist's office. Number six was the previous audiologist that folded. Now, number seven is the current one in a hospital department.
But you're right, there are some who don't know what they're doing or are just out for greed as I rather deal with a qualified professional with credentials.
I didn't mean to suggest that they didn't know what they were doing. I was simply protesting the systemic greed in the profession: If you wanted a hearing aid you needed to pay for a prescription and then pay for some very expensive equipment.
A few years back my next door neighbor, the father of an old friend, was living on a Social Security check and barely scrapping by. But, when his hearing aid started to go bad they wanted thousands from him for new ones and he simply could not afford it. His hearing loss was from an injury during WW-II so he may have required that level of expertise and sophisticated equipment. But I am still happy to see people having the option of using consumer grade and priced equipment.
Apple won't be selling such a device at cost either. They will charge whatever their research and accounting professionals tell them as the price point where they realize the greatest profits, "what the market will bear". Is capitalism a problem for you? Yes "benevolent Apple" could give them away and it wouldn't make a noticeable dent in their cash or overall profitability, but it ain't gonna happen.
And while Apple Watch now can alert you to noisy high decibel surroundings, I hope this is merely a baby step towards Apple offering...
full fledged AirPod hearing aids,
which I’ll call AirPodEars.
Only Apple has the cachet to overnight rid the perceived stigma of wearing hearing aids (which prevents many folks from even considering them, let alone the high cost of purchase and battery replacements).
Not only that, by virtue of Apple designing them they could actually be fashionable, just as eye glasses are.
And coupled with AppleWatch and/or iPhone control, the AirPodEars would be far simpler, superior and cheaper to purchase and operate.
Come on Apple, I’m sure this must be in development.
A friend has an iPhone app-controlled hearing aid. It is so small I didn’t even notice it until he pointed it out. That being said, I have zero expectation for Apple to build this first-party. Just like how they don’t build printers, scanners, or many other specialty accessories.
I don’t disagree that Apple hearing aids might seem too niche, however:
+ On average 10,000 Americans turn 65 EVERY day, and this baby boom generation will need plenty of hearing help
+ It bears repeating: Only Apple has the cachet to make hearing aids acceptable to the vast majority with no stigma, so much so that they wouldn’t need to be hidden or tiny but rather obvious like AirPods, thus allowing better and rechargeable battery life without the need for expensive battery replacements
+ Replacing $300 AirPodEars would be a lot cheaper than the $2000 or more aids cost now (each for the better ones)
+ In fact, if they look identical to AirPods or AirPod Pros, no one would know if they were regular AirPods or hearing enhancers.
- The only negatives I can see for Apple is that the demographic tends to be older (thus generally less hip) and having lead the way with iPods and everyone blasting music in their ears Apple might be overly sensitive to being associated with helping cause the hearing loss in the first place
+ Apple could offer these readily. Medical device approvals shouldn’t be that difficult with Apple’s R&D capability
+ Apple would be admired for turning a major stigma inside out (from scourge to fashion statement, if one so chooses)
I'm born deaf myself with severe hearing loss on the left and profound on the right, wearing only one digital hearing aid on the left side. I've literally grown up with the HA with a box in a shirt pocket with wires ( think headphones ) from the late 70s all the way to BTE ( behind the ear ) design and can say that digital hearing aids are now the standard. I loved the analog aids due to their bass and volume sound quality, not to mention that they were a lot cheaper in the range of $500-800, sometimes $1,200 for a pair at the most. However, they've been phased out mostly in favor of digital which has to be programmed by the audiologist. My current digital hearing aid is from Phonak and cost about $1,200. Just for one. Fortunately, insurance coverage was available and I have a very good audiologist.
Also, hearing aids are considered 'medical' devices that can be covered by insurance, or if one can afford to pay in cash/credit. An Apple designed hearing aid would require approval to be covered by insurance as a medical device. My problem is with the actual design of AirPods that go right into your ear canal in contrast to the BTE design which is a lot more stable and more powerful ( think Beats Pro headphones with ear hooks ).
And you literally have to have a earmold cast for the hearing aid to fit into your ear properly. Also digital hearing aids that are controlled by an iPhone concerns me in that if you lose the phone, how do you control the HA?
Most importantly, for a hearing aid to work for the person with hearing loss, a hearing test must be done by an audiologist to determine the level of loss and which type of HA works best. Therefore, Apple's 'one size fits all' solution won't work. Consider this. Analog hearing aids are like amplifiers but they're designed to work with someone's specific hearing loss or deafness as they all differ for each person. Trust me, I've tried the 'in your ear' hearing aid years ago and it didn't sound good to me and that was because it wasn't powerful enough to provide 'oomph' and didn't match my hearing loss. This is why I cannot use the regular EarPods that came with the iPhone as they don't fit in my ear at all and have to rely on a HATIS headset that uses telecoil to block out the background noise entirely and only focuses on the audio ( shaped like a hook a wire straight to the headphone jack or adapter ) or use a bluetooth receiver with an 8 hour battery with a neck loop that can stream music or audio ( ie. movies, video calls, etc ) straight from any iOS device or PC. I got the receiver from the audiologist which usually costs over $100.
Cochlear implants, OTOH, are a huge issue right now with the deaf community as an ongoing debate ( which has been viewed for years as a method of identity eugenics of sorts ) and mega expensive which I've heard horror stories about. I've seen the effects of it from a very old classmate I grew up with years ago and felt bad for him when he couldn't hear for two weeks post surgery, waiting to get proper activation.
So in short, if you have vision needs ( ie. astigmatism or such ) with glasses, you go to an eye care professional for this. Same thing goes for hearing loss/deafness. I don't see Apple having the ability to design a hearing aid in an AirPod style design.
And lastly, I do NOT see a practical use for AR goggles to replace the phone for the deaf or hard of hearing. Not one bit. Consider the fact that every deaf person I've known relies completely on texting or video calls to communicate. With AR goggles, it would not solve a long distance phone call as they cannot see each other. You need a camera so that they can see each other's sign language 'face to face'. Even if they're in public, I've heard stories how some have used special iOS live transcription apps to capture conversations in public to communicate. I use app such as Sign or Cardzilla where one types in large text and flashes the message across the room as you hold up the phone, especially handy in noisy environments like nightclubs or such. It works every time.
Plus, they have certain criteria when you use sign language on screen by wearing dark clothing so that the hands can be seen by contrast, especially if they're using a VRS ( video relay service ) who have call operators on screen to follow strict ASL protocol. I don't sign much as I was originally taught to speak orally in an audist program as ASL wasn't allowed at the time but these days, I'm still learning some of them to catch up and use in case of an emergency.
But I would love Apple to build a small bluetooth device that clips on a shirt or stays tucked in clothing as a method to stream iOS music/audio to your hearing aid. There was a outdoor company ( this is the firm: https://www.outdoortechnology.com/ ) that made a rechargeable dongle with a clip and had an iPod like wheel with audio controls but with a headphone jack. Because where I live in New England, products like these are popular for outdoor activities. All you had to do was clip it to your belt or shirt and jack the old school headphones to it and walk around the house listening to music. This product came around around 2011-2012 ( I think) long before AirPods were a thing. And even if I'm driving, wind noise from the car door ( usually with closed windows ) usually masks my voice and I can't always raise Siri to access the map and I've wished there was a small bluetooth microphone to clip to my jacket so I don't have to scream for Siri.
NOTE: by the way, there are some hearing aids that are rechargeable but aren't cheap and most commonly require a battery which you can buy online or at a store, or audiologist. I use a size 675 for this and get huge packs from Amazon from a German company which is cheaper than what you get in the store.
2nd NOTE: I want to mention that a local AR player on Ingress for iOS crossed my path a few times and once I met him in person, he had an in the ear headset for his phone to make calls. I noticed that he kept it in his ear the whole time and he mentioned that he uses it to 'pick up' the conversation with his phone that's set on the table or in front of people. I suggested he talk to an audiologist due to his hearing loss and see if he can get insurance to get a new hearing aid without relying on the headset but I haven't seen him in over a year or so. The point is that headsets such as AirPods are NOT a replacement for hearing aids.
Most people requiring hearing aid assistance are on Medicare -- but traditional Medicare does not cover hearing aids. Some Medicare Advantage plans may, but then your're dealing with all the issues associated with private insurance.
Also, it is slowly coming out that many simply need a sound amplifier rather than all the filters and such medical people specialize in.
Unfortunately, the hearing industry, like the vision industry, has been overwhelmed with exorbitantly priced medicalization that many simply cannot afford. Fortunately those cartels are being challenged by over-the-counter type solutions like Airpods. Or, this summer I was able to prescribe and order a new pair of glasses for myself at less than a third the cost it would have cost me had I used the traditional medical structure. Basically I saved $400-$500 and ended up with what I think are a better pair of glasses than I would have had from an optician. (The last 2 prescriptions I got from eye doctors were way off the mark)
I think it is good that the medicalized hearing and vision structures are beginning to be limited to those who need that high level of care.
Some of the Medicare plans may cover them, even Medicaid from the state. I think it's a state by state basis, however in my state a local organization is trying to push for support on a bill that requires hearing aid insurance coverage so people can benefit from that assistance. For those who are hard of hearing or experiencing hearing loss, some form of amplification is helpful unless it becomes profound to the point that a specialist is required as a last resort.
In regards to vision care, no doubt about that. Glasses are not cheap and I've had one that was almost $350 back in 2011. I got a new one that was about $60 back in 2017 which wasn't bad and now I've a new prescription just for the lenses. So in that sense, I plan to go back to the original frames which were better built but only for the lenses to be replaced and hoping a new insurance plan will cover it via Medicare. I've thought about using the Warby Parker app to do it.
I'm old school and prefer a hearing aid that has a BTE design which is more stable with an earmold compared to a counterpart such as an AirPod which people, from what I'm hearing, keep losing. Even someone posted in a local bulletin board in my town had found a lost AirPod to alert the public. I think an amplifier would only go so far for the hard of hearing demographic while for the deaf who require a hearing aid or cochlear implant, the situation would be different. And that means the AirPods would have to go through some industrial design changes for that to work since they still look like headphones.
For me, there is no stigma because I'm used to it and whether people notice my hearing aid doesn't matter much. In winter, it's pretty much covered up with my hat but in warmer seasons, it's there. So I'm mainly responsible for letting people know I need to see what they're saying as I read lips. On the other hand, when it comes to communicating with deaf people, I just switch to sign language mode if needed. I've known some deaf people who don't even wear hearing aids and prefer to just move on with their lives without an audiologist and just sign. Nothing wrong with that, either.
So in a sense, it appears to be the mainstreamed demographic that has a form of hearing loss and needing an amplifier and the other requiring an audiologist to get fitted for the hearing aid and ear mold. Cochlear implantation, from my understanding, takes some adjusting to the sound and going through some form of speech therapy with a specialist if it gets to that point.
Absolutely correct, I was referring to people that are merely hard of hearing that could benefit from an Apple solution, not necessarily those with severe hearing loss or those that are practically deaf.
Just to be clear, I don’t wish for the hearing aid industry to suffer should Apple go into this aggressively, but with Apple’s ecosystem advantage and the huge installed base of users, the effect on existing device makers would be painful. And let’s not forget about the resellers of these devices, other than Costco, it seems to be very much a mom and pop industry taking out all those full page ads in newspapers and magazines with tremendous claims (and high markups). It’s ripe for disruption and prices to tumble.
Your insights are very helpful for me to better understand the pros and cons of certain devices, and for that I thank you.
I do. For decades they have milked the unfortunate hard of hearing in the American public with exorbitantly expensive devices because their choice was to pay the price or not be able to hear. So the industry took advantage of their monopolistic cartel. It's the story of the American healthcare industry over the past 50+ years: Charge as much as the traffic will bear. In other words, pure unabashed, unrestrained capitalist greed -- the worst of capitalism. The kind of capitalism the socialists use as a justification for their ideology.
Yes, they do still serve a function and are needed by some. But I will be happy to see the greedy whittled down to a far smaller niche industry.
It's not the first time I've seen independent 'hearing aid services' send out mailers or advertisement that they're the solution to the problem, promising to erase the social stigma of isolation with their devices. Even mentioning cochlear implants. However, when I go to their offices, the first thing I look for is their certification and diplomas on the wall to see if they are what they are and how qualified.
To date, I've had about 7 audiologists in my lifetime. I had 3 in the 1970s/80s from an actual hearing and speech center when I got first diagnosed with deafness, the second one was in a corner department within SEARS ( we're talking old school ), and one from inside a school program I grew up in ( we were required to wear special hearing equipment provided by Phonak at the time with a microphone attached to the teacher. It made for nice espionage when the teacher leaves the room to chat to someone when I can pick up what's happening due to my level of residual hearing. Not kidding ). Then a 4th one in high school in the 80s and a 5th one within an Otolaryngologist's office. Number six was the previous audiologist that folded. Now, number seven is the current one in a hospital department.
But you're right, there are some who don't know what they're doing or are just out for greed as I rather deal with a qualified professional with credentials.
I didn't mean to suggest that they didn't know what they were doing. I was simply protesting the systemic greed in the profession: If you wanted a hearing aid you needed to pay for a prescription and then pay for some very expensive equipment.
A few years back my next door neighbor, the father of an old friend, was living on a Social Security check and barely scrapping by. But, when his hearing aid started to go bad they wanted thousands from him for new ones and he simply could not afford it. His hearing loss was from an injury during WW-II so he may have required that level of expertise and sophisticated equipment. But I am still happy to see people having the option of using consumer grade and priced equipment.
