You’re right.
Big five have a different strategy in China. Instead of focusing on the elderly, they usually sell premium models to children with hearing loss. Because parents are eager to spend money on anything that might help their kids’ language development.
There’s an effort to change this focus, along with many mergers and acquisitions. But big five are not showing significant enthusiasm for this market just yet.
Yeah @daalias, I agree with you in monetary terms, perhaps because of how the market operates? But sheer volume of sales, will probably belong to China, given the prices we pay in the West, it isn’t surprising China make their own hearing aids, how good there own home-brew aids are, is anyone’s guess though? At one time, the largest single dispenser of hearing aids in my the world, was the NHS, they dispensed literally thousands of pairs per year, free at point of service… Although, that accolade probably falls to Costco nowadays or perhaps the VA?? Cheers Kev 
Zepp Clarity hearing aids. Zepp is a Chinese company, marketing world wide, including in the U.S.
Zepp HA looks like a hearing amplifier. Only 1 type of HA’s shown on the website.
Thanks everyone. I’ve learned some. However, conjecture about the HA business is stressing me out. I’m gone.
Dave
Philips / Sonic / Bernafon and for example in Italy the Maico brand is the SAME
instruments they are all based on channel free technologies. This is why they do not
report as Channels but as Bands. Oticon will not transfer its core technologies speech guard, opn sound etc etc.
they charge premium for those technologies they would never transfer those to Philips sonic, etc
Philips is Bernafon rebadged? Are you sure?
I give you some examples. Compare the Helios from Maico with Bernafon line…
also, lets look at a us company google Audina and check the coral line.
Now go an visit www.maicoitalia.com
If I have to place a bet, the bernafon, sonic , Maico , are near identical
and there have tried to add some technologies to Philips brand to make is
slightly different.
We will know for sure in time
I will respect what you’re saying, but I still respectfully maintain that I’m not convinced that Philips and Sonic being the exact same aid under different brands. Nothing I see in their programming softwares (both of which I have installed on my laptop and have reviewed extensively), nor marketing materials convince me that they’re the same.
I don’t know enough about Bernafon, and I know nothing about Maico, so I will refrain from making any comment about them, except that if Philips is the same as Bernafon like you said, then why did Costco bother to stop selling Bernafon and started selling Philips instead, especially if Bernafon is still around and is not going out of business? I’m sure if Costco thinks that Bernafon is the same as Philips, then they wouldn’t bother retiring Bernafon and introduce Philips if it’s just a brand name change. There has to be a more underlying difference than just the names for Costco to make the switch.
Surely a registered provider saying so on this forum that they’re all the same (except for Oticon) is not going to be enough to convince me otherwise. Costco HCPs for years have been telling their customers that Philips is a rebrand of Oticon as well. And they’re the dispenser of Philips aids themselves. But what they told their customers above is definitely questionable to me and does not convince me either.
What you said: “they have tried to add some technologies to Philips brand to make it slightly different” here to me means that their “core” technologies are different. If the core technologies are different, then the difference is not just “slight”.
Are there any significant functional differences between two suites affecting the HAs?
Because Signia/Rexton seems to be doing something similar.
They use different colours and different naming conventions, (also changed how Assistant works) but core tech is identical.
Edit. Ok I’ve seen that they’ve cut some features out in Sonic. Since Costco sells only the premium levels it isn’t surprising to me and it’s common and cheap differentiating tactic. The hardware is most likely identical.
I suggest you read the thread about:
Sorry, I tried to delete this but cannot. I wrote the above because I thought this was a new topic.
I can’t speak for the Signia/Rexton rebrand, but I’d imagine that it’s similar to the Phonak/Kirkland Signature rebrand, in which case it’s true that the core technology is identical, except that Costco wouldn’t enable the tinnitus function for their KS branding. The reason that makes this most obvious is that the same Phonak Target software can be used to program the KS series’ counterparts of the Phonak rebranded models.
But it’s not obvious like that with William Demant HAs. The first telltale sign that it’s not a simple rebrand is because they all keep their original company brands when they’re sold at Costco. Bernafon is still Bernafon at Costco, Philips is still Philips at Costco, unlike Phonak models became KSxx models, and Signia models become Rexton models.
Secondly, Bernafon has its own programming software that looks and feels different than the Philips software that looks and feels different than the Oticon software, unlike the Phonak Target software that can be used for either the Phonak models or the KSxx models. I’m not familiar enough with the Signia/Rexton rebrand to say that they share the same programming software or not here.
In terms of “significant functional” differences you’re asking about, I would separate the functionalities into 2 categories, the functionalities of the core technology, and the functionalities of what I call the “peripheral” technologies.
The peripheral technologies are things like the charger, the streaming device, the frequency lowering technology, the feedback management technology, the Near Field Magnetic Induction technology for binaural communication between the left and right aid, the sudden sound stabilizer technology, the wind handling technology, the new built-in Music program construction, etc. It’s pretty obvious that at least between the Philips and the Oticon models, they share many of these technologies.
However, the core technology of the latest Oticon models is the Deep Neural Network (DNN) AI engine, and while the core technology of the Philips models is also AI based, its description does not seem to be the same as the Oticon DNN technology, but it’s an AI technology that focuses more exclusively on noise reduction. I’m not talking about them having simply naming differences here. If you read the whitepapers describing the Oticon DNN and the Philips AI core technologies, they went about explaining the detailed architecture and operations of their core technologies, and it’s obvious when you read these whitepapers that the 2 operations are entirely different.
Thank you for answering, Signias and Rextons can’t use the same software. They have their own "flavours’, but functionally and layout wise they’re identical. Where they differ is just colour scheme and naming.
So it seems that they went extra mile to differentiate Oticon from the rest, and they did it via software features.
They do, it’s the same, and I will add Beltone is the same as ReSound, SmartFit,App etc these are all using the same CPU architecture, just different software and firmware to make them “different”
Fitting software (Genie for Oticon, HearSuite for Philips) is a window into hearing aid features. Genie is available in the DIY category here, of course, and its fitting screens can be seen in a simulated fitting session. HearSuite is publicly available. It doesn’t have a simulation mode that I can find.
But HearSuite does have a set of help files that are presumably complete, and Genie has the same. I just glanced at HearSuite’s help, after having gone through the Genie help files in the last couple of days. I see many fewer features available in HearSuite, leading me to the conclusion that Philips aids have many fewer features than Oticon aids. Someone with a Noahlink Wireless and a real reason to obtain a pair of Philips aids from Costco could give a better comparison.
It’s no longer publicly available. It doesn’t have a simulation mode per se, but if you do not have a Noahlink Wireless connected it will complain and after you dismiss the complaint you can go through the fitting screens.
More than month later can you recall any of the Oticon features missing from Philips? [Misstatement removed to reflect later correction]
Genie 2 didn’t have the Fitting Assistant before, but they do have it now, and they’ve been having it for quite a while now (maybe a year or two?).
That’s too bad. Oticon has also made Genie 2 no longer publicly available. But if you have an older version installed, the Genie 2 Updater will still download and update newer versions on top of your installation for you.
I wonder if the HearSuite software does the same thing or not (still available via an Updater for existing installed earlier versions)?
