Skip to content
HearingTracker
Log in

Smart phone compatibility--reality vs what people want

This topic is closed.

51 replies6.1k viewsLast reply

Jump
Link to this topic

I’ll start a new thread as the old one kind of went multiple ways. I’m going to state my understanding of smart phone/hearing aid compatibility as I understand it.
First off, there are three (or at least 3) different kinds of compatibilities.

  1. There is compatibility to use smart phone as a remote control for the hearing aid via an app. This can be accomplished in at least 2 ways a) Some manufacturers use high frequency sounds to send commands to the hearing aids . This is one way communication. b) Some manufacturers use LE Bluetooth to communicate with the hearing aids. This is two way communication. Even though it is a type of bluetooth, it cannot be used for streaming.

  2. There is compatibility in the sense of being able to stream directly from smart phone to hearing aids. Currently this is limited to iPhones for all hearing aid manufacturers except Phonak. Phonak offers the Audeo B Direct which can stream to both iPhones and Android phones.This may change with the implementation of Bluetooth 5

  3. If a smart phone cannot do direct streaming, it may be able to use an intermediary device to stream to the hearing aids. Some manufacturers have multiple devices and they are not universally compatible with all of their hearing aids and they may need different versions of Android to work. One has to get the right device for the hearing aid and make sure it is compatible with the version of Android you have on your phone

4)To add to the confusion, different models of hearing aids may have different apps. Different models of streaming devices may have different apps. One has to get the right one.

I think this confusion contributes to many bad reviews of hearing aid apps. Users don’t understand how they’re supposed to work. They just want them to work and don’t want explanations of why a certain implementation can’t do a certain thing. I think hearing aid professionals would also like it simpler.

Manufacturer’s, consumers just want these product to work. They don’t really want to understand their limitations. They don’t want to think about them, they just want them to work. I’m afraid we’re still at least several generations away from the goal of a smart phone/hearing aid pair that could stream both ways hands free and have decent battery life without having to give up important hearing aid features. Phonak is the closest to this goal, but it gave up a lot to accomplish it.

21 people in this conversation31 min readJump to latest
@MDB said:

Manufacturer’s, consumers just want these product to work. They don’t really want to understand their limitations. They don’t want to think about them, they just want them to work.

This is kind of putting it all on the heads on mfgs and not exactly fair because it takes two to tango. If the HA mfgs are willing to make it work, the smart phone companies must be willing to do their part as well. Unfortunately they haven’t been willing to do their part so far, with the exception of Apple.

Consumers should feel lucky that Apple recognizes the presence of the HA community and came up with a solution early enough to let HA mfgs complete the loop and enable it. HA mfgs didn’t really have to provide MFI functionality. They could have waited for a more universal and all encompassing standard that cover ALL smartphones (Android and iOS included) before they provide a universal solution.

But a few HA mfgs broke rank initially and provided their own MFI version ahead of the pack, forcing the rest to follow suit. Phonak went above and beyond to find a (albeit kludgy) solution for both platforms. Users take all this for granted and demand a solution without wanting to understand what the limitations the HA mfgs are facing. Well, maybe for the kind of money they’re paying for their HAs, they think they’re entitled to it. But the reality of this is that the hearing impaired community is not significant enough compared to the masses for Android smart phone mfgs to bother with unless a new standard is conveniently available for them to converge on.

Again, we should feel lucky that Apple has been ahead of its pack in this area, and also lucky that HA mfgs didn’t want to wait for a universal standard and jumped on the Apple MFI bandwagon. That’s why I didn’t mind rewarding Apple for their forward thinking by switching from my Samsung phone over to an iPhone despite my preference for the Android platform.

@Volusiano said:

This is kind of putting it all on the heads on HA mfgs and not exactly fair because it takes two to tango.