Apple won't be selling such a device at cost either. They will charge whatever their research and accounting professionals tell them as the price point where they realize the greatest profits, "what the market will bear". Is capitalism a problem for you? Yes "benevolent Apple" could give them away and it wouldn't make a noticeable dent in their cash or overall profitability, but it ain't gonna happen.
You need to understand the difference between capitalism and greedy capitalists forming and taking advantage of cartels and monopolies to gouge a helpless public. It's the reason why we have anti-trust laws. Unfortunately, with the U.S. health care industry, those laws are not only seldom enforced, they are often undermined and ignored -- which is why our health care costs are running out of control.
LOL... nobody suggested giving anything away "at cost". That's just you making an argument where none existed/
And while Apple Watch now can alert you to noisy high decibel surroundings, I hope this is merely a baby step towards Apple offering...
full fledged AirPod hearing aids,
which I’ll call AirPodEars.
Only Apple has the cachet to overnight rid the perceived stigma of wearing hearing aids (which prevents many folks from even considering them, let alone the high cost of purchase and battery replacements).
Not only that, by virtue of Apple designing them they could actually be fashionable, just as eye glasses are.
And coupled with AppleWatch and/or iPhone control, the AirPodEars would be far simpler, superior and cheaper to purchase and operate.
Come on Apple, I’m sure this must be in development.
A friend has an iPhone app-controlled hearing aid. It is so small I didn’t even notice it until he pointed it out. That being said, I have zero expectation for Apple to build this first-party. Just like how they don’t build printers, scanners, or many other specialty accessories.
I don’t disagree that Apple hearing aids might seem too niche, however:
+ On average 10,000 Americans turn 65 EVERY day, and this baby boom generation will need plenty of hearing help
+ It bears repeating: Only Apple has the cachet to make hearing aids acceptable to the vast majority with no stigma, so much so that they wouldn’t need to be hidden or tiny but rather obvious like AirPods, thus allowing better and rechargeable battery life without the need for expensive battery replacements
+ Replacing $300 AirPodEars would be a lot cheaper than the $2000 or more aids cost now (each for the better ones)
+ In fact, if they look identical to AirPods or AirPod Pros, no one would know if they were regular AirPods or hearing enhancers.
- The only negatives I can see for Apple is that the demographic tends to be older (thus generally less hip) and having lead the way with iPods and everyone blasting music in their ears Apple might be overly sensitive to being associated with helping cause the hearing loss in the first place
+ Apple could offer these readily. Medical device approvals shouldn’t be that difficult with Apple’s R&D capability
+ Apple would be admired for turning a major stigma inside out (from scourge to fashion statement, if one so chooses)
I'm born deaf myself with severe hearing loss on the left and profound on the right, wearing only one digital hearing aid on the left side. I've literally grown up with the HA with a box in a shirt pocket with wires ( think headphones ) from the late 70s all the way to BTE ( behind the ear ) design and can say that digital hearing aids are now the standard. I loved the analog aids due to their bass and volume sound quality, not to mention that they were a lot cheaper in the range of $500-800, sometimes $1,200 for a pair at the most. However, they've been phased out mostly in favor of digital which has to be programmed by the audiologist. My current digital hearing aid is from Phonak and cost about $1,200. Just for one. Fortunately, insurance coverage was available and I have a very good audiologist.
Also, hearing aids are considered 'medical' devices that can be covered by insurance, or if one can afford to pay in cash/credit. An Apple designed hearing aid would require approval to be covered by insurance as a medical device. My problem is with the actual design of AirPods that go right into your ear canal in contrast to the BTE design which is a lot more stable and more powerful ( think Beats Pro headphones with ear hooks ).
And you literally have to have a earmold cast for the hearing aid to fit into your ear properly. Also digital hearing aids that are controlled by an iPhone concerns me in that if you lose the phone, how do you control the HA?
Most importantly, for a hearing aid to work for the person with hearing loss, a hearing test must be done by an audiologist to determine the level of loss and which type of HA works best. Therefore, Apple's 'one size fits all' solution won't work. Consider this. Analog hearing aids are like amplifiers but they're designed to work with someone's specific hearing loss or deafness as they all differ for each person. Trust me, I've tried the 'in your ear' hearing aid years ago and it didn't sound good to me and that was because it wasn't powerful enough to provide 'oomph' and didn't match my hearing loss. This is why I cannot use the regular EarPods that came with the iPhone as they don't fit in my ear at all and have to rely on a HATIS headset that uses telecoil to block out the background noise entirely and only focuses on the audio ( shaped like a hook a wire straight to the headphone jack or adapter ) or use a bluetooth receiver with an 8 hour battery with a neck loop that can stream music or audio ( ie. movies, video calls, etc ) straight from any iOS device or PC. I got the receiver from the audiologist which usually costs over $100.
Cochlear implants, OTOH, are a huge issue right now with the deaf community as an ongoing debate ( which has been viewed for years as a method of identity eugenics of sorts ) and mega expensive which I've heard horror stories about. I've seen the effects of it from a very old classmate I grew up with years ago and felt bad for him when he couldn't hear for two weeks post surgery, waiting to get proper activation.
So in short, if you have vision needs ( ie. astigmatism or such ) with glasses, you go to an eye care professional for this. Same thing goes for hearing loss/deafness. I don't see Apple having the ability to design a hearing aid in an AirPod style design.
And lastly, I do NOT see a practical use for AR goggles to replace the phone for the deaf or hard of hearing. Not one bit. Consider the fact that every deaf person I've known relies completely on texting or video calls to communicate. With AR goggles, it would not solve a long distance phone call as they cannot see each other. You need a camera so that they can see each other's sign language 'face to face'. Even if they're in public, I've heard stories how some have used special iOS live transcription apps to capture conversations in public to communicate. I use app such as Sign or Cardzilla where one types in large text and flashes the message across the room as you hold up the phone, especially handy in noisy environments like nightclubs or such. It works every time.
Plus, they have certain criteria when you use sign language on screen by wearing dark clothing so that the hands can be seen by contrast, especially if they're using a VRS ( video relay service ) who have call operators on screen to follow strict ASL protocol. I don't sign much as I was originally taught to speak orally in an audist program as ASL wasn't allowed at the time but these days, I'm still learning some of them to catch up and use in case of an emergency.
But I would love Apple to build a small bluetooth device that clips on a shirt or stays tucked in clothing as a method to stream iOS music/audio to your hearing aid. There was a outdoor company ( this is the firm: https://www.outdoortechnology.com/ ) that made a rechargeable dongle with a clip and had an iPod like wheel with audio controls but with a headphone jack. Because where I live in New England, products like these are popular for outdoor activities. All you had to do was clip it to your belt or shirt and jack the old school headphones to it and walk around the house listening to music. This product came around around 2011-2012 ( I think) long before AirPods were a thing. And even if I'm driving, wind noise from the car door ( usually with closed windows ) usually masks my voice and I can't always raise Siri to access the map and I've wished there was a small bluetooth microphone to clip to my jacket so I don't have to scream for Siri.
NOTE: by the way, there are some hearing aids that are rechargeable but aren't cheap and most commonly require a battery which you can buy online or at a store, or audiologist. I use a size 675 for this and get huge packs from Amazon from a German company which is cheaper than what you get in the store.
2nd NOTE: I want to mention that a local AR player on Ingress for iOS crossed my path a few times and once I met him in person, he had an in the ear headset for his phone to make calls. I noticed that he kept it in his ear the whole time and he mentioned that he uses it to 'pick up' the conversation with his phone that's set on the table or in front of people. I suggested he talk to an audiologist due to his hearing loss and see if he can get insurance to get a new hearing aid without relying on the headset but I haven't seen him in over a year or so. The point is that headsets such as AirPods are NOT a replacement for hearing aids.
Most people requiring hearing aid assistance are on Medicare -- but traditional Medicare does not cover hearing aids. Some Medicare Advantage plans may, but then your're dealing with all the issues associated with private insurance.
Also, it is slowly coming out that many simply need a sound amplifier rather than all the filters and such medical people specialize in.
Unfortunately, the hearing industry, like the vision industry, has been overwhelmed with exorbitantly priced medicalization that many simply cannot afford. Fortunately those cartels are being challenged by over-the-counter type solutions like Airpods. Or, this summer I was able to prescribe and order a new pair of glasses for myself at less than a third the cost it would have cost me had I used the traditional medical structure. Basically I saved $400-$500 and ended up with what I think are a better pair of glasses than I would have had from an optician. (The last 2 prescriptions I got from eye doctors were way off the mark)
I think it is good that the medicalized hearing and vision structures are beginning to be limited to those who need that high level of care.
Some of the Medicare plans may cover them, even Medicaid from the state. I think it's a state by state basis, however in my state a local organization is trying to push for support on a bill that requires hearing aid insurance coverage so people can benefit from that assistance. For those who are hard of hearing or experiencing hearing loss, some form of amplification is helpful unless it becomes profound to the point that a specialist is required as a last resort.
In regards to vision care, no doubt about that. Glasses are not cheap and I've had one that was almost $350 back in 2011. I got a new one that was about $60 back in 2017 which wasn't bad and now I've a new prescription just for the lenses. So in that sense, I plan to go back to the original frames which were better built but only for the lenses to be replaced and hoping a new insurance plan will cover it via Medicare. I've thought about using the Warby Parker app to do it.
I'm old school and prefer a hearing aid that has a BTE design which is more stable with an earmold compared to a counterpart such as an AirPod which people, from what I'm hearing, keep losing. Even someone posted in a local bulletin board in my town had found a lost AirPod to alert the public. I think an amplifier would only go so far for the hard of hearing demographic while for the deaf who require a hearing aid or cochlear implant, the situation would be different. And that means the AirPods would have to go through some industrial design changes for that to work since they still look like headphones.
For me, there is no stigma because I'm used to it and whether people notice my hearing aid doesn't matter much. In winter, it's pretty much covered up with my hat but in warmer seasons, it's there. So I'm mainly responsible for letting people know I need to see what they're saying as I read lips. On the other hand, when it comes to communicating with deaf people, I just switch to sign language mode if needed. I've known some deaf people who don't even wear hearing aids and prefer to just move on with their lives without an audiologist and just sign. Nothing wrong with that, either.
So in a sense, it appears to be the mainstreamed demographic that has a form of hearing loss and needing an amplifier and the other requiring an audiologist to get fitted for the hearing aid and ear mold. Cochlear implantation, from my understanding, takes some adjusting to the sound and going through some form of speech therapy with a specialist if it gets to that point.
Absolutely correct, I was referring to people that are merely hard of hearing that could benefit from an Apple solution, not necessarily those with severe hearing loss or those that are practically deaf.
Just to be clear, I don’t wish for the hearing aid industry to suffer should Apple go into this aggressively, but with Apple’s ecosystem advantage and the huge installed base of users, the effect on existing device makers would be painful. And let’s not forget about the resellers of these devices, other than Costco, it seems to be very much a mom and pop industry taking out all those full page ads in newspapers and magazines with tremendous claims (and high markups). It’s ripe for disruption and prices to tumble.
Your insights are very helpful for me to better understand the pros and cons of certain devices, and for that I thank you.
I do. For decades they have milked the unfortunate hard of hearing in the American public with exorbitantly expensive devices because their choice was to pay the price or not be able to hear. So the industry took advantage of their monopolistic cartel. It's the story of the American healthcare industry over the past 50+ years: Charge as much as the traffic will bear. In other words, pure unabashed, unrestrained capitalist greed -- the worst of capitalism. The kind of capitalism the socialists use as a justification for their ideology.
Yes, they do still serve a function and are needed by some. But I will be happy to see the greedy whittled down to a far smaller niche industry.
It's not the first time I've seen independent 'hearing aid services' send out mailers or advertisement that they're the solution to the problem, promising to erase the social stigma of isolation with their devices. Even mentioning cochlear implants. However, when I go to their offices, the first thing I look for is their certification and diplomas on the wall to see if they are what they are and how qualified.
To date, I've had about 7 audiologists in my lifetime. I had 3 in the 1970s/80s from an actual hearing and speech center when I got first diagnosed with deafness, the second one was in a corner department within SEARS ( we're talking old school ), and one from inside a school program I grew up in ( we were required to wear special hearing equipment provided by Phonak at the time with a microphone attached to the teacher. It made for nice espionage when the teacher leaves the room to chat to someone when I can pick up what's happening due to my level of residual hearing. Not kidding ). Then a 4th one in high school in the 80s and a 5th one within an Otolaryngologist's office. Number six was the previous audiologist that folded. Now, number seven is the current one in a hospital department.
But you're right, there are some who don't know what they're doing or are just out for greed as I rather deal with a qualified professional with credentials.
I didn't mean to suggest that they didn't know what they were doing. I was simply protesting the systemic greed in the profession: If you wanted a hearing aid you needed to pay for a prescription and then pay for some very expensive equipment.
A few years back my next door neighbor, the father of an old friend, was living on a Social Security check and barely scrapping by. But, when his hearing aid started to go bad they wanted thousands from him for new ones and he simply could not afford it. His hearing loss was from an injury during WW-II so he may have required that level of expertise and sophisticated equipment. But I am still happy to see people having the option of using consumer grade and priced equipment.
Apple won't be selling such a device at cost either. They will charge whatever their research and accounting professionals tell them as the price point where they realize the greatest profits, "what the market will bear". Is capitalism a problem for you? Yes "benevolent Apple" could give them away and it wouldn't make a noticeable dent in their cash or overall profitability, but it ain't gonna happen.
You need to understand the difference between capitalism and greedy capitalists forming and taking advantage of cartels and monopolies to gouge a helpless public. It's the reason why we have anti-trust laws. Unfortunately, with the U.S. health care industry, those laws are not only seldom enforced, they are often undermined and ignored -- which is why our health care costs are running out of control.
