I’m sorry I can’t answer your question but on a related note I wonder if anyone has used AirPods Pro 3 as hearing aids either as their first pair or replaced their traditional ones with AirPods?
I’m considering getting a pair for a family member who has been reluctant to wear traditional ones but I think would be willing to do AirPods.
I did and it is amazing for someone with just mild 40s hearing issues. Took a bit of effort and updates to run the hearing test for AirPods Pro 3. Turns out I connected over Bluetooth when I should’ve paired them the Apple/iOS way.
The live listening mode is very good. I can hear my kid trying to quietly walk past 10pm :) There are a lot of features however you cannot selectively choose to lower / raise certain frequencies. I wish it had an equalizer I could use.
The ANC is fantastic, sometimes
I even forget fans around me are on. Only issue is that when I use live listen mode and everything is super clear, people still treat me like I’m using full noise cancellation.
I got my father-in-law to try AirPods Pro 2 last year. He’s needed hearing aids for about a decade, but wouldn’t get them, I think for vanity reasons. I’m at the in-laws for thanksgiving and he’s wearing the AirPods now.
From the other side, it’s night and day. We can have conversations. He can hear my kids. The TV volume is set to reasonable levels.
Sample size of one, but it’s been a tremendous improvement. A lot of places are closing out the second gens right now for $140. I’d give it a go. It’s a pretty low price of entry for something that could literally be life changing.
I would absolutely love for Apple to make proper hearing aids or license their chipset to a HA maker. Before I became completely dependent on HAs I had a set of Beats headphones with the Apple wireless chipset in it and the ease of switching between devices with it was amazing. With my current HAs I essentially only can use it for sound with my phone.
The big problem is that I want prescription-level HAs and the regulatory apparatus around this is complex enough that they probably don’t want to bother.
I did the same with my mom. Big improvement for her. She’s also subsequently gotten ‘real’ hearing aids and finds them much more fiddly to use than her AirPods Pro. She’s 83, FWIW.
We also did this for my mom, but keep in mind this is a bit of a crutch that may keep them even more from getting a real hearing aid. My mom later had to go to the hospital, and because of battery life and other problems we regretted not pushing for a real hearing aid earlier. This caused real problems in the hospital.
Adam Savage made a video about them. If I remember correctly, they won’t be replacing his primary hearing aids, but would be a serviceable backup. Note that I could be misremembering, as I watched the video 9 months ago.
In your situation they could be a low stakes way to get someone to try a hearing aid and sell them on the idea, while still being a useful thing to have around even if they do upgrade to something more purpose built.
I have severe hearing loss in my right ear and no to mild hearing loss in the left. AirPods Pro 2 make it so that I feel like I can hear in stereo while streaming without resorting to setting the balance 90% right and jacking the volume. In that respect I love them. However, they are designed only for moderate loss so they will not amplify the right ear sufficiently to hear well in that ear unless the left ear is uncomfortably loud.
For me, I need a real hearing aid to hear a person that is at my right shoulder.
If both ears are about the same, I think the hearing aid volume (separate slider from general volume) could be adjusted to get past the “designed for moderate loss” limitation.
I have the latest AirPods, and I do use them quite a bit for calls and noise cancellation when using power tools and such.
But irrespective of any capability to act as hearing aids from the acoustic perspective, I don’t think they are the same.
For me hearing aids are glasses for my ears. Like glasses they need to be “put them on/in and forget about it”. If AirPods would not fall out of my ears when I walk or put on a hat or pull on/off a sweater, I might consider them.
I wake up in the morning, grab them from the nightstand and put them in. And they stay there all day until I go to bed. Only come out if I’m taking a shower or in a loud environment.
One thing to consider though, hearing aids are rated as medical devices. That means they have to fulfill a lot of requirements in terms of durability and reliability. They need to work if it is -/+50 deg C outside and still after you accidentally showered with them. Just as examples..
