[nabs-l] Independence with a Price Tag

[David Andrews]

Joe:

No one likes expensive devices and software.  However, just objecting 
to the expense doesn't change what the company has to pay to develop 
and market a product.  A lot of the cost is in the marketing, sales, 
and support of a product -- if we could figure a way to bring those 
costs down, it might help.  The numbers also hurt us -- that is 
relatively speaking, it isn't a large market, so there just aren't 
economies of scale.  One of the most successful AT devices of all 
times is the Stream.  I don't know how many Humanware has sold, 
although I have heard in the 12,000 to 15,000 range, which seems 
about right t0o me.  Apple probably sells 100,000 iPods a month -- 
that is what I mean by economies of scale.

Can or should a company set up a financing program.  Well, it is 
nice, but easier to do for software, because the actual costs are not 
great, so you don't actually have to front money.  With hardware, the 
company has to actually build something -- which m4eans buying the 
parts etc.  So we generally just see financing of software by 
companies themselves.


I personally think the government should subsidize purchases, or the 
companies, to make things cheaper.  Otherwise I don't know how it will happen.

Dave

At 09:30 AM 2/3/2010, you wrote:
>Hi David,
>
>You're an excellent person to answer some of these questions, given your
>diverse background.  These are not challenges to your message.  Rather, I'm
>trying to get a better sense of the landscape.
>
>1. If you agree there are many people who cannot afford the technology they
>need, why is it unfair to criticize developers for maintaining high price
>tags for their products?  In your experience, is it completely unfeasible to
>ask companies to run a financing program similar to that GW Micro offers for
>its Window Eyes product?
>
>2. If the products are expensive to develop, why are consumers not receiving
>more for their investment?  This sounds like a contradiction in itself, but
>one would suppose that if updates and upgrades take time to release, why
>aren't releases aiming to compete with mainstream devices?  8 gigs of memory
>is appreciated and a long step from the previous capacity of Braille
>notetakers, but one could purchase a netbook with 20 times the capacity at
>20 times less than the cost of a Braille notetaker.
>
>To clarify, I am not making government agencies the enemy.  I am holding
>developers fully responsible for developing products that will largely be
>marketed to government agencies.  In an age where government employees have
>better computer systems at home than they do at work, it makes sense that
>government agencies are overlooking the fact that the technology they are
>dishing out thousands of dollars for is not meeting its full potential.  In
>a normal market developers would develop products according to the needs of
>the consumers.  Instead, we have a market where consumers can voice their
>opinions and hope that their feedback will be filtered through agencies like
>the IRS, who are primarily responsible for Freedom Scientific producing
>40-cell Braille displays.  Adaptive technology companies make large
>announcements about new products, get the customer base in a frenzy and
>count on this customer base to pressure agencies into purchasing the
>equipment.  There is something wrong with this picture.
>
>I appreciate the work developers have done to keep blind people in the loop.
>No one will deny that their products have made careers possible, but I think
>there needs to be a real voice from consumers that is heard and responded
>to.  The legislation concerning the technology bill of rights is one method,
>but here again we are relying on policymakers to act on our behalf.
>
>Given my background in professional fundraising, I would like to convene a
>team of people to help me approach companies about setting up a fund to help
>professionals obtain the technology they need to make their daily work
>possible.  Yet, I do not think this is the first priority.  Such a step
>would suggest we are okay with the current price structure and mostly lack
>of financing opportunities.
>
>Anyway, it's a rant, but I've already collected a score of personal stories
>from people who disagree with your opinion.  Nevertheless, you seem to have
>a well-rounded perspective on this issue and hope you can provide further
>insight.
>
>Joe Orozco
>
>"A man who wants to lead the orchestra must turn his back on the
>crowd."--Max Lucado
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org
>[mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of David Andrews
>Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 5:52 AM
>To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Independence with a Price Tag
>
>Max,  You are right in some of your conclusions -- but not in
>others.  You are right that there are many individuals who can't
>afford the technology they need or could use.
>
>However, you seem to be making the Assistive Technology developers,
>and government agencies the enemy.  This is not the case.  I have
>been on all sides of the fence, individual, technology developer, and
>work for a state agency.
>
>It is not like the defense industry, the government doesn't give
>manufacturers big open-ended, cost plus contracts.  Yes, they buy
>stuff, but at the going price, or in come cases less because they can
>negotiate discounts due to volume.  They are not the enemy here.
>
>Secondly, all this stuff is expensive to develop -- I suspect more
>then you realize.
>
>Yes, a way to help individuals acquire technology is needed, but the
>solution isn't to make the government, or developers your enemy.
>
>David Andrews
>
>At 10:45 PM 2/2/2010, you wrote:
> >Dear list,
> >
> >I'm continuously appalled at the price tags associated with adaptive
> >technology.  While you're in college you might receive
>assistance from your
> >rehab agency to purchase equipment.  You may get some
>assistance after you
> >find a job, but inevitably there comes a point when the expense comes
> >directly from your own pocket.  I wonder how many people have
>had to settle
> >for outdated technology because they simply cannot afford it.
>But, that's
> >the thing.  I'm only assuming there are tons of people who
>cannot afford
> >this technology.  I'd like to lead a campaign to call public
>attention to
> >this monopoly, and, I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether
>or not you
> >think me crazy.  If my assumption is wrong, I'll keep my views
>to myself.
> >If there is a high number of people unable to tap into
>emerging software
> >simply because they cannot pay for it, I'd like to hear from you.  I
> >understand the technology itself costs a lot of money to
>develop.  Yet, it
> >seems more of the price boost is owed to extravagant
>government contracts
> >that allow the few players to charge something like $6,200 for a device
> >that, despite its best advertisements, does not perform
>completely on par
> >with its mainstream counterparts.
> >
> >At this time I have only a vague idea for a strategy.  Yet
>it's something
> >I'm willing to build up if the need can be clearly identified.
> >
> >Looking forward to your input,
> >
> >Joe Orozco
> >
> >"A man who wants to lead the orchestra must turn his back on the
> >crowd."--Max Lucado
> >