LOL... nobody suggested giving anything away "at cost". That's just you making an argument where none existed/
OK try widely affordable instead of selling it for whatever maximum price the market will bear. Is that different from greed? Aren't companies now selling health services for whatever the market will bear? The techs just want to move a few of those billions into their own bank accounts. IMO there is no difference. You call it greed (when convenient to your argument), the companies call it maximizing profits.
Heck the richest company in the history of the planet could subsidize their version of hearing aids for the elderly poor who suffer failing hearing and still wouldn't realize a loss. Think they will? Apple has long been all about making the most money possible from whatever they sell, not being benevolent or worrying about the poor among us. Not their problem.
Health costs may well come down, or at least some of the corrective gear involved in it such as vision and hearing, but not because companies will be less "greedy". They exist for profit and the best of them go to great lengths for it, quite successfully I might add. Even in my little corner of the business world I'll spend hours each month making sure I'm not leaving any obvious money on the table. I could sell my product and services for less and still make a profit, but why would I? For that matter you could work for less or live on less but will you?
When or if I get to the point in my life where I could not possibly spend whatever money and resources I have in my lifetime then yes it's time to consider sharing the wealth. Gorging and hoarding benefits no one, not even me, and I don't owe my children an easy living on my hard work anymore than my parents owed me one. Until then I'll be maxing out those profits baby. So will the executive team at Apple.
And while Apple Watch now can alert you to noisy high decibel surroundings, I hope this is merely a baby step towards Apple offering...
full fledged AirPod hearing aids,
which I’ll call AirPodEars.
Only Apple has the cachet to overnight rid the perceived stigma of wearing hearing aids (which prevents many folks from even considering them, let alone the high cost of purchase and battery replacements).
Not only that, by virtue of Apple designing them they could actually be fashionable, just as eye glasses are.
And coupled with AppleWatch and/or iPhone control, the AirPodEars would be far simpler, superior and cheaper to purchase and operate.
Come on Apple, I’m sure this must be in development.
A friend has an iPhone app-controlled hearing aid. It is so small I didn’t even notice it until he pointed it out. That being said, I have zero expectation for Apple to build this first-party. Just like how they don’t build printers, scanners, or many other specialty accessories.
I don’t disagree that Apple hearing aids might seem too niche, however:
+ On average 10,000 Americans turn 65 EVERY day, and this baby boom generation will need plenty of hearing help
+ It bears repeating: Only Apple has the cachet to make hearing aids acceptable to the vast majority with no stigma, so much so that they wouldn’t need to be hidden or tiny but rather obvious like AirPods, thus allowing better and rechargeable battery life without the need for expensive battery replacements
+ Replacing $300 AirPodEars would be a lot cheaper than the $2000 or more aids cost now (each for the better ones)
+ In fact, if they look identical to AirPods or AirPod Pros, no one would know if they were regular AirPods or hearing enhancers.
- The only negatives I can see for Apple is that the demographic tends to be older (thus generally less hip) and having lead the way with iPods and everyone blasting music in their ears Apple might be overly sensitive to being associated with helping cause the hearing loss in the first place
+ Apple could offer these readily. Medical device approvals shouldn’t be that difficult with Apple’s R&D capability
+ Apple would be admired for turning a major stigma inside out (from scourge to fashion statement, if one so chooses)
I'm born deaf myself with severe hearing loss on the left and profound on the right, wearing only one digital hearing aid on the left side. I've literally grown up with the HA with a box in a shirt pocket with wires ( think headphones ) from the late 70s all the way to BTE ( behind the ear ) design and can say that digital hearing aids are now the standard. I loved the analog aids due to their bass and volume sound quality, not to mention that they were a lot cheaper in the range of $500-800, sometimes $1,200 for a pair at the most. However, they've been phased out mostly in favor of digital which has to be programmed by the audiologist. My current digital hearing aid is from Phonak and cost about $1,200. Just for one. Fortunately, insurance coverage was available and I have a very good audiologist.
Also, hearing aids are considered 'medical' devices that can be covered by insurance, or if one can afford to pay in cash/credit. An Apple designed hearing aid would require approval to be covered by insurance as a medical device. My problem is with the actual design of AirPods that go right into your ear canal in contrast to the BTE design which is a lot more stable and more powerful ( think Beats Pro headphones with ear hooks ).
And you literally have to have a earmold cast for the hearing aid to fit into your ear properly. Also digital hearing aids that are controlled by an iPhone concerns me in that if you lose the phone, how do you control the HA?
Most importantly, for a hearing aid to work for the person with hearing loss, a hearing test must be done by an audiologist to determine the level of loss and which type of HA works best. Therefore, Apple's 'one size fits all' solution won't work. Consider this. Analog hearing aids are like amplifiers but they're designed to work with someone's specific hearing loss or deafness as they all differ for each person. Trust me, I've tried the 'in your ear' hearing aid years ago and it didn't sound good to me and that was because it wasn't powerful enough to provide 'oomph' and didn't match my hearing loss. This is why I cannot use the regular EarPods that came with the iPhone as they don't fit in my ear at all and have to rely on a HATIS headset that uses telecoil to block out the background noise entirely and only focuses on the audio ( shaped like a hook a wire straight to the headphone jack or adapter ) or use a bluetooth receiver with an 8 hour battery with a neck loop that can stream music or audio ( ie. movies, video calls, etc ) straight from any iOS device or PC. I got the receiver from the audiologist which usually costs over $100.
Cochlear implants, OTOH, are a huge issue right now with the deaf community as an ongoing debate ( which has been viewed for years as a method of identity eugenics of sorts ) and mega expensive which I've heard horror stories about. I've seen the effects of it from a very old classmate I grew up with years ago and felt bad for him when he couldn't hear for two weeks post surgery, waiting to get proper activation.
So in short, if you have vision needs ( ie. astigmatism or such ) with glasses, you go to an eye care professional for this. Same thing goes for hearing loss/deafness. I don't see Apple having the ability to design a hearing aid in an AirPod style design.
And lastly, I do NOT see a practical use for AR goggles to replace the phone for the deaf or hard of hearing. Not one bit. Consider the fact that every deaf person I've known relies completely on texting or video calls to communicate. With AR goggles, it would not solve a long distance phone call as they cannot see each other. You need a camera so that they can see each other's sign language 'face to face'. Even if they're in public, I've heard stories how some have used special iOS live transcription apps to capture conversations in public to communicate. I use app such as Sign or Cardzilla where one types in large text and flashes the message across the room as you hold up the phone, especially handy in noisy environments like nightclubs or such. It works every time.
Plus, they have certain criteria when you use sign language on screen by wearing dark clothing so that the hands can be seen by contrast, especially if they're using a VRS ( video relay service ) who have call operators on screen to follow strict ASL protocol. I don't sign much as I was originally taught to speak orally in an audist program as ASL wasn't allowed at the time but these days, I'm still learning some of them to catch up and use in case of an emergency.
But I would love Apple to build a small bluetooth device that clips on a shirt or stays tucked in clothing as a method to stream iOS music/audio to your hearing aid. There was a outdoor company ( this is the firm: https://www.outdoortechnology.com/ ) that made a rechargeable dongle with a clip and had an iPod like wheel with audio controls but with a headphone jack. Because where I live in New England, products like these are popular for outdoor activities. All you had to do was clip it to your belt or shirt and jack the old school headphones to it and walk around the house listening to music. This product came around around 2011-2012 ( I think) long before AirPods were a thing. And even if I'm driving, wind noise from the car door ( usually with closed windows ) usually masks my voice and I can't always raise Siri to access the map and I've wished there was a small bluetooth microphone to clip to my jacket so I don't have to scream for Siri.
NOTE: by the way, there are some hearing aids that are rechargeable but aren't cheap and most commonly require a battery which you can buy online or at a store, or audiologist. I use a size 675 for this and get huge packs from Amazon from a German company which is cheaper than what you get in the store.
2nd NOTE: I want to mention that a local AR player on Ingress for iOS crossed my path a few times and once I met him in person, he had an in the ear headset for his phone to make calls. I noticed that he kept it in his ear the whole time and he mentioned that he uses it to 'pick up' the conversation with his phone that's set on the table or in front of people. I suggested he talk to an audiologist due to his hearing loss and see if he can get insurance to get a new hearing aid without relying on the headset but I haven't seen him in over a year or so. The point is that headsets such as AirPods are NOT a replacement for hearing aids.
Most people requiring hearing aid assistance are on Medicare -- but traditional Medicare does not cover hearing aids. Some Medicare Advantage plans may, but then your're dealing with all the issues associated with private insurance.
Also, it is slowly coming out that many simply need a sound amplifier rather than all the filters and such medical people specialize in.
Unfortunately, the hearing industry, like the vision industry, has been overwhelmed with exorbitantly priced medicalization that many simply cannot afford. Fortunately those cartels are being challenged by over-the-counter type solutions like Airpods. Or, this summer I was able to prescribe and order a new pair of glasses for myself at less than a third the cost it would have cost me had I used the traditional medical structure. Basically I saved $400-$500 and ended up with what I think are a better pair of glasses than I would have had from an optician. (The last 2 prescriptions I got from eye doctors were way off the mark)
I think it is good that the medicalized hearing and vision structures are beginning to be limited to those who need that high level of care.
Some of the Medicare plans may cover them, even Medicaid from the state. I think it's a state by state basis, however in my state a local organization is trying to push for support on a bill that requires hearing aid insurance coverage so people can benefit from that assistance. For those who are hard of hearing or experiencing hearing loss, some form of amplification is helpful unless it becomes profound to the point that a specialist is required as a last resort.
In regards to vision care, no doubt about that. Glasses are not cheap and I've had one that was almost $350 back in 2011. I got a new one that was about $60 back in 2017 which wasn't bad and now I've a new prescription just for the lenses. So in that sense, I plan to go back to the original frames which were better built but only for the lenses to be replaced and hoping a new insurance plan will cover it via Medicare. I've thought about using the Warby Parker app to do it.
I'm old school and prefer a hearing aid that has a BTE design which is more stable with an earmold compared to a counterpart such as an AirPod which people, from what I'm hearing, keep losing. Even someone posted in a local bulletin board in my town had found a lost AirPod to alert the public. I think an amplifier would only go so far for the hard of hearing demographic while for the deaf who require a hearing aid or cochlear implant, the situation would be different. And that means the AirPods would have to go through some industrial design changes for that to work since they still look like headphones.
For me, there is no stigma because I'm used to it and whether people notice my hearing aid doesn't matter much. In winter, it's pretty much covered up with my hat but in warmer seasons, it's there. So I'm mainly responsible for letting people know I need to see what they're saying as I read lips. On the other hand, when it comes to communicating with deaf people, I just switch to sign language mode if needed. I've known some deaf people who don't even wear hearing aids and prefer to just move on with their lives without an audiologist and just sign. Nothing wrong with that, either.
So in a sense, it appears to be the mainstreamed demographic that has a form of hearing loss and needing an amplifier and the other requiring an audiologist to get fitted for the hearing aid and ear mold. Cochlear implantation, from my understanding, takes some adjusting to the sound and going through some form of speech therapy with a specialist if it gets to that point.
Absolutely correct, I was referring to people that are merely hard of hearing that could benefit from an Apple solution, not necessarily those with severe hearing loss or those that are practically deaf.
Just to be clear, I don’t wish for the hearing aid industry to suffer should Apple go into this aggressively, but with Apple’s ecosystem advantage and the huge installed base of users, the effect on existing device makers would be painful. And let’s not forget about the resellers of these devices, other than Costco, it seems to be very much a mom and pop industry taking out all those full page ads in newspapers and magazines with tremendous claims (and high markups). It’s ripe for disruption and prices to tumble.
Your insights are very helpful for me to better understand the pros and cons of certain devices, and for that I thank you.
I do. For decades they have milked the unfortunate hard of hearing in the American public with exorbitantly expensive devices because their choice was to pay the price or not be able to hear. So the industry took advantage of their monopolistic cartel. It's the story of the American healthcare industry over the past 50+ years: Charge as much as the traffic will bear. In other words, pure unabashed, unrestrained capitalist greed -- the worst of capitalism. The kind of capitalism the socialists use as a justification for their ideology.
Yes, they do still serve a function and are needed by some. But I will be happy to see the greedy whittled down to a far smaller niche industry.
It's not the first time I've seen independent 'hearing aid services' send out mailers or advertisement that they're the solution to the problem, promising to erase the social stigma of isolation with their devices. Even mentioning cochlear implants. However, when I go to their offices, the first thing I look for is their certification and diplomas on the wall to see if they are what they are and how qualified.
To date, I've had about 7 audiologists in my lifetime. I had 3 in the 1970s/80s from an actual hearing and speech center when I got first diagnosed with deafness, the second one was in a corner department within SEARS ( we're talking old school ), and one from inside a school program I grew up in ( we were required to wear special hearing equipment provided by Phonak at the time with a microphone attached to the teacher. It made for nice espionage when the teacher leaves the room to chat to someone when I can pick up what's happening due to my level of residual hearing. Not kidding ). Then a 4th one in high school in the 80s and a 5th one within an Otolaryngologist's office. Number six was the previous audiologist that folded. Now, number seven is the current one in a hospital department.
But you're right, there are some who don't know what they're doing or are just out for greed as I rather deal with a qualified professional with credentials.
I didn't mean to suggest that they didn't know what they were doing. I was simply protesting the systemic greed in the profession: If you wanted a hearing aid you needed to pay for a prescription and then pay for some very expensive equipment.
A few years back my next door neighbor, the father of an old friend, was living on a Social Security check and barely scrapping by. But, when his hearing aid started to go bad they wanted thousands from him for new ones and he simply could not afford it. His hearing loss was from an injury during WW-II so he may have required that level of expertise and sophisticated equipment. But I am still happy to see people having the option of using consumer grade and priced equipment.
