£337.00 to update my PC Screenreading software #jaws

Good morning,

I have just got home from an enjoyable night at BBC Television Centre reviewing the #BBCPAPERS (Not quite sure why I would use a hash tag in a blog but there you go).

I have just logged on to the internet to look at updating my screen reading software (Jaws for Windows) - the software that allows me to access my Windows PC since I cannot see the screen.

Now I'm a big believer in paying for software rather than banjaxing it - and if you're not, well then you're very naughty - but I can certainly see why blind and severely visually impaired computer users may be tempted to be naughty in this regard when you consider the AMAZING cost of doing nothing more than being able to use your computer like anyone else.

Let me put some meat on the bones here. I currently own Jaws for Windows 12 Professional - purchased for me under the government's Access to Work Scheme - but this software belongs to me personally. I have already had an update approved by the excellent Access to Work Scheme costing £169.00 to update to Jaws for Windows 13 - and the advantage of the update is better access to PDF files. I think my own contribution to this is about £50 - but since I have not got round to doing this in the last few months, I note that Jaws 14 is now out which offers better accessibility for Windows 8.

My gob was truly smacked when I entered my details and was quoted £337.00 to update the software. That's £169.00 to update to version 13 and another £169.00 to update to version 14.

I would be really interested if you could tell me, does that seem fair?

I am a huge fan of Jaws by Freedom Scientific - but I do feel that you (yes, I know you media monitor) are taking the micky BIG time. It is staggering that as an existing licensee - of a product that costs about £1,000 GBP by the way that I should not only have to pay £169 to update - but because I've missed an update, you want me to pay £337.00 - that's OVER a third of the software's value.

So how do they get away with it?

Well simply - it's fair and right that Freedom Scientific need to charge to develop their product. There is a supply and demand situation going on here where Freedom Scientific would surely argue that since Jaws has a limited market place, they need to charge more to continue providing valuable updates.

Nonsense!

Yes, there is a limited market place for Jaws - but we should bear in mind that it is the benchmark product around the world, beating by far rival products, in my own view, such as Window Eyes and Hal. I think Hal still exists.

But however you cut the cake - they're making a lot of money - and good luck to them on that endeavour I say... but their success in high charging depends on schemes like Access to Work, and Disabled Student's Allowance for Students paying for the software and updates. One might say fine, well they can afford it. I question this logic since quite rightly, Access to Work would want to satisfy themselves that there is a real Business Case for updating to newer versions. And they should be cost aware because it is taxpayers money - but what about all those people who aren't in work?

What about all those people whoa re trying desperately to find a job and can't afford to spend out fortunes?

Well actually, in mitigation of Freedom Scientific, they could run a free 40 minute demo version of Jaws and keep restarting their PC for limited access - but it's not really practical to do so.

And what about me?
Well I'll end up contributing £50 to update to version 13 - and then I'll probably spend £169 on top of that to update to version 14. Why? Because the product is head and shoulders better than any other product out there.....

BUT - and listen up Freedom Scientific.... it's not fair and these glory days are numbered.

Last year, I bought a MacBook Pro for £1,000 - the same cost as the Jaws Professional software on it's own - only for that you get a MACBOOK PRO with all sorts of bundled software AND a built in screen reader called VoiceOver.

No, VoiceOver's not as good as Jaws - but it's dam good. It is a bit odd to use for traditional Jaws users like me because it interacts differently with the screen, but it does let you write, view and edit documents - surf the net - read your emails and write / compose new ones. In fact it pretty much lets you do most things. It's not as responsive as Jaws but I say again, it's DAM good.

So as Apple races against it's own impeccable record of making their products universally accessible - and as they weak and improve their costless access technology, Freedom Scientific and Jaws for Windows are clawing on to a quickly passing era of exploiting disabled customers for every last penny of their savings - or in most cases, taxpayers money.

In this writer's opinion - the end users experience will not suffer through lack of excessive funding. Apple and others have got money - and that money combined with a strong sense of corporate responsibility means Freedom Scientific will have to shape up, or ship out!

