[Rwp] Cost debate [was: OSARA, an open-source ReaAccess replacement in development]

[James Teh]

I was going to try to stay out of this, but...

On 5/02/2015 5:33 AM, Jim Snowbarger via RWP wrote:
> Remember the controversy I sparked when I commented on one person's  remark that he didn't feel that he should have to pay for his blindness?
> Who then, I wondered, should.  Everybody else?
While I agree with this for the most part--there are far too many who 
think the world owes them a living--there are some who literally cannot 
afford to pay for, say, a commercial screen reader. However, without the 
tools to access the world, how can we expect these people to do their 
bit to contribute to society (as every person should)? Perhaps these 
people could give so much to the world if only they had the tools they 
needed. This is why NVDA exists.

Yes, the commercial screen reader companies have bills to pay, and yes, 
this is a very small market. But I can tell you that we've developed 
something that, if I do say so myself, is a pretty strong competitor and 
we've done it at a fraction of the cost.

> When you look at what Jamie and partners have accomplished with NVDA, and look at how much revenue they have raised from the blind community, I bet you would have to conclude that it is HUGE charity.  If it weren't fror the grants, they'd be screwed.
We're certainly a charity and we do get grants. In addition, we actually 
receive a reasonable amount of donations from the community. But we also 
have contracts for which we perform specific work (on NVDA and 
otherwise), just like commercial vendors. We're also working on other 
sources of revenue: support partnerships, third party products, etc. 
You're absolutely right: we're by no means as sustainable as we'd like 
to be, far from it. However, we've still been around now for 7 years and 
the lights aren't out just yet. Furthermore, everything we do is open 
source, so if we fail, someone else has a chance to take up where we 
left off. It's true that the likelihood of this happening is low, but at 
least there's a *chance*, however slim.

At the end of the day, my point is this: those who can pay their way 
should. But some can't, and those should still have the chance to 
contribute to a better world, not be blocked just because they can't 
access the technology that people without disabilities take for granted.

Jamie

-- 
James Teh
Email/MSN Messenger/Jabber: jamie at jantrid.net
Web site: http://www.jantrid.net/
Twitter: jcsteh