It is the responsibility of the manufacturers to see to it that their interests are represented when time comes to develop open standards. Otherwise, what happens is exactly what did happen with Bluetooth 4.0 and : their interests were not represented in the development of Bluetooth 4.0 and they ended up dancing to Apple’s tune. Between Bluetooth 4.0 and Bluetooth 5, the HA manufacturers realized the cost of being complacent and they rectified. The page for Bluetooth 510 shows that the major HA manufacturers contributed to its development. They are absent from the list of contributors to earlier versions of Bluetooth.

I really wasn’t trying to blame anybody for the situation, although I can see how it could have come off that way. The motivation for the post was a previous thread exploring “compatibility” and my readings of reviews where I get frustrated with people because they complain about something not working when I know the device is not supposed to have that feature. My epiphany was: “People don’t care. They just want stuff to “work” in ways that makes sense to them.”

I think this attitude of not wanting to try to understand how something works, but just wanting it to work is largely why people are willing to pay a premium for Apple products. I could expound on this, but I’ll end with a link to a joke about if operating systems were airlines. Many of you have probably seen it. Augury Corporation - What if Operating Systems Were Airlines?28

ps. It is interesting that hearing aid companies were absent from the development of BT4, but widely involved in 5

Edited

In reply to @Volusiano

@Volusiano said:

If the HA mfgs are willing to make it work, the smart phone companies must be willing to do their part as well. Unfortunately they haven’t been willing to do their part so far, with the exception of Apple.

Having worked at BlackBerry and the mobile phone industry, let me put this a different way:

What does Google, Samsung, Apple, or any other manufacturer get out of adding support for hearing aids?

Sure, one can say more market share, better perception by consumers, and etc … but at the end of the day the community is a small segment compared to their total market. Why is it their job to make sure the interests of the Hearing Industry are taken care of? Why should they spend their R&D budgets supporting hearing aids?

If you look at the cost of adding a regular hearing consumer vs. a hearing impaired consumer to a phone platform, the latter is more expensive than the former because it requires additional features and support. In some cases regulation and compliance are costs are added on. What makes hearing aid users more important to smartphone makers from the perspective of their bottom line? Why should our needs and features take priority over other initiatives that are more core to their business?

I think HA mfgs need to be a lot more aggressive on solving the Android problem themselves rather than waiting for someone to fix the problem for them. Apple has been generous in recognizing this and doing something about, but they now have a monopoly. HA mfgs can do something about it by integrating the features they want with Android through contributions into AOSP (Android Open Source Project) - a code repository where non-Google developers submit patches into Android for features they want to get in. Google, the maintainer of the project, can obviously decline to accept it or request changes but at the end of the day once your feature is in it’s in. Every Android manufacturer uses AOSP as their base OS, and modifies it from there and you get your Samsung, LG, HTC, and etc … phones. Like suggested above, they can also sit on all the open standards groups relevant to integration and make sure their needs are heard and incorporated into existing standards.

As long as the necessary hardware is available on the phones, the Hearing Industry needs to become a software development company that works not just with mobile phones, but Smart Home technologies, IoT, automotive, and etc … It’s going to be expensive in terms of R&D to do all this, but that’s what it’s going to take do this right and make truly integrated hearing technologies. I think all the tools are there to do it, but I’m not sure the urgency or business case is there from the hearing industry to deliver this … hence perhaps the slow response. Android has been open sourced from the very beginning.

The way I see it, with the recent law changes around hearables … if they Hearing Mfgs doesn’t solve the problem, the Silicon Valley start ups and giants will. They have the means to make Hearing Mfgs irrelevant in all parts other than specific niches around the audiology stuff. The best modern example of this is traditional telcos (like Comcast, Verizon, etc …) vs. Netflix, Amazon Video, Hulu, HBO … If I were a Hearing Mfg Exec, this is the writing on the wall!

