FDA Approves Apple AirPods As Hearing Aids

The FDA on Thursday approved the first hearing aid software for Apple's latest AirPods Pro earbuds. According to Apple, the feature will be pushed to eligible devices through a software update in the coming weeks. The Washington Post reports: The move, which comes two years after the FDA first approved over-the-counter hearing aids, could help more Americans with hearing loss start getting help, the FDA said in a statement. The feature works by amplifying some sounds, such as voices, while minimizing others, such as ambient noise. Users can take a hearing test in the Apple Health app, and their AirPods will adjust sound level automatically based on the results. The feature is only available on the AirPods Pro 2, which cost $249.

The FDA says it tested Apple's hearing aid feature in a clinical study with 118 subjects who believed they had mild or moderate hearing loss. The study found that people who set up their AirPods using Apple's hearing test noticed similar benefits as people who had a professional set up the earbuds. Over-the-counter hearing aids are best for people with mild to moderate hearing loss, audiologists say, many of whom don't seek treatment. [...] However, consumer earbuds aren't a good solution for people with severe hearing loss, experts maintain, and most over-the-counter hearing devices will still require a trip to the audiologist for some fine tuning.

Canadians

[dotslashdot]

Canadians will no longer have an excuse to always say âoeeh?â

Re: Canadians

[dotslashdot]

Canadians will no longer have an excuse to always say eh?

Re: Canadians

[drainbramage]

How does a Canadian spell Canada?
C eh, A eh N eh, A eh, D eh, A eh?

Re: Canadians

[SuiteSisterMary]

Oh hey dere bud, you're fucking that joke up pretty bad, eh? It actually goes 'C, eh? N, eh? D, eh?'

Sorry, eh.

Re:Canadians

[Anonymous Coward]

âoeeh?â

Re:Canadians

[Roger W Moore]

What makes you think we need an excuse, eh?

Seems really good

[SuperKendall]

Just from what I saw in the announcement video, this seems really useful.

After you run the analysis screen it factors in how much each ear can hear, and then adjusts the balance of both ambient sounds and music. And furthermore using the same technology that can let voice through over background sounds in a noise reduction mode, can enhance how voices sound over the environment.

I have some relatives that use commercial hearing aids, I plan to buy one of these for them and have them try it out to see how well it works. They have almost complete hearing loss in one ear so it'll be interesting to see how it fares, or if it's any better than the rather expensive hearing aids they have.

Re:Seems really good

[shilly]

I'm sorry to say but these are only designed for mild to moderate hearing loss. I'm not sure they'll help with your relative's more severe hearing loss.

I agree, but worth trying.

[SuperKendall]

I'm sorry to say but these are only designed for mild to moderate hearing loss. I'm not sure they'll help with your relative's more severe hearing loss.

I agree, her healing loss is pretty severe so I'm not sure it will be better (or even equal) to professional hearing aids.

But that's why I want to test it, to see if it gets even close, or if more advanced audio processing it does can be better in some way - that's the dark horse that may actually make it better, if it can measure and correct lost frequencies better.

This will be an interesting experiment

[sziring]

We will now have people who are hard of hearing appear to others as if they are listening to music and not those around them.
I envision the person using them asking someone to repeat themselves and said person get annoyed, thinking they're just being rude and not turning their music down.
On the flipside, you'll have people using that as an excuse as to why they need their AirPods and all the time regardless of their ability to hear.

One final thing is there is a long way to go before they can be considered a true replacement ( battery life and the ability to fit securely in one's ear, etc.)

Re:This will be an interesting experiment

[ddtmm]

My only beef with AirPods is, ok, one of my beefs, is the fit. They are not a one size fits all by any stretch and don’t seem to fit nearly as well as a few others in the same price bracket out there, like Sony. They don’t sound as good as the price would seem to indicate either. In the case of hearing aids musical quality is secondary but still, I think they’re over rated as far as musical quality goes for the money. I can’t help but think that these features could be compatible with any noise canceling buds but will of course will only work with AirPods.

But no denying the hearing aid features are pretty awesome, and will make purchasing very worth while for many people.

Re:This will be an interesting experiment

[Guspaz]

They're not meant to be one-size-fits-all, that's why they include multiple sizes of tips, and include a fitment check in the software. There are also foam tips that can provide a tighter seal than the included silicone tips.

Likely to require an iPhone

[timeOday]

I bought some airpod pro's eager to try out Conversation Boost but it requires an iPhone - not just to configure that mode but constantly to use it. So, I returned them.

Re:Likely to require an iPhone

[soxfan]

You were surprised by this? It IS Apple after all, nothing comes as a standalone product.

So how much noise reduction?

[Mspangler]

The specs say it exists, but not a db rating. It should be listed like this.

"They have a noise reduction rating (SNR) of 24 decibels, NRR of 14..."

Re:So how much noise reduction?