Apple won't be selling such a device at cost either. They will charge whatever their research and accounting professionals tell them as the price point where they realize the greatest profits, "what the market will bear". Is capitalism a problem for you? Yes "benevolent Apple" could give them away and it wouldn't make a noticeable dent in their cash or overall profitability, but it ain't gonna happen.
You need to understand the difference between capitalism and greedy capitalists forming and taking advantage of cartels and monopolies to gouge a helpless public. It's the reason why we have anti-trust laws. Unfortunately, with the U.S. health care industry, those laws are not only seldom enforced, they are often undermined and ignored -- which is why our health care costs are running out of control.
LOL... nobody suggested giving anything away "at cost". That's just you making an argument where none existed/
OK try widely affordable instead of selling it for whatever maximum price the market will bear. Is that different from greed? Aren't companies now selling health services for whatever the market will bear? The techs just want to move a few of those billions into their own bank accounts. IMO there is no difference. You call it greed (when convenient to your argument), the companies call it maximizing profits.
Heck the richest company in the history of the planet could subsidize their version of hearing aids for the elderly poor who suffer failing hearing and still wouldn't realize a loss. Think they will? Apple has long been all about making the most money possible from whatever they sell, not being benevolent or worrying about the poor among us. Not their problem.
Health costs may well come down, or at least some of the corrective gear involved in it such as vision and hearing, but not because companies will be less "greedy". They exist for profit and the best of them go to great lengths for it, quite successfully I might add. Even in my little corner of the business world I'll spend hours each month making sure I'm not leaving any obvious money on the table. I could sell my product and services for less and still make a profit, but why would I? For that matter you could work for less or live on less but will you?
When or if I get to the point in my life where I could not possibly spend whatever money and resources I have in my lifetime then yes it's time to consider sharing the wealth. Gorging and hoarding benefits no one, not even me, and I don't owe my children an easy living on my hard work anymore than my parents owed me one. Until then I'll be maxing out those profits baby. So will the executive team at Apple.
Ok, so one more time. As i said: "You need to understand the difference between capitalism and greedy
capitalists forming and taking advantage of cartels and monopolies to
gouge a helpless public. It's the reason why we have anti-trust laws.
Unfortunately, with the U.S. health care industry, those laws are not
only seldom enforced, they are often undermined and ignored -- which is
why our health care costs are running out of control. "
And while Apple Watch now can alert you to noisy high decibel surroundings, I hope this is merely a baby step towards Apple offering...
full fledged AirPod hearing aids,
which I’ll call AirPodEars.
Only Apple has the cachet to overnight rid the perceived stigma of wearing hearing aids (which prevents many folks from even considering them, let alone the high cost of purchase and battery replacements).
Not only that, by virtue of Apple designing them they could actually be fashionable, just as eye glasses are.
And coupled with AppleWatch and/or iPhone control, the AirPodEars would be far simpler, superior and cheaper to purchase and operate.
Come on Apple, I’m sure this must be in development.
A friend has an iPhone app-controlled hearing aid. It is so small I didn’t even notice it until he pointed it out. That being said, I have zero expectation for Apple to build this first-party. Just like how they don’t build printers, scanners, or many other specialty accessories.
I don’t disagree that Apple hearing aids might seem too niche, however:
+ On average 10,000 Americans turn 65 EVERY day, and this baby boom generation will need plenty of hearing help
+ It bears repeating: Only Apple has the cachet to make hearing aids acceptable to the vast majority with no stigma, so much so that they wouldn’t need to be hidden or tiny but rather obvious like AirPods, thus allowing better and rechargeable battery life without the need for expensive battery replacements
+ Replacing $300 AirPodEars would be a lot cheaper than the $2000 or more aids cost now (each for the better ones)
+ In fact, if they look identical to AirPods or AirPod Pros, no one would know if they were regular AirPods or hearing enhancers.
- The only negatives I can see for Apple is that the demographic tends to be older (thus generally less hip) and having lead the way with iPods and everyone blasting music in their ears Apple might be overly sensitive to being associated with helping cause the hearing loss in the first place
+ Apple could offer these readily. Medical device approvals shouldn’t be that difficult with Apple’s R&D capability
+ Apple would be admired for turning a major stigma inside out (from scourge to fashion statement, if one so chooses)
I'm born deaf myself with severe hearing loss on the left and profound on the right, wearing only one digital hearing aid on the left side. I've literally grown up with the HA with a box in a shirt pocket with wires ( think headphones ) from the late 70s all the way to BTE ( behind the ear ) design and can say that digital hearing aids are now the standard. I loved the analog aids due to their bass and volume sound quality, not to mention that they were a lot cheaper in the range of $500-800, sometimes $1,200 for a pair at the most. However, they've been phased out mostly in favor of digital which has to be programmed by the audiologist. My current digital hearing aid is from Phonak and cost about $1,200. Just for one. Fortunately, insurance coverage was available and I have a very good audiologist.
Also, hearing aids are considered 'medical' devices that can be covered by insurance, or if one can afford to pay in cash/credit. An Apple designed hearing aid would require approval to be covered by insurance as a medical device. My problem is with the actual design of AirPods that go right into your ear canal in contrast to the BTE design which is a lot more stable and more powerful ( think Beats Pro headphones with ear hooks ).
And you literally have to have a earmold cast for the hearing aid to fit into your ear properly. Also digital hearing aids that are controlled by an iPhone concerns me in that if you lose the phone, how do you control the HA?
Most importantly, for a hearing aid to work for the person with hearing loss, a hearing test must be done by an audiologist to determine the level of loss and which type of HA works best. Therefore, Apple's 'one size fits all' solution won't work. Consider this. Analog hearing aids are like amplifiers but they're designed to work with someone's specific hearing loss or deafness as they all differ for each person. Trust me, I've tried the 'in your ear' hearing aid years ago and it didn't sound good to me and that was because it wasn't powerful enough to provide 'oomph' and didn't match my hearing loss. This is why I cannot use the regular EarPods that came with the iPhone as they don't fit in my ear at all and have to rely on a HATIS headset that uses telecoil to block out the background noise entirely and only focuses on the audio ( shaped like a hook a wire straight to the headphone jack or adapter ) or use a bluetooth receiver with an 8 hour battery with a neck loop that can stream music or audio ( ie. movies, video calls, etc ) straight from any iOS device or PC. I got the receiver from the audiologist which usually costs over $100.
Cochlear implants, OTOH, are a huge issue right now with the deaf community as an ongoing debate ( which has been viewed for years as a method of identity eugenics of sorts ) and mega expensive which I've heard horror stories about. I've seen the effects of it from a very old classmate I grew up with years ago and felt bad for him when he couldn't hear for two weeks post surgery, waiting to get proper activation.
So in short, if you have vision needs ( ie. astigmatism or such ) with glasses, you go to an eye care professional for this. Same thing goes for hearing loss/deafness. I don't see Apple having the ability to design a hearing aid in an AirPod style design.
And lastly, I do NOT see a practical use for AR goggles to replace the phone for the deaf or hard of hearing. Not one bit. Consider the fact that every deaf person I've known relies completely on texting or video calls to communicate. With AR goggles, it would not solve a long distance phone call as they cannot see each other. You need a camera so that they can see each other's sign language 'face to face'. Even if they're in public, I've heard stories how some have used special iOS live transcription apps to capture conversations in public to communicate. I use app such as Sign or Cardzilla where one types in large text and flashes the message across the room as you hold up the phone, especially handy in noisy environments like nightclubs or such. It works every time.
Plus, they have certain criteria when you use sign language on screen by wearing dark clothing so that the hands can be seen by contrast, especially if they're using a VRS ( video relay service ) who have call operators on screen to follow strict ASL protocol. I don't sign much as I was originally taught to speak orally in an audist program as ASL wasn't allowed at the time but these days, I'm still learning some of them to catch up and use in case of an emergency.
But I would love Apple to build a small bluetooth device that clips on a shirt or stays tucked in clothing as a method to stream iOS music/audio to your hearing aid. There was a outdoor company ( this is the firm: https://www.outdoortechnology.com/ ) that made a rechargeable dongle with a clip and had an iPod like wheel with audio controls but with a headphone jack. Because where I live in New England, products like these are popular for outdoor activities. All you had to do was clip it to your belt or shirt and jack the old school headphones to it and walk around the house listening to music. This product came around around 2011-2012 ( I think) long before AirPods were a thing. And even if I'm driving, wind noise from the car door ( usually with closed windows ) usually masks my voice and I can't always raise Siri to access the map and I've wished there was a small bluetooth microphone to clip to my jacket so I don't have to scream for Siri.
NOTE: by the way, there are some hearing aids that are rechargeable but aren't cheap and most commonly require a battery which you can buy online or at a store, or audiologist. I use a size 675 for this and get huge packs from Amazon from a German company which is cheaper than what you get in the store.
2nd NOTE: I want to mention that a local AR player on Ingress for iOS crossed my path a few times and once I met him in person, he had an in the ear headset for his phone to make calls. I noticed that he kept it in his ear the whole time and he mentioned that he uses it to 'pick up' the conversation with his phone that's set on the table or in front of people. I suggested he talk to an audiologist due to his hearing loss and see if he can get insurance to get a new hearing aid without relying on the headset but I haven't seen him in over a year or so. The point is that headsets such as AirPods are NOT a replacement for hearing aids.
Most people requiring hearing aid assistance are on Medicare -- but traditional Medicare does not cover hearing aids. Some Medicare Advantage plans may, but then your're dealing with all the issues associated with private insurance.
Also, it is slowly coming out that many simply need a sound amplifier rather than all the filters and such medical people specialize in.
Unfortunately, the hearing industry, like the vision industry, has been overwhelmed with exorbitantly priced medicalization that many simply cannot afford. Fortunately those cartels are being challenged by over-the-counter type solutions like Airpods. Or, this summer I was able to prescribe and order a new pair of glasses for myself at less than a third the cost it would have cost me had I used the traditional medical structure. Basically I saved $400-$500 and ended up with what I think are a better pair of glasses than I would have had from an optician. (The last 2 prescriptions I got from eye doctors were way off the mark)
I think it is good that the medicalized hearing and vision structures are beginning to be limited to those who need that high level of care.
Some of the Medicare plans may cover them, even Medicaid from the state. I think it's a state by state basis, however in my state a local organization is trying to push for support on a bill that requires hearing aid insurance coverage so people can benefit from that assistance. For those who are hard of hearing or experiencing hearing loss, some form of amplification is helpful unless it becomes profound to the point that a specialist is required as a last resort.
In regards to vision care, no doubt about that. Glasses are not cheap and I've had one that was almost $350 back in 2011. I got a new one that was about $60 back in 2017 which wasn't bad and now I've a new prescription just for the lenses. So in that sense, I plan to go back to the original frames which were better built but only for the lenses to be replaced and hoping a new insurance plan will cover it via Medicare. I've thought about using the Warby Parker app to do it.
I'm old school and prefer a hearing aid that has a BTE design which is more stable with an earmold compared to a counterpart such as an AirPod which people, from what I'm hearing, keep losing. Even someone posted in a local bulletin board in my town had found a lost AirPod to alert the public. I think an amplifier would only go so far for the hard of hearing demographic while for the deaf who require a hearing aid or cochlear implant, the situation would be different. And that means the AirPods would have to go through some industrial design changes for that to work since they still look like headphones.
For me, there is no stigma because I'm used to it and whether people notice my hearing aid doesn't matter much. In winter, it's pretty much covered up with my hat but in warmer seasons, it's there. So I'm mainly responsible for letting people know I need to see what they're saying as I read lips. On the other hand, when it comes to communicating with deaf people, I just switch to sign language mode if needed. I've known some deaf people who don't even wear hearing aids and prefer to just move on with their lives without an audiologist and just sign. Nothing wrong with that, either.
So in a sense, it appears to be the mainstreamed demographic that has a form of hearing loss and needing an amplifier and the other requiring an audiologist to get fitted for the hearing aid and ear mold. Cochlear implantation, from my understanding, takes some adjusting to the sound and going through some form of speech therapy with a specialist if it gets to that point.
Absolutely correct, I was referring to people that are merely hard of hearing that could benefit from an Apple solution, not necessarily those with severe hearing loss or those that are practically deaf.
Just to be clear, I don’t wish for the hearing aid industry to suffer should Apple go into this aggressively, but with Apple’s ecosystem advantage and the huge installed base of users, the effect on existing device makers would be painful. And let’s not forget about the resellers of these devices, other than Costco, it seems to be very much a mom and pop industry taking out all those full page ads in newspapers and magazines with tremendous claims (and high markups). It’s ripe for disruption and prices to tumble.
Your insights are very helpful for me to better understand the pros and cons of certain devices, and for that I thank you.
I do. For decades they have milked the unfortunate hard of hearing in the American public with exorbitantly expensive devices because their choice was to pay the price or not be able to hear. So the industry took advantage of their monopolistic cartel. It's the story of the American healthcare industry over the past 50+ years: Charge as much as the traffic will bear. In other words, pure unabashed, unrestrained capitalist greed -- the worst of capitalism. The kind of capitalism the socialists use as a justification for their ideology.
Yes, they do still serve a function and are needed by some. But I will be happy to see the greedy whittled down to a far smaller niche industry.
It's not the first time I've seen independent 'hearing aid services' send out mailers or advertisement that they're the solution to the problem, promising to erase the social stigma of isolation with their devices. Even mentioning cochlear implants. However, when I go to their offices, the first thing I look for is their certification and diplomas on the wall to see if they are what they are and how qualified.
