Hold on there...Yes, Cochlear's processing strategy can be little dated but it is still good! And it will get better with newer processor's features! One example, Cochlear is awaiting FDA approval for new software(SCAN) with improved noise software that is comparable to AB ClearVoice! Plus, I heard that Cochlear Freedom implant and CI500 implant have more RAM than older generation but that about it.. See, there is always room for improvement.
Now, you mentioned that Cochlear cant accept upgrade in the future. With Cochlear, YES you can! Cochlear always give out processor upgrade no matter how old the implant is. 5, 15, 30 years ago, thats fine.. Cochlear will still support it! Nucleus 22(1985-1998ish) users will able to get Nucleus 6 processor in Spring 2015. Thats why Cochlear have a neat slogan called "Hear now And always" Because they are committed to keep supporting all Cochlear branded implant. Can your AB upgrade your CI for life? IMO, I dont think so.. Not after what happen with AB Clarion upgrade fiasco. Clarion 1.0/1.2 users CANNOT get Naida upgrade! If they want Naida upgrade, then they have to go through another surgery to remove old C1 implant and replace with Hires90K implant. Few people already done that. Anyway.. I dont SEE any type of lifelong commitment from AB. I dont care how advanced it is as long it get the job done. What is the point of having advanced hardware if AB not willing to support that long? Thats why I went with Cochlear.
Your post reflects a common lack of understanding of Cochlear's and AB's technology and their differences.
Front-end features like SCAN are not substitutes for advanced processing strategies like AB's and Med El's. They do nothing to change the actual hearing happening inside your head. Your processing strategy is the same. SCAN is simply a combination of front-end features and it is not a given that users will want to use it as some will find it to interfere with their hearing. You can count on both Med El and AB offering similar front-end features, which takes away any perceived marketing advantage Cochlear hopes to have by rolling out SCAN.
What was meant by Cochlear not being able to do future upgrades was in reference to the processing strategies, not external processors. The design of the array is very simple compared to AB and Med El. The perfect example is while AB and Med El can direct current deeper into the Cochlea to expand the low frequencies, Cochlear will never be able to do this. No processor upgrade or even any possible new strategy will not make this possible.
Referring to Clarion users is a common approach for Cochlear users when arguing against AB. You cannot compare Cochlear's history with AB's. The Clarion recipient-base is a very small population compared to the HI Res 90 K base. The reason Clarion users have been unable to use either the Neptune or Naida is their power consumption needs are too high. They could not use either of the newer processors without an unreasonable number of battery changes throughout the day.
The technology behind the Hi Res 90K has been kept for a number of internal implant generations at this point, which is exactly the same as what Cochlear has been doing. The difference is Cochlear is only able to offer backwards compatibility because they have essentially been doing the same thing as selling a X486 PC running Windows 3.1 all along all for the purpose of running the same software. They then market this backwards compatibility as "technology" when it is actually stagnation. AB could have done exactly the same with the Clarion array, but chose to design an advanced device that would have much more capability going into the future. This kept the user-base for the original array design small. Cochlear will have to do this sooner or later and yes, this will leave behind multiple generations of users who will be unable to run the processing strategies that Cochlear offers to users of a more advanced array than what they have offered for going on 3 decades now.
There is something to be said for running old technology. There was software that I loved that I wish I could still run on my new computer, so I certainly understand the perspective of a Cochlear user. It's good software and you are happy with it. However, most of the time the gains from advanced technology outweigh the loss of being able to run old software that we developed a nostalgic attachment to.
The situation with Clarion users is unfortunate, but AB had to move on to a new array that would provide a lot of wiggle room for technology and power consumption. They simply could not be locked down to an initial design. They needed to provide an array they could realistically support for multiple decades and not be hampered by the design.