[thegarbz]

Active noise cancellation doesn't get an NRR rating since it doesn't work in that way. It can for example almost completely eliminate a recurring tone while utterly failing to dampen the sound of an impulse (e.g. gunshot) in the slightest. Any NRR number you get wouldn't be reflective of e.g. a similar NRR number used for actual hearing protection.

I’m a bit surprised

[hdyoung]

Given the latency of airpods (120ms range). Hearing aids are typically in the few 10s of ms.

Re:I’m a bit surprised

[willy_me]

Latency for playing sounds or latency of the noise cancellation? I assume this task does not require a connection to an adjacent phone. So long as the work is being done within the airpods, latency should be comparable to hearing aids.

Re:I’m a bit surprised

[timeOday]

Apparently so. According to this [applemust.com] the existing Conversation Boost function used the microphones in the buds, not from the phone:

Conversation Boost makes use of the beam-forming microphones packed inside the AirPods Pro..

The difference between Conversation Boost and Live Listen is that the latter turns your iPhone into a remote microphone that takes audio it picks up and sends it to your AirPods Pro.

So, Conversation Boost is (from airpods perspective) basically a negative amount of noise cancellation. Noise cancellation obviously requires extremely low latency and doesn't / can't go over bluetooth to the phone.

Re:I’m a bit surprised

[llamahunter]

I use airpod pros in pass-thru mode. There is _very_ low latency. The latency _has_ to be low in order for noise canceling to work, too.

Re:I’m a bit surprised

[tlhIngan]

Given the latency of airpods (120ms range). Hearing aids are typically in the few 10s of ms.

The 120ms is basically Bluetooth delay. All bluetooth audio devices have it.

AirPods have built in microphones so I expect the real delay to be much lower since it's going to be processed locally and not require a phone.

And this would be interesting, since real hearing aids are like $5000, and if you want Bluetooth, here's a gigantic ugly box for $500. AirPods are well under $500 and do the same thing. I can't imagine the hearing aid industry would take that lying down. Especially insurance providers who may start demanding people use AirPods instead of the other guys due to cost.

Re:I’m a bit surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget to add $900 for the cost of the iPhone itself. iPhones account for 60% of sales in the US but only 30% worldwide. I doubt my insurance provider is going to purchase an unlocked iPhone just for me to use Airpods as hearing aids.

Re:I’m a bit surprised

[SuiteSisterMary]

My dude, you know how I know you haven't actually bought hearing aids?

Mid level hearing aids are maybe 1500 bucks, Canadian, and have had bluetooth built into the (very slim) behind the ear component for years.

Love, a guy that uses hearing aids. I love the idea of finally being able to use in-ear buds with hearing aid features, but they're likely not going to replace completely my actual hearing aids, if for no other reason than my aids will run for days on a tiny fuel cell battery, which can be replaced in seconds.

So much for the conspiracy theories

[thegarbz]

The comment on the previous story didn't age very well https://science.slashdot.org/c... [slashdot.org] apparently some cartel of hearing aid manufacturers would use their bought and paid for corrupt FDA to prevent Apple from getting approval.

I'm shocked that yet another up-voted conspiracy nutbag on Slashdot was wrong. Shocked I tell you!

Re:So much for the conspiracy theories

[Narcocide]

Well, there was fair evidence of that happening some years back, but the conspiracy angle on this one has gotten somewhat stale. As I understand it, the government stepped in maybe about 5-10 years back and started forcing them to let anyone sell hearing aids around the time when they stopped forcing you to have a prescription for them.

Butis it covered

[rossdee]

by your insurance?
Medicare doesn't cover hearing aids

Re:Butis it covered

[echo123]

by your insurance?
Medicare doesn't cover hearing aids

On August 30, 2017, Harris announced at a town hall [wikipedia.org] in Oakland that she would co-sponsor Senator Bernie Sanders's "Medicare for All" bill, supporting single-payer healthcare, which was met with record support in Congress. In May 2023 Senator Bernie Sanders reintroduced the "Medicare for All" bill.

Under Mr. Sanders' bill [beckershos...review.com], the Medicare eligibility age would be lowered in stages over four years to eventually encompass all U.S. citizens. The program would begin covering dental, vision and hearing aids for those not eligible under current law, and Part A and B deductibles would be eliminated, as would premiums and copays, with some exceptions for prescription drugs.

It would be illegal for commercial payers and employers to sell or offer policies that duplicate benefits provided under a single-payer system, and individual states would be permitted to offer additional benefits.

Re:Butis it covered

[Tony Isaac]

I know, right! The equipment is so expensive that it requires insurance to pay for it!

Will it be supported on Android?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you be able to configure them with an Android device?

Re:Will it be supported on Android?

[Tony Isaac]

I'm not sure there's a market for this. Android users generally choose Android because they do *not* want Apple products.

