2) This is a meaningful cost. A library of semi-custom versions might be a plausible intermediate step. As might laser scanning and 3-D printing.
3) Why can't analysis of the loss can be completely automated? "Press + if this sound is louder than the last one"
4) Flex PCBs (even when each one is fully custom) and 0105 components seem like a plausible solution. Automated assembly has come a long way since the invention of 32 gauge wire. Open your iPhone and count the grains of sand (resistors and capacitors) soldered to the PCB. Sure, they've always done it by hand with microscopes, but while that was a sensible approach 30 years ago, there are better approaches now.
5) This is a meaningful cost, too. But again, there's a lot of "tuning" that could be done by interaction with an automated system.
6) This is a meaningful cost. No obvious way to mitigate it, given the elderly user communicate it.
7) This isn't a cost, it's just a complaint that modern electronics isn't in the picture.
What I hear is "this is the way we've always done it, and we can't imagine a non-evolutionary approach to improvement". Is it really possible that a 3V supply (which would allow use of a $5 2mm^2 32nm-process DSP) would be the kind of disruptive change that would make hearing aids cheap enough for everyone?
Probably not, because the economic argument is unimpeachable: as long as insurance pays for it, and thus eliminates price pressure, there's no motivation to charge much less (10% off for cash, yeah, what a deal). This isn't even value-based pricing (think Mac Pro
colorado rockies moonshine news channel 4 radar weather weather channel noaa mike brown
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.