To date, I've had about 7 audiologists in my lifetime. I had 3 in the 1970s/80s from an actual hearing and speech center when I got first diagnosed with deafness, the second one was in a corner department within SEARS ( we're talking old school ), and one from inside a school program I grew up in ( we were required to wear special hearing equipment provided by Phonak at the time with a microphone attached to the teacher. It made for nice espionage when the teacher leaves the room to chat to someone when I can pick up what's happening due to my level of residual hearing. Not kidding ). Then a 4th one in high school in the 80s and a 5th one within an Otolaryngologist's office. Number six was the previous audiologist that folded. Now, number seven is the current one in a hospital department.
But you're right, there are some who don't know what they're doing or are just out for greed as I rather deal with a qualified professional with credentials.
I didn't mean to suggest that they didn't know what they were doing. I was simply protesting the systemic greed in the profession: If you wanted a hearing aid you needed to pay for a prescription and then pay for some very expensive equipment.
A few years back my next door neighbor, the father of an old friend, was living on a Social Security check and barely scrapping by. But, when his hearing aid started to go bad they wanted thousands from him for new ones and he simply could not afford it. His hearing loss was from an injury during WW-II so he may have required that level of expertise and sophisticated equipment. But I am still happy to see people having the option of using consumer grade and priced equipment.
Apple won't be selling such a device at cost either. They will charge whatever their research and accounting professionals tell them as the price point where they realize the greatest profits, "what the market will bear". Is capitalism a problem for you? Yes "benevolent Apple" could give them away and it wouldn't make a noticeable dent in their cash or overall profitability, but it ain't gonna happen.
You need to understand the difference between capitalism and greedy capitalists forming and taking advantage of cartels and monopolies to gouge a helpless public. It's the reason why we have anti-trust laws. Unfortunately, with the U.S. health care industry, those laws are not only seldom enforced, they are often undermined and ignored -- which is why our health care costs are running out of control.
LOL... nobody suggested giving anything away "at cost". That's just you making an argument where none existed/
OK try widely affordable instead of selling it for whatever maximum price the market will bear. Is that different from greed? Aren't companies now selling health services for whatever the market will bear? The techs just want to move a few of those billions into their own bank accounts. IMO there is no difference. You call it greed (when convenient to your argument), the companies call it maximizing profits.
Heck the richest company in the history of the planet could subsidize their version of hearing aids for the elderly poor who suffer failing hearing and still wouldn't realize a loss. Think they will? Apple has long been all about making the most money possible from whatever they sell, not being benevolent or worrying about the poor among us. Not their problem.
Health costs may well come down, or at least some of the corrective gear involved in it such as vision and hearing, but not because companies will be less "greedy". They exist for profit and the best of them go to great lengths for it, quite successfully I might add. Even in my little corner of the business world I'll spend hours each month making sure I'm not leaving any obvious money on the table. I could sell my product and services for less and still make a profit, but why would I? For that matter you could work for less or live on less but will you?
When or if I get to the point in my life where I could not possibly spend whatever money and resources I have in my lifetime then yes it's time to consider sharing the wealth. Gorging and hoarding benefits no one, not even me, and I don't owe my children an easy living on my hard work anymore than my parents owed me one. Until then I'll be maxing out those profits baby. So will the executive team at Apple.
Ok, so one more time. As i said: "You need to understand the difference between capitalism and greedy
capitalists forming and taking advantage of cartels and monopolies to
gouge a helpless public. It's the reason why we have anti-trust laws.
Unfortunately, with the U.S. health care industry, those laws are not
only seldom enforced, they are often undermined and ignored -- which is
why our health care costs are running out of control. "
That means as much as the first time you said it. Not much. If you think we don't understand the difference explain where that line is between greed and maximizing profits.
And while Apple Watch now can alert you to noisy high decibel surroundings, I hope this is merely a baby step towards Apple offering...
full fledged AirPod hearing aids,
which I’ll call AirPodEars.
Only Apple has the cachet to overnight rid the perceived stigma of wearing hearing aids (which prevents many folks from even considering them, let alone the high cost of purchase and battery replacements).
Not only that, by virtue of Apple designing them they could actually be fashionable, just as eye glasses are.
And coupled with AppleWatch and/or iPhone control, the AirPodEars would be far simpler, superior and cheaper to purchase and operate.
Come on Apple, I’m sure this must be in development.
A friend has an iPhone app-controlled hearing aid. It is so small I didn’t even notice it until he pointed it out. That being said, I have zero expectation for Apple to build this first-party. Just like how they don’t build printers, scanners, or many other specialty accessories.
I don’t disagree that Apple hearing aids might seem too niche, however:
+ On average 10,000 Americans turn 65 EVERY day, and this baby boom generation will need plenty of hearing help
+ It bears repeating: Only Apple has the cachet to make hearing aids acceptable to the vast majority with no stigma, so much so that they wouldn’t need to be hidden or tiny but rather obvious like AirPods, thus allowing better and rechargeable battery life without the need for expensive battery replacements
+ Replacing $300 AirPodEars would be a lot cheaper than the $2000 or more aids cost now (each for the better ones)
+ In fact, if they look identical to AirPods or AirPod Pros, no one would know if they were regular AirPods or hearing enhancers.
- The only negatives I can see for Apple is that the demographic tends to be older (thus generally less hip) and having lead the way with iPods and everyone blasting music in their ears Apple might be overly sensitive to being associated with helping cause the hearing loss in the first place
+ Apple could offer these readily. Medical device approvals shouldn’t be that difficult with Apple’s R&D capability
+ Apple would be admired for turning a major stigma inside out (from scourge to fashion statement, if one so chooses)
I'm born deaf myself with severe hearing loss on the left and profound on the right, wearing only one digital hearing aid on the left side. I've literally grown up with the HA with a box in a shirt pocket with wires ( think headphones ) from the late 70s all the way to BTE ( behind the ear ) design and can say that digital hearing aids are now the standard. I loved the analog aids due to their bass and volume sound quality, not to mention that they were a lot cheaper in the range of $500-800, sometimes $1,200 for a pair at the most. However, they've been phased out mostly in favor of digital which has to be programmed by the audiologist. My current digital hearing aid is from Phonak and cost about $1,200. Just for one. Fortunately, insurance coverage was available and I have a very good audiologist.
Also, hearing aids are considered 'medical' devices that can be covered by insurance, or if one can afford to pay in cash/credit. An Apple designed hearing aid would require approval to be covered by insurance as a medical device. My problem is with the actual design of AirPods that go right into your ear canal in contrast to the BTE design which is a lot more stable and more powerful ( think Beats Pro headphones with ear hooks ).
And you literally have to have a earmold cast for the hearing aid to fit into your ear properly. Also digital hearing aids that are controlled by an iPhone concerns me in that if you lose the phone, how do you control the HA?
Most importantly, for a hearing aid to work for the person with hearing loss, a hearing test must be done by an audiologist to determine the level of loss and which type of HA works best. Therefore, Apple's 'one size fits all' solution won't work. Consider this. Analog hearing aids are like amplifiers but they're designed to work with someone's specific hearing loss or deafness as they all differ for each person. Trust me, I've tried the 'in your ear' hearing aid years ago and it didn't sound good to me and that was because it wasn't powerful enough to provide 'oomph' and didn't match my hearing loss. This is why I cannot use the regular EarPods that came with the iPhone as they don't fit in my ear at all and have to rely on a HATIS headset that uses telecoil to block out the background noise entirely and only focuses on the audio ( shaped like a hook a wire straight to the headphone jack or adapter ) or use a bluetooth receiver with an 8 hour battery with a neck loop that can stream music or audio ( ie. movies, video calls, etc ) straight from any iOS device or PC. I got the receiver from the audiologist which usually costs over $100.
Cochlear implants, OTOH, are a huge issue right now with the deaf community as an ongoing debate ( which has been viewed for years as a method of identity eugenics of sorts ) and mega expensive which I've heard horror stories about. I've seen the effects of it from a very old classmate I grew up with years ago and felt bad for him when he couldn't hear for two weeks post surgery, waiting to get proper activation.
So in short, if you have vision needs ( ie. astigmatism or such ) with glasses, you go to an eye care professional for this. Same thing goes for hearing loss/deafness. I don't see Apple having the ability to design a hearing aid in an AirPod style design.
And lastly, I do NOT see a practical use for AR goggles to replace the phone for the deaf or hard of hearing. Not one bit. Consider the fact that every deaf person I've known relies completely on texting or video calls to communicate. With AR goggles, it would not solve a long distance phone call as they cannot see each other. You need a camera so that they can see each other's sign language 'face to face'. Even if they're in public, I've heard stories how some have used special iOS live transcription apps to capture conversations in public to communicate. I use app such as Sign or Cardzilla where one types in large text and flashes the message across the room as you hold up the phone, especially handy in noisy environments like nightclubs or such. It works every time.
Plus, they have certain criteria when you use sign language on screen by wearing dark clothing so that the hands can be seen by contrast, especially if they're using a VRS ( video relay service ) who have call operators on screen to follow strict ASL protocol. I don't sign much as I was originally taught to speak orally in an audist program as ASL wasn't allowed at the time but these days, I'm still learning some of them to catch up and use in case of an emergency.
But I would love Apple to build a small bluetooth device that clips on a shirt or stays tucked in clothing as a method to stream iOS music/audio to your hearing aid. There was a outdoor company ( this is the firm: https://www.outdoortechnology.com/ ) that made a rechargeable dongle with a clip and had an iPod like wheel with audio controls but with a headphone jack. Because where I live in New England, products like these are popular for outdoor activities. All you had to do was clip it to your belt or shirt and jack the old school headphones to it and walk around the house listening to music. This product came around around 2011-2012 ( I think) long before AirPods were a thing. And even if I'm driving, wind noise from the car door ( usually with closed windows ) usually masks my voice and I can't always raise Siri to access the map and I've wished there was a small bluetooth microphone to clip to my jacket so I don't have to scream for Siri.
NOTE: by the way, there are some hearing aids that are rechargeable but aren't cheap and most commonly require a battery which you can buy online or at a store, or audiologist. I use a size 675 for this and get huge packs from Amazon from a German company which is cheaper than what you get in the store.
2nd NOTE: I want to mention that a local AR player on Ingress for iOS crossed my path a few times and once I met him in person, he had an in the ear headset for his phone to make calls. I noticed that he kept it in his ear the whole time and he mentioned that he uses it to 'pick up' the conversation with his phone that's set on the table or in front of people. I suggested he talk to an audiologist due to his hearing loss and see if he can get insurance to get a new hearing aid without relying on the headset but I haven't seen him in over a year or so. The point is that headsets such as AirPods are NOT a replacement for hearing aids.
Most people requiring hearing aid assistance are on Medicare -- but traditional Medicare does not cover hearing aids. Some Medicare Advantage plans may, but then your're dealing with all the issues associated with private insurance.
Also, it is slowly coming out that many simply need a sound amplifier rather than all the filters and such medical people specialize in.
Unfortunately, the hearing industry, like the vision industry, has been overwhelmed with exorbitantly priced medicalization that many simply cannot afford. Fortunately those cartels are being challenged by over-the-counter type solutions like Airpods. Or, this summer I was able to prescribe and order a new pair of glasses for myself at less than a third the cost it would have cost me had I used the traditional medical structure. Basically I saved $400-$500 and ended up with what I think are a better pair of glasses than I would have had from an optician. (The last 2 prescriptions I got from eye doctors were way off the mark)
I think it is good that the medicalized hearing and vision structures are beginning to be limited to those who need that high level of care.
Some of the Medicare plans may cover them, even Medicaid from the state. I think it's a state by state basis, however in my state a local organization is trying to push for support on a bill that requires hearing aid insurance coverage so people can benefit from that assistance. For those who are hard of hearing or experiencing hearing loss, some form of amplification is helpful unless it becomes profound to the point that a specialist is required as a last resort.
In regards to vision care, no doubt about that. Glasses are not cheap and I've had one that was almost $350 back in 2011. I got a new one that was about $60 back in 2017 which wasn't bad and now I've a new prescription just for the lenses. So in that sense, I plan to go back to the original frames which were better built but only for the lenses to be replaced and hoping a new insurance plan will cover it via Medicare. I've thought about using the Warby Parker app to do it.
I'm old school and prefer a hearing aid that has a BTE design which is more stable with an earmold compared to a counterpart such as an AirPod which people, from what I'm hearing, keep losing. Even someone posted in a local bulletin board in my town had found a lost AirPod to alert the public. I think an amplifier would only go so far for the hard of hearing demographic while for the deaf who require a hearing aid or cochlear implant, the situation would be different. And that means the AirPods would have to go through some industrial design changes for that to work since they still look like headphones.
For me, there is no stigma because I'm used to it and whether people notice my hearing aid doesn't matter much. In winter, it's pretty much covered up with my hat but in warmer seasons, it's there. So I'm mainly responsible for letting people know I need to see what they're saying as I read lips. On the other hand, when it comes to communicating with deaf people, I just switch to sign language mode if needed. I've known some deaf people who don't even wear hearing aids and prefer to just move on with their lives without an audiologist and just sign. Nothing wrong with that, either.
So in a sense, it appears to be the mainstreamed demographic that has a form of hearing loss and needing an amplifier and the other requiring an audiologist to get fitted for the hearing aid and ear mold. Cochlear implantation, from my understanding, takes some adjusting to the sound and going through some form of speech therapy with a specialist if it gets to that point.
Absolutely correct, I was referring to people that are merely hard of hearing that could benefit from an Apple solution, not necessarily those with severe hearing loss or those that are practically deaf.
