Well I guess we’re all left with nothing but speculation here, and there’s certainly been a lot of it offered, so how could it hurt to offer mine?
This parting of the ways might be due to a combination of effects. Yes, there are charging issues. (In my ‘one data point’ experience they seem to be easy to solve, see my post here.) Maybe to satisfy Costco’s needs for a super low-low price, Sonova did one monster production run, which makes any design changes or “oops” fixes hard (costly) to achieve.
And maybe something entirely unrelated - Sonova has provided two models now for Costco KS HAs. In both cases it was known that they were Phonak knock-offs. If I was an audiologist and losing business to Costco because of that (just as my audiologist lost me when I discovered the KS10s were $4000 cheaper than what she was charging), I could maybe put up with that for 18 months, stay with the program and plan on normalcy to return when the knock-off was no longer available. But two models in a row? And maybe a third? Now I’m getting mad, and casting about for a different lead brand to carry in my practice. Maybe I’m writing Sonova and letting them know in no uncertain terms what I think of them polluting the brand that has become the bread-and-butter (and maybe a nice home and other luxuries) for me and my practice.
Maybe Sonova would take that to heart and reconsider how they market their products?
Frankly, I think the HA industry business model stinks. It is manipulation of a market for the profit of a few at the expense of many. As others have said, I think it will come around to bite them. The market WILL adjust.
EDIT:
Just to be clear, I have no issue with audiologists. I think they’re stuck with the industry business model, and many would be happy to charge fee-for-service, along with providing a selection of products at a reasonable price. It would seem that front-loading all the margins for running your practice into the sale of the devices heavily skews how the audi must do their job, and often not in a good way.