Skip to content
HearingTracker
Log in

Philips Hearlink and Oticon Accessories

15 replies464 viewsLast reply

Link to this topic
Reply
6 people in this conversation4 min readJump to latest

No. Edumic may be the exception.

It is not consumer friendly and may violate anti-competition or other laws in various jurisdiction. People should make complaints to local or other jurisdictions and to Demant/Oticon/Philips to push for a firmware update to unlock the accessories to work across the brands.

Although they are the same financial parent entity, they are distinct companies. If such a scenario were to occur, it would have to apply universally to all companies, not just those under the same financial umbrella. This is akin to demanding compatibility between an Audi, Porsche, and Volkswagen.
The European Union has mandated that all charging connectors for phones be USB-C, so it is possible if lawmakers create a law that mandates this.

Demant made a deliberate choice. Someone posted here I think about how Connexx with the same streamer did not make this choice. Demant did not limit Edumic so the limitation does not appear to be a technical requirement. Someone with actual authority could investigate and then decide as we will not learn the truth.

It’s more like one device locking out a sister brand just because than your car analogy. If Audi used custom bolts incompatible with identically sized and purposed bolts on VW then they should also be investigated. Often car parts are interchangeable as broadly as possible and when they are not it does not appear to be a anticompetitive cash grab. Email Demant and see the nonsense they will respond with.

Well Signia is using same device, all the same under the hood except firmware? Phonak/Unitron/Hansaton doing the same, I don’t think this is gonna matter anymore, with LEA with taking over this scam of having to use accessories for a very simple thing, as mentioned just locking people into extra garbage at absorbent prices.

If it is actually anticompetitive then EU can institute large fines on worldwide profits. Then maybe it will stop. Otherwise they will find a way even with LE audio. Even all the brand/labels may be anticompetitive.

Nope, they were totally separate companies from the beginning, so no argument there, Widex and Signia have different platforms, I think the only thing they share is the receiver and domes, which is different from the Phillips/Oticon, Bernafon Sonic, all using the same parts bin..for ever.

In reply to @OcramSagev

If the hardware is compatible it should work. If they come from different generations or aquired platforms that are incompatible the situation is different. It seems reasonable to suspect that Demant planned to lock out compatible hardware given the hardware and aid platforms appear compatible. Demant could make them incompatible with firmware locks but that does not mean they are actually incompatible. Restricted compatibility causes consumers to buy more overpriced accessory hardware or stay within the same hearing aid brand, often also with extra cost. It also impacts the used market. With enough information/skill one can probably see how they Demamt did this. That is not the consumer’s job. These companies have significant worldwide income and the EU has incentive to seek the fines and stop the practice.

Edited
@user490 said:

may violate anti-competition or other laws in various jurisdiction

My comment was specifically about what you wrote above.
You also wrote:
”These companies have significant worldwide income and the EU has incentive to seek the fines and stop the practice”

You wrote that companies under the same financial parent are required to make their products and accessories compatible, and went further to say that if they don’t, they’re acting illegally and should be fined and stop the practice.

Is it ethical? Consumer-friendly? Fair to consumers? That’s up for debate, but saying they’re breaking antitrust laws and be fined isn’t accurate. It’s capitalism—companies aim to make money, and it’s the government’s role to act on behalf of the people. The question is “are governments doing enough to protect and serve consumers?”.

As @tenkan said – Once / becomes widely available, these accessory issues will disappear.

I did not say antitrust. Anticompetitive restrictions are different and we do not have as many of these restrictions in the US. That is why I mentioned EU anticompetitive laws. The EU is more focused than the US on maintaining a competitive market and preventing abuses of dominant positions. Most people probably agree the situation is not great for consumers. Whether something can be done likely depends on details we do not have. Folks can complain using the process outlined at Complaints - Competition Policy - European Commission

Related discussions