Just to be clear, I don’t wish for the hearing aid industry to suffer should Apple go into this aggressively, but with Apple’s ecosystem advantage and the huge installed base of users, the effect on existing device makers would be painful. And let’s not forget about the resellers of these devices, other than Costco, it seems to be very much a mom and pop industry taking out all those full page ads in newspapers and magazines with tremendous claims (and high markups). It’s ripe for disruption and prices to tumble.
Your insights are very helpful for me to better understand the pros and cons of certain devices, and for that I thank you.
I do. For decades they have milked the unfortunate hard of hearing in the American public with exorbitantly expensive devices because their choice was to pay the price or not be able to hear. So the industry took advantage of their monopolistic cartel. It's the story of the American healthcare industry over the past 50+ years: Charge as much as the traffic will bear. In other words, pure unabashed, unrestrained capitalist greed -- the worst of capitalism. The kind of capitalism the socialists use as a justification for their ideology.
Yes, they do still serve a function and are needed by some. But I will be happy to see the greedy whittled down to a far smaller niche industry.
It's not the first time I've seen independent 'hearing aid services' send out mailers or advertisement that they're the solution to the problem, promising to erase the social stigma of isolation with their devices. Even mentioning cochlear implants. However, when I go to their offices, the first thing I look for is their certification and diplomas on the wall to see if they are what they are and how qualified.
To date, I've had about 7 audiologists in my lifetime. I had 3 in the 1970s/80s from an actual hearing and speech center when I got first diagnosed with deafness, the second one was in a corner department within SEARS ( we're talking old school ), and one from inside a school program I grew up in ( we were required to wear special hearing equipment provided by Phonak at the time with a microphone attached to the teacher. It made for nice espionage when the teacher leaves the room to chat to someone when I can pick up what's happening due to my level of residual hearing. Not kidding ). Then a 4th one in high school in the 80s and a 5th one within an Otolaryngologist's office. Number six was the previous audiologist that folded. Now, number seven is the current one in a hospital department.
But you're right, there are some who don't know what they're doing or are just out for greed as I rather deal with a qualified professional with credentials.
I didn't mean to suggest that they didn't know what they were doing. I was simply protesting the systemic greed in the profession: If you wanted a hearing aid you needed to pay for a prescription and then pay for some very expensive equipment.
A few years back my next door neighbor, the father of an old friend, was living on a Social Security check and barely scrapping by. But, when his hearing aid started to go bad they wanted thousands from him for new ones and he simply could not afford it. His hearing loss was from an injury during WW-II so he may have required that level of expertise and sophisticated equipment. But I am still happy to see people having the option of using consumer grade and priced equipment.
Apple won't be selling such a device at cost either. They will charge whatever their research and accounting professionals tell them as the price point where they realize the greatest profits, "what the market will bear". Is capitalism a problem for you? Yes "benevolent Apple" could give them away and it wouldn't make a noticeable dent in their cash or overall profitability, but it ain't gonna happen.
You need to understand the difference between capitalism and greedy capitalists forming and taking advantage of cartels and monopolies to gouge a helpless public. It's the reason why we have anti-trust laws. Unfortunately, with the U.S. health care industry, those laws are not only seldom enforced, they are often undermined and ignored -- which is why our health care costs are running out of control.
LOL... nobody suggested giving anything away "at cost". That's just you making an argument where none existed/
OK try widely affordable instead of selling it for whatever maximum price the market will bear. Is that different from greed? Aren't companies now selling health services for whatever the market will bear? The techs just want to move a few of those billions into their own bank accounts. IMO there is no difference. You call it greed (when convenient to your argument), the companies call it maximizing profits.
Heck the richest company in the history of the planet could subsidize their version of hearing aids for the elderly poor who suffer failing hearing and still wouldn't realize a loss. Think they will? Apple has long been all about making the most money possible from whatever they sell, not being benevolent or worrying about the poor among us. Not their problem.
Health costs may well come down, or at least some of the corrective gear involved in it such as vision and hearing, but not because companies will be less "greedy". They exist for profit and the best of them go to great lengths for it, quite successfully I might add. Even in my little corner of the business world I'll spend hours each month making sure I'm not leaving any obvious money on the table. I could sell my product and services for less and still make a profit, but why would I? For that matter you could work for less or live on less but will you?
When or if I get to the point in my life where I could not possibly spend whatever money and resources I have in my lifetime then yes it's time to consider sharing the wealth. Gorging and hoarding benefits no one, not even me, and I don't owe my children an easy living on my hard work anymore than my parents owed me one. Until then I'll be maxing out those profits baby. So will the executive team at Apple.
Ok, so one more time. As i said: "You need to understand the difference between capitalism and greedy
capitalists forming and taking advantage of cartels and monopolies to
gouge a helpless public. It's the reason why we have anti-trust laws.
Unfortunately, with the U.S. health care industry, those laws are not
only seldom enforced, they are often undermined and ignored -- which is
why our health care costs are running out of control. "
That means as much as the first time you said it. Not much. If you think we don't understand the difference explain where that line is between greed and maximizing profits.
If cartels and monopolies have no meaning to you, you should probably look up America's great industrialists like Carnegie/Frick, Rockefeller, Morgan etc... They did a lot of good. But with their immense but unconstrained power also a lot of harm. The nation's first anti-trust case was to break up Rockefeller's monopoly when it was decided that his ruthlessness was doing the nation more harm than good.
Capitalism is good when it is constrained -- either through competition or regulation. When neither exist it too often proves the saying that "Power corrupts and Absolute power corrupts absolutely".
And while Apple Watch now can alert you to noisy high decibel surroundings, I hope this is merely a baby step towards Apple offering...
full fledged AirPod hearing aids,
which I’ll call AirPodEars.
Only Apple has the cachet to overnight rid the perceived stigma of wearing hearing aids (which prevents many folks from even considering them, let alone the high cost of purchase and battery replacements).
Not only that, by virtue of Apple designing them they could actually be fashionable, just as eye glasses are.
And coupled with AppleWatch and/or iPhone control, the AirPodEars would be far simpler, superior and cheaper to purchase and operate.
Come on Apple, I’m sure this must be in development.
A friend has an iPhone app-controlled hearing aid. It is so small I didn’t even notice it until he pointed it out. That being said, I have zero expectation for Apple to build this first-party. Just like how they don’t build printers, scanners, or many other specialty accessories.
I don’t disagree that Apple hearing aids might seem too niche, however:
+ On average 10,000 Americans turn 65 EVERY day, and this baby boom generation will need plenty of hearing help
+ It bears repeating: Only Apple has the cachet to make hearing aids acceptable to the vast majority with no stigma, so much so that they wouldn’t need to be hidden or tiny but rather obvious like AirPods, thus allowing better and rechargeable battery life without the need for expensive battery replacements
+ Replacing $300 AirPodEars would be a lot cheaper than the $2000 or more aids cost now (each for the better ones)
+ In fact, if they look identical to AirPods or AirPod Pros, no one would know if they were regular AirPods or hearing enhancers.
- The only negatives I can see for Apple is that the demographic tends to be older (thus generally less hip) and having lead the way with iPods and everyone blasting music in their ears Apple might be overly sensitive to being associated with helping cause the hearing loss in the first place
+ Apple could offer these readily. Medical device approvals shouldn’t be that difficult with Apple’s R&D capability
+ Apple would be admired for turning a major stigma inside out (from scourge to fashion statement, if one so chooses)
I'm born deaf myself with severe hearing loss on the left and profound on the right, wearing only one digital hearing aid on the left side. I've literally grown up with the HA with a box in a shirt pocket with wires ( think headphones ) from the late 70s all the way to BTE ( behind the ear ) design and can say that digital hearing aids are now the standard. I loved the analog aids due to their bass and volume sound quality, not to mention that they were a lot cheaper in the range of $500-800, sometimes $1,200 for a pair at the most. However, they've been phased out mostly in favor of digital which has to be programmed by the audiologist. My current digital hearing aid is from Phonak and cost about $1,200. Just for one. Fortunately, insurance coverage was available and I have a very good audiologist.
Also, hearing aids are considered 'medical' devices that can be covered by insurance, or if one can afford to pay in cash/credit. An Apple designed hearing aid would require approval to be covered by insurance as a medical device. My problem is with the actual design of AirPods that go right into your ear canal in contrast to the BTE design which is a lot more stable and more powerful ( think Beats Pro headphones with ear hooks ).
And you literally have to have a earmold cast for the hearing aid to fit into your ear properly. Also digital hearing aids that are controlled by an iPhone concerns me in that if you lose the phone, how do you control the HA?
Most importantly, for a hearing aid to work for the person with hearing loss, a hearing test must be done by an audiologist to determine the level of loss and which type of HA works best. Therefore, Apple's 'one size fits all' solution won't work. Consider this. Analog hearing aids are like amplifiers but they're designed to work with someone's specific hearing loss or deafness as they all differ for each person. Trust me, I've tried the 'in your ear' hearing aid years ago and it didn't sound good to me and that was because it wasn't powerful enough to provide 'oomph' and didn't match my hearing loss. This is why I cannot use the regular EarPods that came with the iPhone as they don't fit in my ear at all and have to rely on a HATIS headset that uses telecoil to block out the background noise entirely and only focuses on the audio ( shaped like a hook a wire straight to the headphone jack or adapter ) or use a bluetooth receiver with an 8 hour battery with a neck loop that can stream music or audio ( ie. movies, video calls, etc ) straight from any iOS device or PC. I got the receiver from the audiologist which usually costs over $100.
Cochlear implants, OTOH, are a huge issue right now with the deaf community as an ongoing debate ( which has been viewed for years as a method of identity eugenics of sorts ) and mega expensive which I've heard horror stories about. I've seen the effects of it from a very old classmate I grew up with years ago and felt bad for him when he couldn't hear for two weeks post surgery, waiting to get proper activation.
So in short, if you have vision needs ( ie. astigmatism or such ) with glasses, you go to an eye care professional for this. Same thing goes for hearing loss/deafness. I don't see Apple having the ability to design a hearing aid in an AirPod style design.
And lastly, I do NOT see a practical use for AR goggles to replace the phone for the deaf or hard of hearing. Not one bit. Consider the fact that every deaf person I've known relies completely on texting or video calls to communicate. With AR goggles, it would not solve a long distance phone call as they cannot see each other. You need a camera so that they can see each other's sign language 'face to face'. Even if they're in public, I've heard stories how some have used special iOS live transcription apps to capture conversations in public to communicate. I use app such as Sign or Cardzilla where one types in large text and flashes the message across the room as you hold up the phone, especially handy in noisy environments like nightclubs or such. It works every time.
Plus, they have certain criteria when you use sign language on screen by wearing dark clothing so that the hands can be seen by contrast, especially if they're using a VRS ( video relay service ) who have call operators on screen to follow strict ASL protocol. I don't sign much as I was originally taught to speak orally in an audist program as ASL wasn't allowed at the time but these days, I'm still learning some of them to catch up and use in case of an emergency.
But I would love Apple to build a small bluetooth device that clips on a shirt or stays tucked in clothing as a method to stream iOS music/audio to your hearing aid. There was a outdoor company ( this is the firm: https://www.outdoortechnology.com/ ) that made a rechargeable dongle with a clip and had an iPod like wheel with audio controls but with a headphone jack. Because where I live in New England, products like these are popular for outdoor activities. All you had to do was clip it to your belt or shirt and jack the old school headphones to it and walk around the house listening to music. This product came around around 2011-2012 ( I think) long before AirPods were a thing. And even if I'm driving, wind noise from the car door ( usually with closed windows ) usually masks my voice and I can't always raise Siri to access the map and I've wished there was a small bluetooth microphone to clip to my jacket so I don't have to scream for Siri.
NOTE: by the way, there are some hearing aids that are rechargeable but aren't cheap and most commonly require a battery which you can buy online or at a store, or audiologist. I use a size 675 for this and get huge packs from Amazon from a German company which is cheaper than what you get in the store.
2nd NOTE: I want to mention that a local AR player on Ingress for iOS crossed my path a few times and once I met him in person, he had an in the ear headset for his phone to make calls. I noticed that he kept it in his ear the whole time and he mentioned that he uses it to 'pick up' the conversation with his phone that's set on the table or in front of people. I suggested he talk to an audiologist due to his hearing loss and see if he can get insurance to get a new hearing aid without relying on the headset but I haven't seen him in over a year or so. The point is that headsets such as AirPods are NOT a replacement for hearing aids.
Most people requiring hearing aid assistance are on Medicare -- but traditional Medicare does not cover hearing aids. Some Medicare Advantage plans may, but then your're dealing with all the issues associated with private insurance.
Also, it is slowly coming out that many simply need a sound amplifier rather than all the filters and such medical people specialize in.
Unfortunately, the hearing industry, like the vision industry, has been overwhelmed with exorbitantly priced medicalization that many simply cannot afford. Fortunately those cartels are being challenged by over-the-counter type solutions like Airpods. Or, this summer I was able to prescribe and order a new pair of glasses for myself at less than a third the cost it would have cost me had I used the traditional medical structure. Basically I saved $400-$500 and ended up with what I think are a better pair of glasses than I would have had from an optician. (The last 2 prescriptions I got from eye doctors were way off the mark)
I think it is good that the medicalized hearing and vision structures are beginning to be limited to those who need that high level of care.
Some of the Medicare plans may cover them, even Medicaid from the state. I think it's a state by state basis, however in my state a local organization is trying to push for support on a bill that requires hearing aid insurance coverage so people can benefit from that assistance. For those who are hard of hearing or experiencing hearing loss, some form of amplification is helpful unless it becomes profound to the point that a specialist is required as a last resort.
In regards to vision care, no doubt about that. Glasses are not cheap and I've had one that was almost $350 back in 2011. I got a new one that was about $60 back in 2017 which wasn't bad and now I've a new prescription just for the lenses. So in that sense, I plan to go back to the original frames which were better built but only for the lenses to be replaced and hoping a new insurance plan will cover it via Medicare. I've thought about using the Warby Parker app to do it.
