Skip to content
HearingTracker
Log in

Two Months With Lumity 90 after 3 Years With Marvel 90

This topic is closed.

144 replies8.7k viewsLast reply

Jump
Link to this topic
Edited

@JordanK: I think you know that “new sales” do not equate with" “market share” Furthermore, the article you quote does NOT say that 79% of new sales are rechargeable: it says that 79% of and devices are rechargeable. There’s a big difference, and I suspect that you know it.

Just out of curiosity, I just looked at the breakdown of devices our clinic currently has on order. This was just the easiest metric for me to pull up randomly on a weekend. It is this:

rechargeable: 62%
RIC non-rechargeable: 4%
rechargeable: 6%
BTE non rechargeable: 8%
custom rechargeable: 6%
custom non-rechargeable: 14%

Overall rechargeable: 75%
Overall non-rechargeable: 25%

Note that because we see pediatrics, we’re probably ordering more BTEs than other places. I was surprised at the custom rechargeable % even though those devices are relatively new and fairly chunky.

I’m sure there are probably regional differences.

Edited

In reply to @Neville

@Neville said:

They simply cannot release every form factor immediately with every update, so they release to the largest market first and that happens to be rechargeable right now.

@Neville, @JordanK , @prodigyplace : In the end, it’s all semantics. If we parse “largest market” as "largest proportion of new sales ", then @Neville 's assertion holds water. My contention is that this trend in new sales to rechargeable devices may quickly wane as adopters discover for themselves the rather severe limitations of current, small-scale Li-Po batteries.

[Does anyone on the Forum have accurate percentage of total market share numbers for rechargeable devices?]

@SpudGunner said:

My contention is that this trend in new sales to rechargeable devices may quickly wane as adopters discover for themselves the rather severe limitations of current, small-scale Li-Po batteries.

Maybe. But the rechargeables have been out long enough now that people are replacing them. I have yet to see someone who previously wore rechargeable decide to go back to traditional batteries.

What I find annoying with rechargables, however, is their function as a back-up set. If you have a back-up set with traditional batteries you can just throw it in a drawer. A back up set with built-in lithium ion batteries needs to be. . .what? Pulled out once a month, charged, and then put back into storage mode? What a chore.

Edited
@Neville said:

I have yet to see someone who previously wore rechargeable decide to go back to traditional batteries.

@Neville: I can’t challenge your empirical observations. I can ask: “has the market had long enough to appreciate and digest the constraints of small-scale (smaller than AAAA) Li-Po batteries?”

Myself, I dunno…

@SpudGunner said:

Li-Po

I thought they used Li-Ion batteries. That is a different chemistry. They have been sold for a few years and is disposable battery versions are either discontinued or priced significantly higher, most would still buy rechargeables.

I am saying the users may become very unhappy with rechargeable but will continue to buy them if that is the only option. They would buy them rather than not have hearing aids.

@prodigyplace: I agree with that, Bruce, but the swing to rechargeable hearing aids is a PUSH strategy by makers, and not a PULL demand-side phenomenon. I think the makers’ heavy-handedness is appalling.

Edited

I agree Jim, its a marketing “Ploy”, Probably cheaper to produce, and the life expectancy is greatly diminished by the rechargeable battery aspect… Goosed, in 2 or 3 years time! Give us end users easy access to the rechargeable battery compartment, and they will get my vote, until then, no thank you… BTW @Neville, I returned my Marvel 90 rechargeable aids, a couple of weeks after my trial period had ended, I hated those things with a vengeance, and replaced/swopped them with the Marvel 90 RIC’s with replaceable batteries, I was once again a happy bunny, with no range anxiety, and no cutting out in adversely cold weather… That was around 4 years ago, I still use them, in fact I have them in as I write this post, they still work perfect… :grin:

No, most definitely not like Oticon!!! You also need the removal tool, and you need Genie software & Noahlink Wireless to reset the the new rechargeable battery, I mean, the folks that have the dexterity, can do that quite easily, rocket science it is not! I am sure they could develop a battery swop, that is more user friendly! Cheers Kev :grin:

In reply to @prodigyplace

@prodigyplace said:

You mean like Oticon?

@prodigyplace: I can’t speak for @kevels55 , but - while field-replacement by the is definitely a step in the right direction, I’d feel better if I could simply and easily pop in a new battery without having to wait for an audiologist appointment (with its concomitant cost and requirement for displacement).

Perhaps @kevels55 and some other rechargeable sceptics will check in.

In reply to @Neville

@Neville said:

I have yet to see someone who previously wore rechargeable decide to go back to traditional batteries.

Maybe I don’t count, but I have KS9s (battery), and I trialed KS10s (rechargeable) for the full 180 days. I returned the 10s and am back to the 9s. Main reason was the 10s didn’t make me hear any better. In spite of kind of liking the rechargeable feature when I didn’t expect to, it wasn’t enough to make me spend even the pretty reasonable cost of the 10s just for that feature when the hearing between the 2 sets was very equivalent.

@prodigyplace said:

If they see no gain for their company, they will not pursue that.

@prodigyplace: Your thinking is hyperbolical - we’re talking about very minor changes to a battery door - a part which already exists and which requires only a straightforward change to the detent mechanism.

This issue would never make it onto the Board’s agenda in a million years, Bruce.

Related discussions