My 84 year old mom uses AirPods Pro 2 as an aid for moderate hearing loss and has been satisfied. As others have noted, the difference is night and day; I went from having to yell just to be occasionally understood to being able to have a normal conversation.
My understanding is they are pretty good hearing aids, but they don't have the battery life that purpose-built aids do (4-5 hours vs 18-24) so they're not optimal for full-time use. This is fine for her use case, since she only uses them when she wants to talk to someone, but could be an issue for someone who wants to wear them all day, every day.
To be honest, this video was quite cringe, 50min of repeating the same thing over and over, repeating her opinion, saying ridiculous unsubstantiated things such as: “musk bought twitter because he was annoyed people were saying he was not a physicist “.
Let’s do better and post better content.
she's not wrong though. it's exactly like one the comments says: "It's the intellectual equivalent of the wannabe tough guy staple: "I almost joined the military.""
I’ve hired dozens of smart Americans with the right degree and willingness to learn and I was not even American myself. I worked with hundreds more. Not sure what you’re talking about.
This would only matter in any way if you think that listening to podcasts is primarily a hobby that people engage in for its own sake. If you think they listen to some podcasts and not other podcasts because they care what's in the podcasts, why would they care if Apple hosts a list of podcasts?
discoverability, if a friend talks to me about a podcast I could be interested in, i'd rather just have the name of the podcast than a full URL.
Here i can just use any podcast app that integrates with Apple podcast service and type the name of the podcast i want to listen to.
Your question is the same as: "Why do you care if $YOUR_SEARCH_ENGINE (google, kaggle, duckduckgo) hosts a list of websites?"
sure, you can use google or a search engine, look in the results for the actual feeds url (vs just a website or something), and copy paste it in your podcast player.
Or you can just search from it directly in your podcast app.
not to mention that unless the podcast has an official site, a Google search for the feed will turn up 10 different mirrors of the feed, without any clarity about which one's the canonical source.
in the past i've subscribed to a dead feed this way i think because the author changed who they syndicate through. i assume Apple's directory is maintained in a way that largely avoids this (simply by it being the canonical directory).
It can work if the other car took more of the damage than it would have compared to a collision with a "squishier" car. Would be interested to see a Cybertruck vs Cybertruck crash.
Postulate two spherical cybertrucken in a vacuum suspended from the same point by wire under Earth gravity acceleration. After contact each vehicle moves away from the point of contact with the energy equivalent of 1/2 the sum of each vehicle's input kinetic energy.
parent said: "no one in either car was hurt". If the cybertruck didn't have any damage it means that no energy was dissipated by "squishing it", basically it made the impact twice as bad (compared to a regular squishier car) for the occupants of both cars.
Maybe indeed no one got hurt, but then it means that the crash was at super low speed.
So many comments in here using the context of US cities and missed that Amsterdam (like most big european cities) is not designed for high throughput car transportation and as a result painting that decision as making things "crazy slow" and that it "sounds terrible".
I highly encourage you to go live a week in a big old european city (Paris, London, Berlin, Amsterdam, Madrid) without renting a car to understand why it's not a crazy decision and how it can make the life of the residents so much better.
Amsterdam notably was designed for cars in the 70s afaik, but they consciously redesigned it over time. So I’m a few decades, it could be your American city.
But not until they did quite a bit of damage, some of which remains today. If that idiot had had his way a lot of the historical city would have been destroyed.
Pretty much all of Amsterdam is pre-WW2 or older. Only the parts outside the A10 ringroad tend to be post war and more car friendly.
There were indeed plans to bulldoze large parts of the old city and build highways and high rises, but after many protests almost no plans were executed.
I mean it was quite clearly designed for water traffic first. I wouldn't describe it as designed for cars in comparison to say Los Angeles or Kansas City.
The 30 km/h limit will apply to all vehicles, including bicycles and in particular electric "fat" bikes which have become a particular problem in the city lately.
reply