I'm old school and prefer a hearing aid that has a BTE design which is more stable with an earmold compared to a counterpart such as an AirPod which people, from what I'm hearing, keep losing. Even someone posted in a local bulletin board in my town had found a lost AirPod to alert the public. I think an amplifier would only go so far for the hard of hearing demographic while for the deaf who require a hearing aid or cochlear implant, the situation would be different. And that means the AirPods would have to go through some industrial design changes for that to work since they still look like headphones.
For me, there is no stigma because I'm used to it and whether people notice my hearing aid doesn't matter much. In winter, it's pretty much covered up with my hat but in warmer seasons, it's there. So I'm mainly responsible for letting people know I need to see what they're saying as I read lips. On the other hand, when it comes to communicating with deaf people, I just switch to sign language mode if needed. I've known some deaf people who don't even wear hearing aids and prefer to just move on with their lives without an audiologist and just sign. Nothing wrong with that, either.
So in a sense, it appears to be the mainstreamed demographic that has a form of hearing loss and needing an amplifier and the other requiring an audiologist to get fitted for the hearing aid and ear mold. Cochlear implantation, from my understanding, takes some adjusting to the sound and going through some form of speech therapy with a specialist if it gets to that point.
Absolutely correct, I was referring to people that are merely hard of hearing that could benefit from an Apple solution, not necessarily those with severe hearing loss or those that are practically deaf.
Just to be clear, I don’t wish for the hearing aid industry to suffer should Apple go into this aggressively, but with Apple’s ecosystem advantage and the huge installed base of users, the effect on existing device makers would be painful. And let’s not forget about the resellers of these devices, other than Costco, it seems to be very much a mom and pop industry taking out all those full page ads in newspapers and magazines with tremendous claims (and high markups). It’s ripe for disruption and prices to tumble.
Your insights are very helpful for me to better understand the pros and cons of certain devices, and for that I thank you.
I do. For decades they have milked the unfortunate hard of hearing in the American public with exorbitantly expensive devices because their choice was to pay the price or not be able to hear. So the industry took advantage of their monopolistic cartel. It's the story of the American healthcare industry over the past 50+ years: Charge as much as the traffic will bear. In other words, pure unabashed, unrestrained capitalist greed -- the worst of capitalism. The kind of capitalism the socialists use as a justification for their ideology.
Yes, they do still serve a function and are needed by some. But I will be happy to see the greedy whittled down to a far smaller niche industry.
It's not the first time I've seen independent 'hearing aid services' send out mailers or advertisement that they're the solution to the problem, promising to erase the social stigma of isolation with their devices. Even mentioning cochlear implants. However, when I go to their offices, the first thing I look for is their certification and diplomas on the wall to see if they are what they are and how qualified.
To date, I've had about 7 audiologists in my lifetime. I had 3 in the 1970s/80s from an actual hearing and speech center when I got first diagnosed with deafness, the second one was in a corner department within SEARS ( we're talking old school ), and one from inside a school program I grew up in ( we were required to wear special hearing equipment provided by Phonak at the time with a microphone attached to the teacher. It made for nice espionage when the teacher leaves the room to chat to someone when I can pick up what's happening due to my level of residual hearing. Not kidding ). Then a 4th one in high school in the 80s and a 5th one within an Otolaryngologist's office. Number six was the previous audiologist that folded. Now, number seven is the current one in a hospital department.
But you're right, there are some who don't know what they're doing or are just out for greed as I rather deal with a qualified professional with credentials.
I didn't mean to suggest that they didn't know what they were doing. I was simply protesting the systemic greed in the profession: If you wanted a hearing aid you needed to pay for a prescription and then pay for some very expensive equipment.
A few years back my next door neighbor, the father of an old friend, was living on a Social Security check and barely scrapping by. But, when his hearing aid started to go bad they wanted thousands from him for new ones and he simply could not afford it. His hearing loss was from an injury during WW-II so he may have required that level of expertise and sophisticated equipment. But I am still happy to see people having the option of using consumer grade and priced equipment.
Apple won't be selling such a device at cost either. They will charge whatever their research and accounting professionals tell them as the price point where they realize the greatest profits, "what the market will bear". Is capitalism a problem for you? Yes "benevolent Apple" could give them away and it wouldn't make a noticeable dent in their cash or overall profitability, but it ain't gonna happen.
You need to understand the difference between capitalism and greedy capitalists forming and taking advantage of cartels and monopolies to gouge a helpless public. It's the reason why we have anti-trust laws. Unfortunately, with the U.S. health care industry, those laws are not only seldom enforced, they are often undermined and ignored -- which is why our health care costs are running out of control.
LOL... nobody suggested giving anything away "at cost". That's just you making an argument where none existed/
OK try widely affordable instead of selling it for whatever maximum price the market will bear. Is that different from greed? Aren't companies now selling health services for whatever the market will bear? The techs just want to move a few of those billions into their own bank accounts. IMO there is no difference. You call it greed (when convenient to your argument), the companies call it maximizing profits.
Heck the richest company in the history of the planet could subsidize their version of hearing aids for the elderly poor who suffer failing hearing and still wouldn't realize a loss. Think they will? Apple has long been all about making the most money possible from whatever they sell, not being benevolent or worrying about the poor among us. Not their problem.
Health costs may well come down, or at least some of the corrective gear involved in it such as vision and hearing, but not because companies will be less "greedy". They exist for profit and the best of them go to great lengths for it, quite successfully I might add. Even in my little corner of the business world I'll spend hours each month making sure I'm not leaving any obvious money on the table. I could sell my product and services for less and still make a profit, but why would I? For that matter you could work for less or live on less but will you?
When or if I get to the point in my life where I could not possibly spend whatever money and resources I have in my lifetime then yes it's time to consider sharing the wealth. Gorging and hoarding benefits no one, not even me, and I don't owe my children an easy living on my hard work anymore than my parents owed me one. Until then I'll be maxing out those profits baby. So will the executive team at Apple.
Ok, so one more time. As i said: "You need to understand the difference between capitalism and greedy
capitalists forming and taking advantage of cartels and monopolies to
gouge a helpless public. It's the reason why we have anti-trust laws.
Unfortunately, with the U.S. health care industry, those laws are not
only seldom enforced, they are often undermined and ignored -- which is
why our health care costs are running out of control. "
That means as much as the first time you said it. Not much. If you think we don't understand the difference explain where that line is between greed and maximizing profits.
If cartels and monopolies have no meaning to you, you should probably look up America's great industrialists like Carnegie/Frick, Rockefeller, Morgan etc.
Capitalism is good when it is constrained -- either through competition or regulation.
Again you offer nothing of substance. The health care industry is neither a cartel nor monopoly, is heavily regulated, and competition is healthy. Want to try again to explain the line between maximizing profits and greed? If Humana maximizes profit, and the Mayo Clinic maximizes profit, and Apple maximizes profit, and Exxon maximizes profit (and the assumption would be they ALL do) which ones of those are greedy and which ones are just being good capitalists?
And while Apple Watch now can alert you to noisy high decibel surroundings, I hope this is merely a baby step towards Apple offering...
full fledged AirPod hearing aids,
which I’ll call AirPodEars.
Only Apple has the cachet to overnight rid the perceived stigma of wearing hearing aids (which prevents many folks from even considering them, let alone the high cost of purchase and battery replacements).
Not only that, by virtue of Apple designing them they could actually be fashionable, just as eye glasses are.
And coupled with AppleWatch and/or iPhone control, the AirPodEars would be far simpler, superior and cheaper to purchase and operate.
Come on Apple, I’m sure this must be in development.
A friend has an iPhone app-controlled hearing aid. It is so small I didn’t even notice it until he pointed it out. That being said, I have zero expectation for Apple to build this first-party. Just like how they don’t build printers, scanners, or many other specialty accessories.
I don’t disagree that Apple hearing aids might seem too niche, however:
+ On average 10,000 Americans turn 65 EVERY day, and this baby boom generation will need plenty of hearing help
+ It bears repeating: Only Apple has the cachet to make hearing aids acceptable to the vast majority with no stigma, so much so that they wouldn’t need to be hidden or tiny but rather obvious like AirPods, thus allowing better and rechargeable battery life without the need for expensive battery replacements
+ Replacing $300 AirPodEars would be a lot cheaper than the $2000 or more aids cost now (each for the better ones)
+ In fact, if they look identical to AirPods or AirPod Pros, no one would know if they were regular AirPods or hearing enhancers.
- The only negatives I can see for Apple is that the demographic tends to be older (thus generally less hip) and having lead the way with iPods and everyone blasting music in their ears Apple might be overly sensitive to being associated with helping cause the hearing loss in the first place
+ Apple could offer these readily. Medical device approvals shouldn’t be that difficult with Apple’s R&D capability
+ Apple would be admired for turning a major stigma inside out (from scourge to fashion statement, if one so chooses)
I'm born deaf myself with severe hearing loss on the left and profound on the right, wearing only one digital hearing aid on the left side. I've literally grown up with the HA with a box in a shirt pocket with wires ( think headphones ) from the late 70s all the way to BTE ( behind the ear ) design and can say that digital hearing aids are now the standard. I loved the analog aids due to their bass and volume sound quality, not to mention that they were a lot cheaper in the range of $500-800, sometimes $1,200 for a pair at the most. However, they've been phased out mostly in favor of digital which has to be programmed by the audiologist. My current digital hearing aid is from Phonak and cost about $1,200. Just for one. Fortunately, insurance coverage was available and I have a very good audiologist.
Also, hearing aids are considered 'medical' devices that can be covered by insurance, or if one can afford to pay in cash/credit. An Apple designed hearing aid would require approval to be covered by insurance as a medical device. My problem is with the actual design of AirPods that go right into your ear canal in contrast to the BTE design which is a lot more stable and more powerful ( think Beats Pro headphones with ear hooks ).
And you literally have to have a earmold cast for the hearing aid to fit into your ear properly. Also digital hearing aids that are controlled by an iPhone concerns me in that if you lose the phone, how do you control the HA?
Most importantly, for a hearing aid to work for the person with hearing loss, a hearing test must be done by an audiologist to determine the level of loss and which type of HA works best. Therefore, Apple's 'one size fits all' solution won't work. Consider this. Analog hearing aids are like amplifiers but they're designed to work with someone's specific hearing loss or deafness as they all differ for each person. Trust me, I've tried the 'in your ear' hearing aid years ago and it didn't sound good to me and that was because it wasn't powerful enough to provide 'oomph' and didn't match my hearing loss. This is why I cannot use the regular EarPods that came with the iPhone as they don't fit in my ear at all and have to rely on a HATIS headset that uses telecoil to block out the background noise entirely and only focuses on the audio ( shaped like a hook a wire straight to the headphone jack or adapter ) or use a bluetooth receiver with an 8 hour battery with a neck loop that can stream music or audio ( ie. movies, video calls, etc ) straight from any iOS device or PC. I got the receiver from the audiologist which usually costs over $100.
Cochlear implants, OTOH, are a huge issue right now with the deaf community as an ongoing debate ( which has been viewed for years as a method of identity eugenics of sorts ) and mega expensive which I've heard horror stories about. I've seen the effects of it from a very old classmate I grew up with years ago and felt bad for him when he couldn't hear for two weeks post surgery, waiting to get proper activation.
So in short, if you have vision needs ( ie. astigmatism or such ) with glasses, you go to an eye care professional for this. Same thing goes for hearing loss/deafness. I don't see Apple having the ability to design a hearing aid in an AirPod style design.
And lastly, I do NOT see a practical use for AR goggles to replace the phone for the deaf or hard of hearing. Not one bit. Consider the fact that every deaf person I've known relies completely on texting or video calls to communicate. With AR goggles, it would not solve a long distance phone call as they cannot see each other. You need a camera so that they can see each other's sign language 'face to face'. Even if they're in public, I've heard stories how some have used special iOS live transcription apps to capture conversations in public to communicate. I use app such as Sign or Cardzilla where one types in large text and flashes the message across the room as you hold up the phone, especially handy in noisy environments like nightclubs or such. It works every time.
Plus, they have certain criteria when you use sign language on screen by wearing dark clothing so that the hands can be seen by contrast, especially if they're using a VRS ( video relay service ) who have call operators on screen to follow strict ASL protocol. I don't sign much as I was originally taught to speak orally in an audist program as ASL wasn't allowed at the time but these days, I'm still learning some of them to catch up and use in case of an emergency.
But I would love Apple to build a small bluetooth device that clips on a shirt or stays tucked in clothing as a method to stream iOS music/audio to your hearing aid. There was a outdoor company ( this is the firm: https://www.outdoortechnology.com/ ) that made a rechargeable dongle with a clip and had an iPod like wheel with audio controls but with a headphone jack. Because where I live in New England, products like these are popular for outdoor activities. All you had to do was clip it to your belt or shirt and jack the old school headphones to it and walk around the house listening to music. This product came around around 2011-2012 ( I think) long before AirPods were a thing. And even if I'm driving, wind noise from the car door ( usually with closed windows ) usually masks my voice and I can't always raise Siri to access the map and I've wished there was a small bluetooth microphone to clip to my jacket so I don't have to scream for Siri.
NOTE: by the way, there are some hearing aids that are rechargeable but aren't cheap and most commonly require a battery which you can buy online or at a store, or audiologist. I use a size 675 for this and get huge packs from Amazon from a German company which is cheaper than what you get in the store.
