Just came back from my quarterly appointment with my audiologist with a couple of interesting updates on Whisper. No upgrade this time because Whisper is currently focusing all of their energy on developing their next generation. According to my Audi, there are 2 priorities:
@billgem: Are you still happy with their performance, Bill? Any regrets?
No regrets. Side benefit is that my audiologist, introduced to me by Whisper, is phenomenal. Cleaned wax out of my ear today and vacuumed my hearing aids today. No charge. Not for either. And he does these things routinely. Annual hearing test today. No charge.
My audiologist reported the same thing. But new brain and earpieces are hardware projects (software-compatible with current versions, I would hope), so software developers ought to be continuing their work at the same time.
Given low marginal costs for hardware, it may make more business sense for Whisper to replace everyone’s hardware, even if it’s true that non-Brain Trust customers aren’t contractually entitled to it, rather than continuing to support and update the existing hardware.
@billgem: Bill, I would think that Whisper’s hardware developers work independently from the SW development group, except for a perfunctory “handshake” to ensure the code works in the revamped devices.
So why would you not get their highly-touted quarterly software update?
[Addendum: I wonder if @Volusiano can shed any light on this, by way of his interpretation?]
I don’t know. Just passing on what I was told.
Thanks for your update @billgem Bill!
I’m guessing that most likely it’s a resource issue with a small startup like Whisper. Their small team of engineers is probably jack-of-all-trades type and so if the same engineers are busy with the new hardware development side of things, then the software development side of things will get neglected. There are probably no 2 groups where one does the hardware and the other the software stuff.
That’s really the only thing I can think of that’s also consistent with what they’re telling their customers (put hold on SW updates to focus on HW upgrades). Otherwise, your logic would be true, Jim, that for bigger companies, they probably have multiple development teams running in parallel and one shouldn’t impede the others’ work.
@Volusiano: I honestly didn’t think they would be that small a startup, Mr. V! (I’m sitting here envisaging these guys’ wives and children in their garages, huddled close to their portable quartz heaters, soldering up Brains by hand, into the wee hours of the morning!)
Again, this is pure speculation on our part.
FWIW, the success of companies like Apple comes precisely from not separating hardware and software development; the groups work together (for example, since Apple designs its own processors, it can optimize certain kinds of key instructions and add features that the software group wants, such as a unit on the SOC devoted to machine learning).
Similarly, I imagine, as Volusiano says, that the same team is doing both hardware and software. But it doesn’t mean that there aren’t people doing software — it’s that they’re writing it for what is likely a new hardware platform, and perhaps in order to take advantage of new capabilities. They said that they were putting a hold on SW updates for the old platform.
Yeah, I wasn’t suggesting that there’s no synergy between the hardware and software development at all. I’m sure that they don’t independently develop these in parallel blindly and then throw them over the wall to the other team. I was only suggesting that it’s probably not 2 teams doing hardware and software separately, but it’s probably the same team since one thing has to be put on hold to get the other thing done.
I didn’t hear @billgem or @x475aws mention that they’re working on a new hardware platform. I only heard that they’re working on the miniaturization of the brain. Miniaturization can happen by going to a smaller node in terms of a new physical redesign, without having to gut out the old architecture and come up with a brand new architecture. Boy, that’d be an even bigger bite to chew.
But since @happymach brought up that it’s not just a miniaturization but is also a new hardware platform, can the other Whisper users confirm whether this is true or not?
I always assume that Whisper maintains that the advantage of the brain is that it offers a same architectural platform but robust enough to support major software upgrades as they are developed. If Whisper indeed has to already resort to developing a major and new hardware platform to support new major software updates, then there’s really no differentiation between them and what the other HA mfgs are already doing. I thought that this is THE OBSTACLE that Whisper claims their brain would be able to solve, by offering them the advantage of being able to avoid having to depend on, unlike with the other HA mfgs who have to wait 3 years for a new hardware platform to be developed to support new major software updates.
