Oh it's pretty bad in my experience. I'm all iOS/MacOS and I find it's barely workable as it is. Would love to hear more ideas for how to make this better.
The main problem is that I have to manually disconnect the hearings aides in bluetooth settings on my phone so that then I can connect them on my workstation. This allows me to take video calls straight to the hearing aides, which helps a lot.
However, I need that to be for speakers only, microphone has to be wired, so that Bluetooth can use all the bandwidth for higher fidelity audio.
MacOS + Zoom is able to remember enough of these settings that it's "only" a 6 click process (4 on the phone, 2 on the workstation) to switch the hearing aides between devices. If I had to juggle multiple bluetooth devices on either end I suspect it would be much harder.
I make this transition multiple times per day in each direction, so it really adds up!
With AirPods I only click once to connect on my MacBook and once to change the output back on whatever app I’ve been listening to on my phone (phone stays connected, laptop disconnects).
I think on my personal laptop, AirPods Max stay connected to both the phone and laptop. On my work laptop I have to manually connect. Might be an Apple ID thing, not sure.
"Can now work as hearing aids" as in: has received FDA authorization permitting the feature to be released. Presumably it will be enabled with the iOS update coming on Monday, i.e. the second full business day on which it is legal for the feature to be available.
I love this. You can say what you want with everyone wearing airpods all the time but I think there is a lot less stigma with wearing them as opposed to hearing aids.
Plus hearing loss is a major risk factor for dementia. So this is big!
I also didn’t understand why wired headphones don’t work besides profit protection. Suppose that having to hold the phone mics forward is clumsy but would like to have the option.
I can understand that position, but in practice I don't think you'd like the quality.
One of the big advantages of hearing aides is that they have multiple microphones that have known alignment with your head position. With all 4 mics separated in space, they do a good job of isolating audio coming from in front of you vs from around you.
Plus people can lose hearing in different bands: they might hear bass fine but people with high-pitched voices may not register. Just turning up the volume won’t address that.
The FDA regulations allowing for OTC hearing aids didn't go into effect until a little under two years ago, so regardless of the technical feasibility, the market viability of what you're asking for is a recent thing. (Though since using wired headphones with smartphones has been in decline for well over two years, the market viability is still questionable at best.)
This, like most bs we have had to endure, is certainly due to them changing the definition of hearing aids. (no, I am not joking).
This is why you can buy 'hearing aids' from costco now, without ever seeing an audiologist.
I think this is great that the tech is more accessible, IF the consumers are informed about how and why things changed.
Adam Currey (of the No Agenda podcast / headbangers ball fame) did a really good critique about this when it happened, and it was one of Nancy Pelosi's pet projects that made her a bunch of money.
He made a strong case (as a person deaf in one ear and an audio specialist given his work with tech, MTV, inventing podcasts, and suffering from hearing issues himself).
I would be very very wary of any device claiming it is a hearing aid that is not tuned by an audiologist, as you may just make your hearing problem worse.
Why not use a different term? These are quite literally different products and product classes.
I'm all for easier access to medical assistance devices -- I am against the erosion of established terms for political points, especially when it leads to ridiculous statements like you just made:
"My parents just got absolutely robbed buying hearing aids for my great aunt that I’m sure cost in the tens of dollars to manufacture." -- this shows you know nothing about hearing aids and the absolute bleeding edge technology that goes into real ones.
I'm sure it cost a lot and it hurt to pay the price. I'm not arguing these products shouldn't be available -- I'm arguing it's essentially false advertising to lump them in with 'hearing aids' especially with the FDA badge of approval.
Give the consumers choice - but don't hide that choice behind falsely equating the product classes. Make it clear they are in fact getting lower end everything, and that's why the price is so low. And make it clear that without an audiologist, you are at risk of damaging your own hearing and eliminating or worsening additinoal frequencies if tuned improperly.
If this new AirPods feature helps me hear better it quite literally becomes a device that ‘aids’ my ‘hearing.’ Why should Apple or others be forced to claim otherwise? Why should consumers have to learn a new term? Because it upsets companies enjoying over 1,000% markups? No thanks.
Because your airpods and OTC hearing aids are using about half the number of microphones and speakers, with half the quality, and with an amplifier with about half the cost and quality as well. Airpods actualy do a little better than the 'OTC Costco' type amplifiers.
The lower quality amplifier means worse ability to tune, which trickles down to the other products.
The markup is probably closer to 300% which is no more egregious than Apple in this case (probably less tbh given their $2,000 wheels and $2,000 ram) -- with REAL hearing aids costing about $350-700 to manufacture for the more entry level 'real ones', which can go up as those components increase in quality.
Note the source you used also going back to early pandemic times, before the world experienced 30-40% inflation on everything. AND it's quoting a 2015 report. This is USELESS in terms of evaluating a comparison today.
