No one's suggesting that people should be forced to go without.
Rather, the problem is that people are currently going without because hearing aids can cost as much as a used car. And the batteries - which do last longer, yes - are one-time-use instead of rechargeable.
Given the choice between recharging something in the middle of the day that costs $20 to a few hundred dollars, or theoretically having multi-day battery life with hearing aids that you can't afford, the former is an easy sacrifice to make.
> Unlike a phone, I wouldn’t say “close to a day’s usage” is acceptable for a product that allows a user to hear.
I wasn't suggesting that people only be allowed to hear for ten hours out of every twenty-four.
As noted in the sentence that followed that one you reacted to, I went on to write:
"Certainly two recharged pairs should see you through a day."
TFA, and parent, is about how danged expensive hearing aids <tm> are -- while parent is all about the alternative of 'hearphones' that are around US$500 (about 1/6th of what hearing aids cost in Australia).
Yeah, the price makes a huge difference. My grandmother was last quoted $10,000 for hearing aids in Australia, whereas at US $500 & no medical visits I could maybe buy one as a gift, if I could be convinced it would be moderately helpful & get semi-frequent use.
(I worry that the smartphone / bluetooth connectivity is too complicated for tech-averse elderly, and that the inline volume controls are too small for arthritic hands. But I like the idea and I love my own QC25s.)
