Eric.Bohlman@p1.f778.n115.z1.fidonet.org (Eric Bohlman) (04/26/91)
Index Number: 15232
JM> When I questioned how come things for the disabled is more expensive, I
JM> was told it was because the volume they sell isn't that great, so they
JM> cannot mass produce it. I also think they are pricing things too high
JM> is because they have the people over the barrel. These people need the
JM> equipment so they pay the extra money. This is just a small
The mass production argument is getting more and more inexcusable what with
the existence of inexpensive stand-alone computers, cheap microcontroller
boards, X-10 home control modules, and the like. Too many manufacturers in
the adaptive equipment field want to design everything from scratch instead of
using commercially available equipment as components in their systems. Part
of this is the "not invented here" syndrome that affects all American
manufacturing; part of it is the notion that if it were "easy" to do, someone
else would do it (what ever happened to the notion that competition is
something to be dealt with rather than prevented) and part of it is just not
keeping up with what's going on out there. For example, 10 years ago the idea
of an adaptive device based on an XT-type computer would have been totally
impractical; you'd have been using one $10000 computer as a peripheral for
another one. Now that XTs cost under $500, it makes a lot more sense to build
your device around one than it does to sink $50000 into the design and
development of the "brains" of an adaptive device. The custom development
approach would still be better if you were talking about a product that would
sell in the hundreds of thousands, but most adaptive equipment isn't like
that. While a particular system might never be mass-produced, that doesn't
mean that you can't take advantage of existing mass production as much as
practical.
The second problem is that a lot of adaptive equipment manufacturers would
rather deal with agencies than end users. Apparently they think that this
will hold down their marketing costs because they can concentrate on a few
customers rather than many. What they don't realize is that the way the
agencies do business creates marketing costs of their own. For example, most
agencies greatly value the idea of "one-stop shopping": get the computer,
software, peripherals and adaptive devices all from the same manufacturer.
They tend to be in love with service contracts, and like to deal with as few
vendors as possible. They are impressed by expensive presentations at
conventions. They take their time paying for equipment that they purchase.
The nature of their funding is such that having a few "showcase" clients who
get a lot of expensive equipment (while others are told that there's no money)
benefits them more than having a lot of clients who end up with less
impressive, but workable, solutions.
All this results in a distortion of the producer/consumer relationship that
paralyzes the normal laws of supply and demand. The manufacturer starts to
view his customer as the agency rather than the end user, and starts to market
products based on their appeal to the people who will recommend them to others
rather than the people who will use them. Societal attitudes start to get
involved: the "professional" who racks up long hours listening to other
"professionals" and advertisers talking about what people with disabilities
"need" gets believed more often than the end user, whose only knowledge of his
particular disability comes from living with it (after all, to a bureaucrat,
if it isn't on paper somewhere, it doesn't exist). The average member of the
public thinks that only a very fortunate few people with physical or sensory
disabilites have the mental capability to know what will work for them.
The result of all of this is that a manufacturer who wants to deal exclusively
in adaptive equipment can only survive if he caters to institutions rather
than individuals. On the other hand, the manufacturer who's involved in some
other areas, and decides to make adaptive equipment PART of their business, is
likely to be able to make good money by providing a product that fills a need
at a price its customers can afford. In the area of blindness products, a lot
of the best screen-reader programs and voice synthesizers are provided by
"sideline" businesses. In the area of input accommodations, I can tell you
about two companies that make software to allow users to use a trackball or
other pointer device to input characters. Company A is a well-known maker of
communicators for the non-vocal; Company B provides a diverse range of
software (primarily development tools for programmers) of which adaptive
software is just one part. A's program costs $700 and uses up 220K of
memory. B's program costs $400 and uses 60K. A is always present at
conventions and puts a lot of money into getting its name known with
agencies. B puts out a few ads in publications, and runs a BBS where
potential customers can download demonstration versions of their products.
Company B can afford to do this because the resources they need to develop
adaptive software are the same ones they need to develop mainstream software.
When you're talking about software development, the upfront costs to develop
something that will sell in the hundreds is almost the same as the cost to
develop something that sells in the tens of thousands. If a manufacturer
decides to do both, the upfront cost is almost the same as if they decided to
do only the latter, and it can be spread out.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!115!778.1!Eric.Bohlman
Internet: Eric.Bohlman@p1.f778.n115.z1.fidonet.org