2nd NOTE: I want to mention that a local AR player on Ingress for iOS crossed my path a few times and once I met him in person, he had an in the ear headset for his phone to make calls. I noticed that he kept it in his ear the whole time and he mentioned that he uses it to 'pick up' the conversation with his phone that's set on the table or in front of people. I suggested he talk to an audiologist due to his hearing loss and see if he can get insurance to get a new hearing aid without relying on the headset but I haven't seen him in over a year or so. The point is that headsets such as AirPods are NOT a replacement for hearing aids.
Most people requiring hearing aid assistance are on Medicare -- but traditional Medicare does not cover hearing aids. Some Medicare Advantage plans may, but then your're dealing with all the issues associated with private insurance.
Also, it is slowly coming out that many simply need a sound amplifier rather than all the filters and such medical people specialize in.
Unfortunately, the hearing industry, like the vision industry, has been overwhelmed with exorbitantly priced medicalization that many simply cannot afford. Fortunately those cartels are being challenged by over-the-counter type solutions like Airpods. Or, this summer I was able to prescribe and order a new pair of glasses for myself at less than a third the cost it would have cost me had I used the traditional medical structure. Basically I saved $400-$500 and ended up with what I think are a better pair of glasses than I would have had from an optician. (The last 2 prescriptions I got from eye doctors were way off the mark)
I think it is good that the medicalized hearing and vision structures are beginning to be limited to those who need that high level of care.
Some of the Medicare plans may cover them, even Medicaid from the state. I think it's a state by state basis, however in my state a local organization is trying to push for support on a bill that requires hearing aid insurance coverage so people can benefit from that assistance. For those who are hard of hearing or experiencing hearing loss, some form of amplification is helpful unless it becomes profound to the point that a specialist is required as a last resort.
In regards to vision care, no doubt about that. Glasses are not cheap and I've had one that was almost $350 back in 2011. I got a new one that was about $60 back in 2017 which wasn't bad and now I've a new prescription just for the lenses. So in that sense, I plan to go back to the original frames which were better built but only for the lenses to be replaced and hoping a new insurance plan will cover it via Medicare. I've thought about using the Warby Parker app to do it.
I'm old school and prefer a hearing aid that has a BTE design which is more stable with an earmold compared to a counterpart such as an AirPod which people, from what I'm hearing, keep losing. Even someone posted in a local bulletin board in my town had found a lost AirPod to alert the public. I think an amplifier would only go so far for the hard of hearing demographic while for the deaf who require a hearing aid or cochlear implant, the situation would be different. And that means the AirPods would have to go through some industrial design changes for that to work since they still look like headphones.
For me, there is no stigma because I'm used to it and whether people notice my hearing aid doesn't matter much. In winter, it's pretty much covered up with my hat but in warmer seasons, it's there. So I'm mainly responsible for letting people know I need to see what they're saying as I read lips. On the other hand, when it comes to communicating with deaf people, I just switch to sign language mode if needed. I've known some deaf people who don't even wear hearing aids and prefer to just move on with their lives without an audiologist and just sign. Nothing wrong with that, either.
So in a sense, it appears to be the mainstreamed demographic that has a form of hearing loss and needing an amplifier and the other requiring an audiologist to get fitted for the hearing aid and ear mold. Cochlear implantation, from my understanding, takes some adjusting to the sound and going through some form of speech therapy with a specialist if it gets to that point.
Absolutely correct, I was referring to people that are merely hard of hearing that could benefit from an Apple solution, not necessarily those with severe hearing loss or those that are practically deaf.
Just to be clear, I don’t wish for the hearing aid industry to suffer should Apple go into this aggressively, but with Apple’s ecosystem advantage and the huge installed base of users, the effect on existing device makers would be painful. And let’s not forget about the resellers of these devices, other than Costco, it seems to be very much a mom and pop industry taking out all those full page ads in newspapers and magazines with tremendous claims (and high markups). It’s ripe for disruption and prices to tumble.
Your insights are very helpful for me to better understand the pros and cons of certain devices, and for that I thank you.
I do. For decades they have milked the unfortunate hard of hearing in the American public with exorbitantly expensive devices because their choice was to pay the price or not be able to hear. So the industry took advantage of their monopolistic cartel. It's the story of the American healthcare industry over the past 50+ years: Charge as much as the traffic will bear. In other words, pure unabashed, unrestrained capitalist greed -- the worst of capitalism. The kind of capitalism the socialists use as a justification for their ideology.
Yes, they do still serve a function and are needed by some. But I will be happy to see the greedy whittled down to a far smaller niche industry.
It's not the first time I've seen independent 'hearing aid services' send out mailers or advertisement that they're the solution to the problem, promising to erase the social stigma of isolation with their devices. Even mentioning cochlear implants. However, when I go to their offices, the first thing I look for is their certification and diplomas on the wall to see if they are what they are and how qualified.
To date, I've had about 7 audiologists in my lifetime. I had 3 in the 1970s/80s from an actual hearing and speech center when I got first diagnosed with deafness, the second one was in a corner department within SEARS ( we're talking old school ), and one from inside a school program I grew up in ( we were required to wear special hearing equipment provided by Phonak at the time with a microphone attached to the teacher. It made for nice espionage when the teacher leaves the room to chat to someone when I can pick up what's happening due to my level of residual hearing. Not kidding ). Then a 4th one in high school in the 80s and a 5th one within an Otolaryngologist's office. Number six was the previous audiologist that folded. Now, number seven is the current one in a hospital department.
But you're right, there are some who don't know what they're doing or are just out for greed as I rather deal with a qualified professional with credentials.
I didn't mean to suggest that they didn't know what they were doing. I was simply protesting the systemic greed in the profession: If you wanted a hearing aid you needed to pay for a prescription and then pay for some very expensive equipment.
A few years back my next door neighbor, the father of an old friend, was living on a Social Security check and barely scrapping by. But, when his hearing aid started to go bad they wanted thousands from him for new ones and he simply could not afford it. His hearing loss was from an injury during WW-II so he may have required that level of expertise and sophisticated equipment. But I am still happy to see people having the option of using consumer grade and priced equipment.
Apple won't be selling such a device at cost either. They will charge whatever their research and accounting professionals tell them as the price point where they realize the greatest profits, "what the market will bear". Is capitalism a problem for you? Yes "benevolent Apple" could give them away and it wouldn't make a noticeable dent in their cash or overall profitability, but it ain't gonna happen.
You need to understand the difference between capitalism and greedy capitalists forming and taking advantage of cartels and monopolies to gouge a helpless public. It's the reason why we have anti-trust laws. Unfortunately, with the U.S. health care industry, those laws are not only seldom enforced, they are often undermined and ignored -- which is why our health care costs are running out of control.
LOL... nobody suggested giving anything away "at cost". That's just you making an argument where none existed/
OK try widely affordable instead of selling it for whatever maximum price the market will bear. Is that different from greed? Aren't companies now selling health services for whatever the market will bear? The techs just want to move a few of those billions into their own bank accounts. IMO there is no difference. You call it greed (when convenient to your argument), the companies call it maximizing profits.
Heck the richest company in the history of the planet could subsidize their version of hearing aids for the elderly poor who suffer failing hearing and still wouldn't realize a loss. Think they will? Apple has long been all about making the most money possible from whatever they sell, not being benevolent or worrying about the poor among us. Not their problem.
Health costs may well come down, or at least some of the corrective gear involved in it such as vision and hearing, but not because companies will be less "greedy". They exist for profit and the best of them go to great lengths for it, quite successfully I might add. Even in my little corner of the business world I'll spend hours each month making sure I'm not leaving any obvious money on the table. I could sell my product and services for less and still make a profit, but why would I? For that matter you could work for less or live on less but will you?
When or if I get to the point in my life where I could not possibly spend whatever money and resources I have in my lifetime then yes it's time to consider sharing the wealth. Gorging and hoarding benefits no one, not even me, and I don't owe my children an easy living on my hard work anymore than my parents owed me one. Until then I'll be maxing out those profits baby. So will the executive team at Apple.
Ok, so one more time. As i said: "You need to understand the difference between capitalism and greedy
capitalists forming and taking advantage of cartels and monopolies to
gouge a helpless public. It's the reason why we have anti-trust laws.
Unfortunately, with the U.S. health care industry, those laws are not
only seldom enforced, they are often undermined and ignored -- which is
why our health care costs are running out of control. "
That means as much as the first time you said it. Not much. If you think we don't understand the difference explain where that line is between greed and maximizing profits.
If cartels and monopolies have no meaning to you, you should probably look up America's great industrialists like Carnegie/Frick, Rockefeller, Morgan etc.
Capitalism is good when it is constrained -- either through competition or regulation.
Again you offer nothing of substance. The health care industry is neither a cartel nor monopoly, is heavily regulated, and competition is healthy. Want to try again to explain the line between maximizing profits and greed? If Humana maximizes profit, and the Mayo Clinic maximizes profit, and Apple maximizes profit, and Exxon maximizes profit (and the assumption would be they ALL do) which ones of those are greedy and which ones are just being good capitalists?
In health care the regulation mostly works to support cartels and monopolies*. And cartels merely give the appearance of competition because there are multiple players. But, when they act as one in order to fix prices or practices they become monopolistic.
And greed can be positive. But, when it supercedes ethics and decency and is combined with too much power, can take over and drive one to do things that harm society. And, greed can take many forms: Greed for money, for power, for prestige, etc... Trump is probably a good example of the latter.
*Added: In general, Healthcare regulations, such as FDA approvals, were never meant to
promote competition but to promote quality healthcare -- or more
accurately, to eliminate and prevent low quality healthcare -- aka
'snake oil salesman'. And, any effort to minimize those regulations are
met by industry protestations that they are putting the American people
in danger.]
Comments
I do. For decades they have milked the unfortunate hard of hearing in the American public with exorbitantly expensive devices because their choice was to pay the price or not be able to hear. So the industry took advantage of their monopolistic cartel. It's the story of the American healthcare industry over the past 50+ years: Charge as much as the traffic will bear. In other words, pure unabashed, unrestrained capitalist greed -- the worst of capitalism. The kind of capitalism the socialists use as a justification for their ideology.
Yes, they do still serve a function and are needed by some. But I will be happy to see the greedy whittled down to a far smaller niche industry.
If the 'hard of hearing' wish to use the AirPod as a form of amplification, one thing to keep in mind is using them for most of the day and presenting the reasons for wearing them at work or school. Right now, or should I say currently, I'm seeing local people ( older than 55 ) wear BTE hearing aids that are actually smaller in size and harder to see including a couple of college students ( maybe one or two of them in the last few years ). My fencing coach uses one that's the 'in the canal' version due to his age and level of hearing loss, as an example.
It's possible Apple could redesign an alternate version of an AirPod that looks more 'acceptable' in public without a microphone sticking out. In other words, schools ( excluding colleges ), hospitals, or workplaces usually have strict regulations on wearing headpieces for phone calls. Some schools don't allow students to carry a phone which has to be put away in a locker. If one were to say to a teacher, "Oh I'm hard of hearing and need to use the AirPod to hear better", then they might have a hard time accepting it. Or a person visiting a courthouse ( the local one here doesn't allow cell/smartphones in the building ) would be asked to put it away.
But with a hearing aid, it makes it more 'sensible'. I do get what you're saying in getting rid of the stigma, even though it still lingers in some demographics and how well they overcome it. And I think AR glasses are going through that similar situation of public acceptance which is going to take some time. I think for the 'hard of hearing' to be able to use AirPods or similar, a redesign would be needed to show that it's not being used all day just for 'music/audio/phone calls' especially in an environment that may not permit smartphones. It's something to consider. I would think an AirPod with a microphone sticking out would be less conspicous.
To date, I've had about 7 audiologists in my lifetime. I had 3 in the 1970s/80s from an actual hearing and speech center when I got first diagnosed with deafness, the second one was in a corner department within SEARS ( we're talking old school ), and one from inside a school program I grew up in ( we were required to wear special hearing equipment provided by Phonak at the time with a microphone attached to the teacher. It made for nice espionage when the teacher leaves the room to chat to someone when I can pick up what's happening due to my level of residual hearing. Not kidding ). Then a 4th one in high school in the 80s and a 5th one within an Otolaryngologist's office. Number six was the previous audiologist that folded. Now, number seven is the current one in a hospital department.
But you're right, there are some who don't know what they're doing or are just out for greed as I rather deal with a qualified professional with credentials.
https://apple.news/AnOZnSgFFRje9eTWY0Eqy7w
Heck the richest company in the history of the planet could subsidize their version of hearing aids for the elderly poor who suffer failing hearing and still wouldn't realize a loss. Think they will? Apple has long been all about making the most money possible from whatever they sell, not being benevolent or worrying about the poor among us. Not their problem.
Health costs may well come down, or at least some of the corrective gear involved in it such as vision and hearing, but not because companies will be less "greedy". They exist for profit and the best of them go to great lengths for it, quite successfully I might add. Even in my little corner of the business world I'll spend hours each month making sure I'm not leaving any obvious money on the table. I could sell my product and services for less and still make a profit, but why would I? For that matter you could work for less or live on less but will you?
When or if I get to the point in my life where I could not possibly spend whatever money and resources I have in my lifetime then yes it's time to consider sharing the wealth. Gorging and hoarding benefits no one, not even me, and I don't owe my children an easy living on my hard work anymore than my parents owed me one. Until then I'll be maxing out those profits baby. So will the executive team at Apple.
"You need to understand the difference between capitalism and greedy capitalists forming and taking advantage of cartels and monopolies to gouge a helpless public. It's the reason why we have anti-trust laws. Unfortunately, with the U.S. health care industry, those laws are not only seldom enforced, they are often undermined and ignored -- which is why our health care costs are running out of control. "
If you think we don't understand the difference explain where that line is between greed and maximizing profits.