....
Post Script - Apologies to regular political content seekers. I know this is a subject that verges on the technical blindy related - but I do feel it offers a genuine insight in to the outrageous practice of some at the expense of the most vulnerable.

yes FS will get my money - but not everyone has silver to cross their palms with.

Evening all.

The Evil Sandy Hook Massacre: We need to talk about Guns

Anyone who didn't shed more than a few tears for the poor children of Sandy Hook would not be human. I was one of them - and I'm not driven to too many tearful moments.

In the UK, we have strict gun control - but things are different in the States and ultimately it is for the people of the USA to have the debate and consider the implications of repealing the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.

But now, some nearly five days later, I feel compelled to write a quick piece. On Friday, I tweeted my genuine disgust that many people, here in the UK particularly were debating gun control on the day of this evil massacre.

Perhaps my view is the unusual one since many were talking US gun control.

But I was deeply personally hurt when a tweeter attacked me personally, saying "@seandilley shoots and has vested interests".

That tweeter has apologised, and I have accepted that apology - but words cannot describe how sick I felt, to the very pit of my stomach that I have some kind of vested interest in the evil murder of poor innocent children. Clearly I do not.

I thank @skynewsniall - Niall Paterson for defending my own position by telling that tweeter "that's not true!"

No one could surely have a vested interest in that.

The tweeter concerned was quite right that I have been clay pigeon shooting on many occasions. I am blind so do this with the aid of a sighted spotter and it's both a really fun sport and an excellent tactile experience. I personally don't think that has any bearing on US gun control or can possibly indicate any "vested interest" but I'll let you decide on that point.

On the more general point of gun control - the debate the people of the United States now need to have is firstly whether to re-instate the Federal Automatic Gun ban that existed between 1994 and 2004 - but was not renewed when it expire. This would outlaw guns like the .223 that was reportedly used, or the very popular AR15 - the consumer version of the M16 you might have seen in films.

The Federal consideration must come before any local or State law since only Federal Law applies in every State. Individual States must then consider their own laws - for instance, whether they wish to restrict or ban gun ownership or sales.

I am not American, so I have absolutely no interest "vested" or otherwise in what the good people of the United States, who are by the way grieving for their lost children right now, do about gun control - but the Constitution is quite clear. The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is the Right to Bear and Keep Arms. The notion being to repel an oppressive government.

This is important to many Americans - and I believe 80% would need to have a very dramatic change of heart if the US Constitution were to be changed.

In short... it is highly unlikely that any efforts to change gun law would be overturned by the US Supreme Court. I am not taking a position on this - I'm just stating the facts.

Another subject which will surely come up, and incidentally, to the horror of many around the world, and the support of others (it's an emotive topic), the subject of routine arming for school teachers will surely now come up.

To quote Mr President Obama "We have been through this too many times!"

I want again to relate this to the UK. We have (most would argue rightly) one of the toughest firearms restrictions in the world.

Handguns are banned in the UK save for an authority in Service of the Crown (Army / Police etc) or a Section 5 Exemption Certificate as per the Firearms Act 1968 - with handguns being added to the list of "Prohibited Weapons" in 1997 after our own tragic massacre.

But the UK's automatic weapon ban came in, I believe in 1988 in the Firearms Act Amendment 1988 following Michael Ryan's evil massacre in Hungerford.

So in point of fact, it really would be odd in the extreme for anyone to link what we do in the UK with what happens in the US in any way shape or form.

My own professional judgement on US gun control and the likely barriers and status of the Constitution is not then based on my own views (which are not stated here, or indeed would be at all important) but my background as a political journalist and historian by study only,

Will we see a firearms ban in America? NEVER - do I support this position? Not really. I take the view that it's the American people only who are entitled to form a view.

Would I like to see handguns freely available in the UK, or indeed automatic weapons? Not at all.

Do I have a vested interest in supporting the gun lobby in America? Absolutely not.

One thing I think we can all agree on however is that the debate needs to be had by our friends in America, and I'm sure if we could help them in any way... we would.

No judgements (either way).