4 ms·
In my opinion, the problem with technology that can help the blind see is the lack of a profit incentive, which means you can only buy from a few established p
by unix_fan 6y ago
In my opinion, the problem with technology that can help the blind see is the lack of a profit incentive, which means you can only buy from a few established players and no innovation is encouraged, while prices remain astronomical. As it stands, I already pay a lot more for products I need, especially since I don’t have any government assistance. It’s what I like to call the “blind tax“. not everyone can afford to pay it. As such, it’s better to wait for general consumer devices with accessibility features like the iPhone, which is far more affordable than a braille note taker, for example. The potential market that could afford something like this, is pretty small.
I hope technology like this eventually becomes available for those of us living in developing countries.
- User23 6y agoA good example of this is the absolutely exorbitant prices charged for low vision CCTVs and similar equipment. I assume this is because the sellers are mainly targeting state aid agencies so they can get those juicy tax funds.
- dbcurtis 6y agoI suspect it is more just volume and support costs. There really isn’t much government financial support at all for the vision impaired, outside of the Veteran’s Administration system. A friend and I looked at doing a tech product for the vision impaired. The business case just didn’t pencil out, mainly because of TAM.
- ROARosen 6y agoI didn't see anything about pricing, are you referring to this specific item or in general?
- zdragnar 6y agoNot op, but it is true in general. The challenge is volume; with a small market, there isn't much motivation to struggle to stay in business selling at low margins. Also, since these may be considered accessibility devices but not medical devices, insurance May not cover a lot of things that ought to be considered essential.
- markvdb 6y agoThe profit motive is everywhere in the medical sector, and that is a bad thing. Even if you believe in free markets, it's not easy to get the best care. To stay cose to the eye as a subject, look at vitreomacular adhesion. Roughly two possible treatments: - costly and complicated eye surgery - substantially simpler ocriplasmin [0] injections In many cases where ocriplasmin looks like it could be the perfect solution, it isn't even considered. Could that have something to do with the surgeon's incentives alignment? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocriplasmin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocriplasmin
- ghufran_syed 6y agoAn analogous problem in drugs seems to have been effectively addressed by the Orphan Drug act (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Drug_Act_of_1983 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Drug_Act_of_1983) Sounds like maybe there needs to be something similar for medical devices?
- salawat 6y agoThis is the issue with most small population medical research, or research that's worthwhile but by policy difficult to commercialize. "Sucks to be you" tends to be every non-sufferer's response.
- mschuster91 6y ago> It’s what I like to call the “blind tax“. not everyone can afford to pay it. The other thing is that devices sold as "medical devices", unlike "general consumer devices" have (for good reasons) pretty strict regulatory schemes across the world, which means that their development and maintenance costs a lot more money.
- ausbah 6y agothe related term with drug development is "orphan drug". drugs designed to treat rare medical conditions that are not developed due to lack of profit incentive