My 2 cents as someone from the tech industry …

Good points, @ConZ27. I had thought, when I first approached all this here, that the phone was the best device to provide hearing augmentation. Since then, advancement has tempered that view. We know that HA are power limited beyond phone limits giving the phone much greater processing power. But the advancements in sampling rates now tends to keep it closer to the ear. I doubt the phone processor could provide the real time needs over BTLe. I think it could evaluate using learning to improve things though. It certainly could compete against a lower end hearable now. Can it be the real time main processor/dsp provider? You would know that better than I

The Android problem is the lack of any hardware standard. They do their own BIOS/drivers and, with lower end devices, it pretty much what you see is what you get for the product life. Only at the higher end are OS upgrades and even bug fix workable for the customer. That’s going to limit even phones that will have access to 5 with some vendors. Android has transitioning problems because of this.

Future transitions look to be a problem for HA users. That BT5 ready phone may manifest post purchase problems that may or may not be addressed. Some phone makers may see a market segment that they can address for moderate sales increase having already seen the capability in 5… But, how committed to it will be a mystery that end users won’t be able to solve.

With the oligopoly aspect to the hearing market, its going to be hard to get them to carry forward properly. Except for Oticon, design is mostly coming from the foundry side and Oticon cleaned house with their developers by moving it to another country. It seems the others rely on the technology and design work cobbled from phones with limited optimization.

Where we are X years from now is anybody’s guess.

In reply to @ConZ27

@ConZ27: I’m sorry for you for the result of the too late to catch up and then pi$$-poor marketing to sell what in my opinion is STILL a superior technology smartphone. I ran out in March 2013 and tried a Z10 and loved it right away and ran it for 4 years. Then I got a virtually unused Z30. Still loving it. My Z10 still works perfectly fine too. You guys made GREAT phones. It’s very sad that the marketplace didn’t agree.
I came from Android at the time. I just can’t allow myself to be commoditized into the Borg that is Google. From history I just can’t give my money to Apple.
I’m aware that there will come a day when I’ll have to give in…but I’ll stretch out my BBOS10 until it’s no longer functional.

Along the way I had been entertaining the idea of the Microsoft phone too. But it looks like it died too. But then my phone is still doing everything I want it to do. So I didn’t go there.
Yeah BTLe would be useful NOW but oh well.

In reply to @z10user2

I gave in this summer when I purchased the iPhone 7 in order to use my Oticon Opn 1s … I’ve disliked Apple for a long time, and given the choice would switch to Android in a heart beat and even BB10. BB10 would be good if it had the Android app support, which is where it fell short … great in all other respects!

You can see why I want the Hearing Mfgs to resolve this Android support problem …

It does … but when I was using it, it lacked access to Google Play Store. I just wanted all the Google Integration along side everything else.

Has that improved? It’s been a while since I’ve touched a BlackBerry.

Admittedly you have to work for it as it has to do a work around to get to the store. There’s a built-in Amazon app store that’s easy. But the selection is less than the full Google store. But to get to Google takes a work around.

In reply to @ConZ27

yes tim cook ceo of apple with talk to youtube blogger (rikki poynter) said that even apple not targeting small segment/ particular class of people for iphone hardware. so even mfi not have priority to solve problem of user.
from past history its huge loss in acquiring this hardware by apple. so they are also not intrested. and some survey also started for asking opinion for how much you pay for using HA app on phone monthly in euro? so future will be paid one or least possiblity for development. utmost guess is it might take 2020-22 for full fuctional app for android when fragmentation and update problem solved. recent move by google is mandatory use of specified kernel from oreo and up versions.

ConZ27: I had the opportunity to speak with a VP at Siemens Medical who had the division under him. I asked him why they sold the HA division, since I thought they had an excellent hearing aid. He told me just what you suspect, the move by the and technology marching on would remove the very profitable model that exist today. So, they sold to Savantos.

Phil

Edited

Apple built into its phones a long time ago. Apple knew about the difficulties people who wear aids have when trying to use a cell phone, so it was simple and cheap to roll MFi into the iPhone. Android phone makers could have done it, but didn’t for some reason. So don’t go slagging Apple. Low power (MFi) is not Apple proprietary.