@Volusiano : I find it funny how people can understand the same communication differently. I understood that they were working on miniaturization of the earpieces as they develop recharge-ability, and I understood that they were simultaneously working on a new version of the brain - whether that entails a new platform, I’m unsure.
This is, of course, because my brain is drying up, and I can no longer read English!
Yeah, I know. Bill simply said make the brain smaller, so I didn’t think it implies a new hardware platform, because based on my technical understanding, a new platform would have major new architectural (system-level) changes. A car analogy would be to go from a sedan platform to a truck platform, which is different than making a full-size sedan into a mini-sedan.
As for the ear piece, if it’s already kind of bulky, common sense would say that a rechargeable version would be even more bulky, so I don’t associate the miniaturization part to the ear piece, although maybe they’d have to also miniaturize the ear piece or else it’d be way too bulky being rechargeable without being miniaturized at all.
@Volusiano:
Yes, you’re quite correct. I apologize for having muddied the waters through my careless reading.
I would think creating a rechargeable version of the hearing aid would be quite a challenge as the current version uses 675 batteries that last 4-5 days. They draw over 5 milliamps as opposed to about 1.4 milliamps for “typical” hearing aids.
Yes, intuitively, it would seem that rechargeable version would be difficult given the size and needs of :the brain". But who knows? I’m guessing that as most traditional aids move towards being rechargeable, not being able to do that makes “the brain” look bulky and old school. Whereas, the whole promise of the Brain is that it’s so very, very cutting edge.
I admit that the basic premise makes sense. and yet…performance appears to be marginally better, at best. And the clumsiness of the design–yet another piece of hardware to carry in your pants pockets, along with your phone and your wallet–is out of step, design-wise. The Whisper looks clumsy. People want easy and discreet. If the Whisper delivered a much better hearing experience, I would be all over it. So far, that doesn’t look to be the case. the whole 'rent month to month" model looks super scammy to me. It may not be! but…so many other options like this have been.
@jeffrey: FWIW, Jeffrey, I think this is an excellent synopsis. The only thing I think you should add is what Chuck (@cvkemp) and I want, and to which the Whisper is antithetical.
We’d just like a simple hearing aid (ITE, preferably) with two programs at the most (a single program that works for everything would be ideal) that we can put in when we awaken and take out when we’re ready for bed. Disposable batteries, too, please!
Of course it’s not a scam. I and others are using them, and getting support. Why would you even say that?
I was wowed when I put them on. Voices cut through noise much better than with my Quattros, while I heard far more of what was going on around me. Others here have had positive experiences too. Why don’t you try them yourself and report back? I don’t see you or the other haters harping on your opinions of other brands that you haven’t even tried.
@x475aws: The only “hater” around here is yourself. The rest of us are just having some good fun while we dissect this unconventional new offering and try to make sense of what is a not-too-rational new product launch.
And I don’t see any trumpeting of other brands, other than when a direct comparison is being made.
Please chill…!
I beg to differ.
I too was surprised by jeffrey’s assertion that monthly payments were a “scam” (if you think so, you can pay up front), and that Whisper doesn’t deliver “a much better hearing experience” when many of the Whisper users here concur about this.
As for Volusiano, I believe that he is WRONG about “one thing has to be put on hold to get the other thing done.” It seems clear that the two “things” are interdependent, and what is being sacrificed is not software updates per se but software updates for the current hardware version of the Whisper system.
As for what constitutes a “new platform,” that’s kind of like increments in software version numbers — subjective. What I do know is that Whisper 2 is not just about miniaturizing the brain and making the earpieces rechargeable:
At this time all of our engineering efforts are going towards developing the second generation of Whisper. We believe this will provide the largest improvements for current Whisper users both in physical size and acoustic performance. [my emphasis]
Then Volusiano jumps on his old bandwagon, doing his best to show that Whisper doesn’t (or can’t) live up to its claims.
The external brain doesn’t just solve one problem, Volusiano, but it’s pointless to go over this again. What Whisper should be judged by (IMHO) is whether they deliver better acoustic performance with more frequent improvements than other hearing aids can offer.