[ssdd]

Unfortunately, we live in a highly competitive/growth demanding times where companies chose to invest resources only on areas where they see good returns. This means that for-profit companies, like google, in long run would do far less than non-profit companies, like firefox,for special need audience.

[s73v3r_]

Wasn't their comment saying that just the opposite was happening? That for-profit Google was better at this than non-profit Mozilla?

[yorwba]

For-profit companies can also make a profit off a special need audience, if not directly then through good PR and not getting sued. So I'm not sure that Firefox will really have better accessibility in the long run.

[oDot]

Why is that unfortunate? If a company lack financial incentive to build something, means not many people want it, or the little that do don't want it enough

[chiefalchemist]

Or the ones that do want it enough don't have the means and the tools to de-marginalize themselves.

In this caae, I hope you're seeing the (sad and obvious) irony.

[oDot]

Even if all disabled people would have been poor, if there was enough of them, then relevant solutions would have emerged (similar to how cheap food came to be).

Disablities are unfortunate and sometimes sad. However, the way the market works is not. There are limited resources, and they are being distributed where the demand is highest.

[chiefalchemist]

Apple spent plenty of years doing what they felt was right, and not chase the highest demand.

On that example alone, I feel you're being short sighted.

Put another way, you're under the impression this is about people with special needs. Not at all. This is about people with special needs AND the people who believe they deserve the same "fair chance" the rest of us get. Not all of use are self-absorbed.

p.s. re: "similar to how cheap food came to be"

Seeing how this got us obesity and all the diseases that go with it, I'm not so sure you're model / mindset is the one that's ideal. Perhaps it's time to think more holistically?