NO ONE has tried to say Apple shouldn't be able to offer these products -- I have enthusiastically supported all of the developments assuming the consumer is fully informed. This is not happening, by design.
And then you have people like you with complete blinders on pretending its 'A or B' when its really 'A-Z'.
There is nothing wrong with critiquing the WAY a change happened, especially given all the other 'definition' changes we have been subjected to forcefully by the media and the state the last 5-7 years.
Go ahead and buy use 'acceptable' hearing assistance devices with apple, from costco, or wherever you feel like you are getting a bargain on your physical and mental health.
It's doing a huge dis-service to those who actually want a rock-solid product and to avoid succumbing to dementia because they can't hear anymore because they just kept jacking up the volume on their apple "hearing aids" (lol).
Anyway I'm done here because you have tunnel vision and are only latching onto shit to argue about instaed of the whole message. Enjoy your hearing-loss-induced dementia!
> I would be very very wary of any device claiming it is a hearing aid that is not tuned by an audiologist
I might be wrong here, but I believe the Apple feature will do a hearing test on your phone to see which frequencies you can still hear, and then calibrate the hearing aid to only apply to the areas where it would be safe/effective to boost.
Please take this with a grain of salt, since I don't know all the facts here, but I think this basically addresses your concern.
It really doesn't though - actual hearing aids have way higher end speakers, microphones, and other sensors that result in the high price tag.
It's great that apple is offering this, I am not opposed to that at all. I am opposed to them changing definitions for political points, resulting in a degradation of the meaning of the original term.
If they called it 'hearing assistant' or something else that makes it clear there is a real difference in these cheap / low end products rather than expanding the term to include everything under the sun that can amplify sound it would be different.
They are basically tricking consumers into believing that suddenly hearing aid technology and audiologists are not necessary at all, and I guarantee it is going to result in many people further damaging their hearing as a result.
> actual hearing aids have way higher end speakers, microphones, and other sensors
Can you share more info about that? I'm open minded but skeptical. What about the speakers and microphones is way better? Speakers and microphones are certainly in the category where a high price doesn't necessarily reflect higher quality.
It's a matter of breaking down the components themselves, the quality, the processing, the amplifier, etc -- and miniaturizing it.
This isn't like an audiophile with golden speaker wire or whatever -- it's literally the components and software are inferior in every measurable way.
Also, real hearing aids generally have about 2x as many microphones and speakers (so they can better isolate the frequencies and replicate them), down to the amplifier -- where the cheaper one has worse frequency control.
Apple does a little better than the similarly priced costco-type $300 hearing aids, but the hardware is still vastly inferior.
Just look up the spec sheet and validate if you don't believe what I am saying. It's not hidden - they literally just changed definitions so they could be grouped together and get covered by Medicaid. These "hearing aids" existed as of the shelf 'hearing amplifiers' prior to the definition change - the only purpose is this change is to dilute the meaning of the term, score a political win, and ensure the government medicaid programs can cover the $300 device instead of considering the actual medical device as a viable option.
> It's a matter of breaking down the components themselves, the quality, the processing, the amplifier, etc -- and miniaturizing it.
The quality of the amplifier shouldn't matter much here. I'm confident that Apple has the capability to make amps with equally low distortion to commercial hearing aid providers, and those shouldn't be expensive at the small amounts of power we're talking about for an in-ear device.
As for processing, Apple is capable of making software that's just as good as commercial providers, and probably capable of making in-device signal processing chips which are even better. Their H2 chip is built on a 7nm node process, and it's probably capable of quite a lot of processing for that form factor.
When we talk about "the quality", that's quite vague. What specifically is better?
> Also, real hearing aids generally have about 2x as many microphones and speakers.
I just looked up some spec sheets and I didn't see any that had more than 2 mics per ear. In contract, the AirPods Pro 2 actually have 3 per ear.
> Just look up the spec sheet and validate if you don't believe what I am saying.
Again, I don't see anything that confirms what you're saying. I see lots of features that the AirPods don't have (ex: telecoil) but I don't see anything which suggests to me that they can achieve better hearing correction or better audio quality per se.
I'm still open minded if you want to find some specific references that disagree here.
It's not really convincing what you're saying as Apple have much more money/technology/people then literally any professional hearing aid manufacturer. Just combine total market cap and revenue and it will be in single digits compared to Apple (Oticon parent company Demant is just ~2 billion - Oticon probably way less than that). I would like to see spec sheet of mild hearing loss hearing aid of any of the manufacturers that are charging 10 times more than Apple and see how that hardware is different from what Apple have in AirPods Pro 2. Is there any exact sample you want to share? I really want to see actual spec sheet and see type of hardware they are using as it's complete mystery...
You are underestimating number of people working on them and data that is flowing into Apple from all the people using them for years.
