Should I be skeptical about rechargeable hearing aid?

In reply to @Neville

@Neville said:

If it’s malfunctioning, they may replace it with a within-spec similarly aged battery.

The battery itself is relatively inexpensive. Seems like the bulk of the cost of a warranty repair would be the shipping and handling. To save a few bucks they’d be asking the poor audis to take the heat for a cheap move on an expensive product. And in Phonak’s case it’s hard to imagine them digging a semi-tired battery out of the potting on one aid and gluing it into another. They could give out refurbished units. But wouldn’t the most likely supply of refurbs be units that had been trialed, and therefore essentially new? Happens with other products - return a broken unit and get back a refurbed newer model. I’m guessing that long term all the companies will need to build the aids with relatively easily replaceable batteries.

Um_bongoProvider

Wales, UK

Yeah, I can’t imagine anyone putting an aged battery in: you just risk another failure mode on the repair, which would render that effort pointless.

The more likely scenario is that they decided to swap the aid turned in for a battery issue with a refurbished aid that has an original functioning battery already built-in, but is not a brand new battery replacement.

The scenario here may be that the refurbished aid is not a barely used demo aid, but a used aid turned in for repair on something else, like maybe a bad microphone, or a bad internal chip that requires more time to be replaced (or more time waiting for parts), so they had to send a replacement out so that they’d have more time to repair/refurbish this one at their own convenient time. It may not always be the case that a refurbished aid is guaranteed to be a barely used demo aid.

MDB Central California

I had the feeling at one time that aids sent back for “refurbishment” were just tossed and replaced with new. Does anybody actually know what happens when an aid is sent back to the factory?

Of course I don’t know. But I think it probably depends on how much stock they have at hand on brand new aids. If they don’t sell well and there’s a big surplus they want to get rid of, then it’s probably cheaper to replace than repair. If their new batch is running low and those aids are not selling well, then they may be forced to do the easier repairs and refurbish.

Dusty

In reply to @MDB

@MDB said:

I had the feeling at one time that aids sent back for “refurbishment” were just tossed and replaced with new.

Same here. Relatively expensive way to handle it but they must have known up front. Easy to imagine though that if people keep rechargeable aids for longer on average than the maker predicted, that the companies would change to spending more initially to prevent dissatisfaction. Especially likely for business models like Costco’s where there was a lot less fat to begin with.

Dusty

In reply to @Volusiano

@Volusiano said:

The scenario here may be that the refurbished aid is not a barely used demo aid, but a used aid turned in for repair on something else, like maybe a bad microphone,

Can you make a guess about the percentage of sales that end up back in the maker’s inventory? Based on posts here where buyers trial multiple aids before choosing, I’d expect more of those back in inventory than units repaired and kept. Why would makers repair aids and then keep them rather than returning to customer?

Raudrive

Texas Hill Country

In reply to @Dusty

My only experience with returning aids was at Costco. My wife returned her KS9 aids to be factory checked out before the warranty ended. She received new hearing aids within 10 days if I remember correctly.

My thoughts are hearing aids are borderline mass produced cheaply. Manufactures plan on returns while producing them just for what we are talking about. It’s the world we are in now.

In reply to @Dusty

@Volusiano said:

The scenario here may be that the refurbished aid is not a barely used demo aid, but a used aid turned in for repair on something else, like maybe a bad microphone,

@Dusty said:

Can you make a guess about the percentage of sales that end up back in the maker’s inventory? Based on posts here where buyers trial multiple aids before choosing, I’d expect more of those back in inventory than units repaired and kept. Why would makers repair aids and then keep them rather than returning to customer?

Of course none of us actually do hearing aid repairs so both you and I can only speculate here. Speculating the different possible scenarios is one thing. Trying to justify whether one scenario you advocate for would be more likely to happen than another scenario is pointless. Even at different hearing aid companies, they may operate differently and they may have different scenarios themselves.

As to why would makers repair aids and then keep them rather than returning to customers, as I mentioned in my previous post, let’s say if the part needed to do the repair is not available for 2 weeks, and your new-in-stock replacement inventory is low or out, rather than making the customer wait for 2 weeks while you wait for that part, then maybe another week or days until you get around to completing the repair, then you can just send out an equivalent refurbished part in stock so minimize the client’s wait time. When the part comes in, you can do the repair at your own timetable and keep them as a refurbished part for a similar scenario in the future. Even if the part is in stock but you’re too busy to make the repair quickly for some reason, then it’s better to send an equivalent refurbished part out quickly so you have time to do the repair at your own timetable later.

But of course, if you have the repair part in stock and you have the time to do the repair immediately, then there’s no need to send a different refurbished aid to the customer. You just do the repair on the actual customer’s aid and send it back right away.