Actually, Apple is still interested and supporting hearing aid communication with their phones - the recent issue with iOS 11 and stereo MFi BT dropout issues shows that. They were on top of it almost from day one and fixed it. I know, because I was talking to their iOS techs about it.

The reason for MFi is that it doesn’t draw a lot of battery power. That is why BT was not implemented in the first place. the circuitry needed inhales power - so your aid batteries don’t last nearly as long . There are newer versions of the circuitry that require less power, and that is why it is beginning to show up in some hearing aid makers.

Apple also integrated hearing aid control into its OS way back. iOS apps are for the most part, Apple’s software, with added bells and whistles and a custom GUI. I think Apple is going to advance their software to provide better control over the aids - like routing the audio through the Apple audio EQ.

The problem with translators- those things you have to carry that communicate with your aids and your cell phone, is that they introduce signal delay. It’s small, and for the most part, not noticeable, until you happen to hear the same sound source through your aids at the same time. Note that some of those translators are mono, not stereo like MFi.

Apple implemented more than 5 years ago a native (not an App), direct help to those of us hearing impaired. Resound took advantage of it. They made a big difference in my life using the Resound Forza, then KS6, and now the Forte.
Thanks Apple and Resound. Others may have joined since, but Apple was there a long time ago, when nobody was forcing them.
In any iOS platform you will find it in Tools>General>Accessibility>Hearing Aids; it’s that simple.

In reply to @ConZ27

Isn’t Android an “open” protocol? If so, why can’t the industry get together and develop a generic protocol (app) that can work on all Android phones. It might require a minor tweak in an Android app. Google does, at times, try and account for various disabilities. Eg. A smallish number of people (about 8-10% of people over 65) have a tremor - usually hands). Google has tried (or is trying) to deal w. that. I have a hand tremor that makes it hard to use a key pad on a phone.
They (Google) did have some one watch me try to do things on a phone. I am in the Bay Area.
I have no idea if they are working on solutions for people w. hearing problems.

Android is an OS (Operating System) and provides all the building blocks that Apps are built on. If the OS is missing key building blocks for Apps, you either cannot implement the feature or if you can implement it, it will only work while your App is running.

For things like sound processing as required by Hearing Aid users, it affects multiple Apps (i.e. the Phone, your Music Streaming App, your Video App, and etc …) and each of those Apps have multiple vendors. Therefore, the building blocks and common functionality needs to be built into the OS so all Apps can use it and inter-operate in scenarios where two Apps are using it at the same time.

While you’re correct to say that Android is open, whatever is added to it affects all phones and not just those used by hearing aid users. The protocols required are already standardized and used for multiple other applications outside the Hearing Industry as well. So the Hearing Industry needs to work with Google and all the respective protocol standards bodies they rely on to ensure that all necessary gaps and features are implemented into the Android OS. Only once that is done, can Apps be built on top of it.

I hope this explanation makes sense to you, I’ve tried explain it in less technical terms so it’s easier to understand.

I think the angst for Android solutions to direct connectivity fails to recognize the other advantages built into Apples solution and utilized by some manufactures eg.:

  • the geotagging and automatic program change to suit specialized environments
  • the find my HA feature ( I recently lost an aid when it fell into a waste paper basket. This has happened on two occasions. Both times it was sheer luck that I found the aid - a non aid - again before the paper was emptied. Find my HA would have been a great comfort to me and potentially save one $$$. )
  • watching the start up connection on my Resound app helped me trouble shoot and discover they were inadvertently switched left to right with reguard to programming.

Phonak has chosen to see the potential to connect to all phones in mono. Nothing more! Just connecting directly to an android phone does not offer the same level of functionality that made for iPhone HAs potentially offer.

Apple did what they did because they have a whole section devoted to accessibility. They are a big company that make a lot of money but they have always had accessibility options. They can afford to do it well but they also want to do it well. The user experience is important to them - even users with vision or hearing impairments.

Related discussions