[nfbcs] NVDA product question

[George]

Yes, Aaron, I totally agree with you.

Tim's thinking is not convincing and it's too much centered on affairs of 
the blind, leaving aside a big reality.

For example,
> Do we
> welcome it simply because the recipients are people with a disability?

Not at all. These philanthropic efforts have been made for many centuries in 
other areas, too. Just think of Lion's Club, Mother Theresa, etc. History 
shows us many philanthropic actions made by kings and rich people, in art, 
for example, a rich madam supported Beethoven and now we have his music.
So there's nothing wrong with the fund model they chose for NVDA and, in 
fact, I think it's the most appropriate one for such an enterprise.
It's a growing trend nowadays, when many people try to help each other. We 
can't deny all this efforts without disregarding today's reality. Like 
wikipedia, there are many projects and they are very useful, not only to the 
blind, and they are based on donations. Saying that all these projects have 
a weaker base is absolutely wrong, I think. Companies also go out of 
business.
Being blind doesn't require to stick to a business model.

George

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Aaron Cannon via nfbcs" <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
To: "Gary Wunder" <gwunder at earthlink.net>; "NFB in Computer Science Mailing 
List" <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: [nfbcs] NVDA product question


>I think the reason we haven't seen more arguments with Tim's article
> is that, frankly, his main points are hard to track.  I can't complain
> too much though, as I suspect that he writes much more clearly than I
> do. :)
>
> As for what he says about NVDA:
> "The work that the developers of NVDA have done is exceptional. On a
> small budget they have developed a really good product and have
> provided a free screen reader to many thousands of people around the
> world who couldn't previously afford one, especially in developing
> countries. Their technical skills and dedication are to be applauded;
> however, I have a problem with the funding model they have chosen.
> Philanthropic funding is at best a fragile beast, and it often doesn't
> extend to covering services like training and support, which can be
> the most important components of accessibility (especially in
> education). The bigger issue of equity and why we accept such a
> fundamental right as access to a computer to be at the whim of
> philanthropic generosity should be of tremendous concern. Do we
> welcome it simply because the recipients are people with a disability?
> Why is this particular group of people not worthy of a business model
> that guarantees standards of support, service, and viability? The
> developers of NVDA need investors, not handouts."
>
> Perhaps my brain just isn't working right this morning, but I am
> having a hard time following his objections to NVDA.  If I understand
> it right, he is saying that the funding model for NVDA is fragile, so
> we shouldn't trust it.  He also seems to be arguing that it's based on
> charity, and so beneath us, and besides, it doesn't allow for user
> support and training.
>
> If this is correct, I remain unconvinced.  NVDA support is available
> from various organizations, for a fee.  Jaws users, on the other hand,
> end up also paying for support, but they do so up front, whether they
> need it or not.
>
> Training is also available for a fee, but that's certainly not unique
> to NVDA.  Jaws does come with some training materials, but similar
> materials are also available for free for NVDA.
>
> I agree that NVDA funding is more fragile than we should like, but
> much of what we the blind rely on is philanthropic in nature.  And, if
> one source of funding dries up, another one is found.  And anyway, I
> don't see traditional sources of investment funding being
> substantially more reliable than philanthropic ones.
>
> Investors/donors come, and investors/donors go, and organizations
> either find new ones, figure out a way to due without, or fail.  So
> far, NVAccess seems to have been able to find new ones when needed.
>
> Consider what would happen if FS and NVAccess went under, and all the
> developers moved on to bigger and better things (or at least things
> that would provide them with a paycheck).  Jaws would be gone.  You're
> already installed copies would probably work, but there would be no
> way to install the full version on new machines.
>
> NVDA, on the other hand, would still be available.  Not only would it
> still be available to install, but it would be available to improve,
> fix, and whatever else someone wanted to do with it, within the bounds
> of the GPL license.  It's even possible that a new group of developers
> would come along and keep the project going.
>
> In short, Jaws belongs to FS.  NVDA belongs, in a very literal sense,
> to everyone.  I'd much rather see money invested into something I own
> than into something I don't.
>
> That's all for now.
>
> Aaron
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbcs mailing list
> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfbcs:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/osocalmo%40yahoo.co.jp