All I was trying to point out is that

It’s not always a guarantee that you would get a brand new replacement when yours get sent in for repair. Of course it can happen, but don’t expect it to be a guarantee.
It you get a refurbished replacement, it’s not always a guarantee that it’s going to be a barely used demo. It can just be a refurbished aid they have in stock.

If you’re unlucky to not get either a brand new aid or a barely used demo for your replacement, then the refurbished aid may have the original functional battery in it, not a brand new one, or an almost new one.

Of course it’s also possible that you get your own repaired aid back (not a replacement) with a brand new battery in it. If they go through this scenario, then it’s likely that they would put in a brand new battery for you, instead of a refurbished battery, because it’s just not simple to keep track and verify the condition of a used battery, and keep them around.

But if you get a refurbished aid with the original battery (not a new aid or a demo aid), then that’s not going to be a brand new battery.

Of course for Oticon, it’s different. You don’t need to send in your aid for a new battery. Most likely your will replace your bad battery with a new one they keep in stock at the office.

x475awsChevy Chase MD

The given fact here is that @Neville reports an increasing number of aids coming back from end-of-warranty repair with not-new batteries. So apparently we can’t rely on one of the oft-mentioned reassurances about rechargeable battery lifespan. @Volusiano’s explanation sounds right to me, and I was going to post something similar if he hadn’t gotten there first.

My audiologist has mentioned sending aids in before end of warranty to get them refurbished, not to get new aids in return. I think there’s an element of wishful thinking there.

Um_bongoProvider

Wales, UK

@x475aws said:

given fact here is that @Neville reports an increasing number of aids coming back from end-of-warranty repair with not-new batteries.

That’s one experience, in one country with one supplier? Or even a distributor? Or even a third-party subcontractor doing repairs on a particular supply line?

We’ve not seen the same.

Also, with the greatest of respect: how would one be able to tell the difference between an ‘older’ good battery and one from a poorer batch that was recently installed? (Inside a sealed unit?)

@Um_bongo said:

Also, with the greatest of respect: how would one be able to tell the difference between an ‘older’ good battery and one from a poorer batch that was recently installed? (Inside a sealed unit?)

That’s why I think that the more likely scenario that this will happen is that you get a refurbished aid that was refurbished for something else and not to fix the battery. In this case, the battery would be whatever is already in it and is believed to function properly.

On the other hand, if it were refurbished for a bad battery, then it would make no sense for them to put in anything but a brand new battery because they can’t tell how good am older battery is without time-consuming and thorough testing, like you said above.

jeffrey

In reply to @Volusiano

@Volusiano said:

Of course I don’t know.

Your earlier post had a lot of “may be’s” followed by yet more “might’s”. Yes, you don’t know any of this, you’re speculating to no real end. There’s always an audience for folks who are sure they’re about to be cheated, even when it doesn’t make any financial sense for a company to do that. Enough already!

You introduce a “scenario” where a manufacturer sends out demos instead of new aids, and then add on after that: "It may not be the case (“may not again!!) that a refurbished aid…is a barely used demo aid”, implying that, Yes indeed! Demos are being sent out instead of new aids! But “of course you don’t know this.” then why do you write out scenarios where it’s happening?

It “May not be the case” according to some person on-line, that the meal you had at a thirty year old restaurant used actual chicken in their Coq Au Vin. That individual hasn’t experienced this, but hey! It’s possible! So beware! “You’ll probably get tofu instead of chicken at this restaurant!”

You can always raise “a scenario” on line suggesting that this was the case. You can qualify it with a lot of “maybes” and “possiblys” to avoid being sued. But the restaurant has been there thirty years! It seems far more likely that
–the patrons can tell the difference and will raise a stink
–the restaurant would have been out of business long ago if they did this

sometimes you just have to trust in humanity, based on long experience. Most people are good. Trust!

On the other hand, some folks on line like to spread disinformation. So there’s that as well.

@Volusiano said:

Of course I don’t know.

@jeffrey said:

Your earlier post had a lot of “may be’s” followed by yet more “might’s”. Yes, you don’t know any of this, you’re speculating to no real end. There’s always an audience for folks who are sure they’re about to be cheated, even when it doesn’t make any financial sense for a company to do that. Enough already!

Oh oh, I’m starting to smell uncivility in this thread now. Civility should be the bedrock of all discussions in any forum. So I’ll take the high road and stop engaging with you here.

x475awsChevy Chase MD

In reply to @Um_bongo

Have any reps in your country gone on record that aids sent in for warranty repair will be replaced with new ones? Or that they’ll at least come back with new batteries?

IIRC there’s a US user here (out of courtesy, I won’t tag him) who got back a pair of ReSound aids with not-new batteries. He knew for sure because he kept records of battery performance.

Gilbert

Ontario

I would like to hear from anyone who has sent their ’s back for new batteries just before the end of the warranty. Did you see any improvement in battery performance, which would indicate that you either received new ones or at least “newer” used ones.

codergeek2015