There are plenty of hearing aid options for Android users, that aren't made by Apple. https://www.hearingtracker.com... [hearingtracker.com]

Re: Will it be supported on Android?

[mrthoughtful]

That indicates very poor marketing: To sell a product because customers don't want an alternative is never going to be a USP. If I were not going to have an iPhone, my choice would be a pure linux phone - not android. Google is an advertising company - and, in my books, advertising correlates to distortion of facts motivated by financial gain -> dishonesty -> evil (especially so when public education does not teach critical thinking throughout the curriculum). Apple is, meanwhile, a 'luxury tech' company - where profits are based upon perceived value through superiority of design; one could argue that the design/fashion is evil too - but, for me, it is far less obnoxious than advertising. Why do I not have a linux phone? I probably will one day soon - but we need to see a toehold in desktops before considering phones, IMO.

Re: Will it be supported on Android?

[Tony Isaac]

I don't follow. How does this indicate poor marketing?

Apple offers an expensive, premium product. Android offers more affordable options. Marketing to people who don't want to pay for a premium product is not, as far as I can see, poor marketing.

You are clearly not a typical customer, as evidenced by the fact that pure Linux phones have a market share far less than 1%.

Apple is also an advertising company, they just don't want you to think so. https://www.fool.com/investing... [fool.com]

Re: Will it be supported on Android?

[mrthoughtful]

Being cheaper is definitely a good approach to marketing - but your post didn't say that: you said 'not being apple' was the reason to buy android. Being expensive and being apple are two different things: there are iphones which are not (so) expensive and there plenty of non-apple phones which are expensive. Android is a closed source system being operated by a company who holds a monopoly on its services. If you read the article you posted, the argument for apple being an advertising company is pretty weak, and does nothing to put google into the light: Apple receives Google payouts to ensure that google is the default home page on Safari. So Apple's foray as an 'advertising company' totally depends upon accepting huge sums from Google. While the 'premium listing' aspect of the appstore isn't particularly savoury, neither does it represent a key activity of Apple: they could remove it entirely and wouldn't even notice. So android is cheap and apple is expensive - but both are closed, commercial products controlled by two of the largest companies on the planet. I was pointing out that, once Linux/FOSS can stabilise its front-end, mobiles might (at last) become hardware platforms rather than blended composites.

Re: Will it be supported on Android?

[Tony Isaac]

Most of us understand that "not being Apple" is shorthand for "not paying the Apple tax/premium." Yes, of course there are expensive Samsung smartphones, but literally *everything* else in the Android ecosystem is cheaper.

You are giving Apple way too much deference. Apple isn't "just" earning marketing revenue because Google pays for positioning. Apple itself has an advertising platform. https://www.emarketer.com/cont... [emarketer.com] They're nowhere near as big as Google, but they're expanding that business.

As for Linux phones, that will likely happen sometime after the Linux desktop reaches at least 4.78% market share, and that's a few months away at least, maybe a few years Here's the thing about Linux. It will never be "popular" on the desktop or on phones precisely *because* no one controls it. That means that there are way, way too many options for the typical consumer to understand or want to worry about. Google took Linux and transformed it into Android, making it the most successful descendent of Linux ever. Apple also took Linux and transformed it into its desktop OS, making it the second-most popular descendent of Linux ever. The key is, without commercial marketing muscle behind a Linux distro, it will never take over the desktop, or the phone..

Crossover for peripherals

[Anonymous Coward]

Earbuds are an accessory, hearing aids are their own discrete device. There is a lot of crossover here for this product and feature set.

Re:Will it be supported on Android?

[shilly]

Pretty sure the short answer is no.

Will it start being used as a superpower

[shilly]

I think there's an interesting question about whether this feature, and others like it, will start being used to augment human capabilities that are already in the normal range, to do things we could not normally do, like have a conversation in a really noisy environment (eg construction site). And if so, what uses will people find? (I'm not imaginative enough to really think this through)

Not all hearing loss is the same.

[speedlaw]

I have high end bluetooth HA. I can't use them for music as they are essentially tweeters to make up for for my high frequency loss-my mids and low are normal-the HA cannot produce bass at all, they aren't designed to. They don't sub for headphones despite the price. I end up using normal speakers in home or car or over ear headphones outside and use the HA to compensate, they also have a music program. I use a set of bose noise cancellers over the HA when on airplanes, and can listen to quiet classical or jazz even when in the "wrong" seats. I'm intrigued by this-if it truly passes through and adjusts correctly for the loss. The expensive HA with a audiologist are worth the money if you have it, although at this point like many other things you can do it at a lower price point and we are watching this happen in this space too. A set of AirPods properly compensating for hearing loss and boosting the correct areas only would not be a game changer, but would be a nice option to have.

hearing aid scam

[groobly]

Hearing aids are very very very very expensive. It's of course a scam. The scammers are now getting their comeuppance.