A petition asking Apple to consider discounts for people with disabilities.

It’s not charity. Especially if it’s subsidized. These corporations don’t care where their money comes from. And no one would look down on blind or disabled for utilizing a discounted price. Anyone would take advantage of a discount. Everyone. Does anyone look down on a person for using coupons?

of course ask for a discount by all means, you don't need rationale for it, the only rationale you need is you're worth it. everybody wants a deal, the rich want privileges from their titanium world and american express centurion, the truly miserable want cash handout, and everybody in between. if you go to a store and the sales says since you are blind, i'll get you this for $900 instead of $1000, would you balk on it? i take it with no hesitation.

and among the worse thing I've seen on this website, honest opinion.
As somebody said above, istead of that, we should aim at better emploiment and education opportunity, not thrive endless cycles of self justified laziness (this comment is especially for western audience).
Canada, at least through CNIB, has phone it forward, if truely family / friend circle can't get somebody a phone. And I am not minimizing the importance for minimum tech device in the hands of maximum blind people as possible, I know this is very very important.
Also, career plan can help.
I came from Inndia so can understand very much such thing would be a life changer for many. Again seemingly everywhere outside Punjab (roughly) things are getting very good for us. Funding aside, I think the broader problem in my home province especially is the old school culture about disability. Some segment manage it better than others.

are there conflicts between better employment/education and advocating for discount?

I hope apple will create more job Opportunity for Disability more than giving discounts

While I am all for better employment opportunities for the disabled. And I do not only mean blind disabled, but anybody with any disability, especially where One is discriminated against employment because of said disability. This is a problem we have in the US. Sure, there's all sorts of programs to get us educated, so that we can be a 'hireable candidate', but getting employers to actually look beyond our disability and hire us, is a different beast entirely. Compound that with the current trend of résumé farmers that are, quite literally, flooding sites such as Robert Haft, LinkedIn, Monster, Indeed, and so on, with fake job postings which are designed to steal peoples identities, and you see why so many of us, "Westerners", are unemployed. Furthermore, you absolutely need one, sometimes two types of electronics in order to even be considered for employment. A phone, and a computer. Depending on the job and question, you may also need a dedicated broadband Internet connection as well. So, let's make that three electronics that are absolutely crucial for gainful employment.

Now, whine some more about why asking for a discount for disabled citizens to obtain some of these necessary electronics is such a bad thing. Really now, complaining about this, is like politicians complaining about disabled people being lazy and not wanting to work, yet making it nigh impossible to get a job, due to terrible hiring practices, and shady corporate policies. 🤨

Why? I can't understand this for a second. Why are you entitled to a discount because of disability. Just do what every other person has to do, either spend to buy the newest model out of your wages, and if that's not possible, buy used models just like everyone else has to.

Completely agree with you. We are not entitled to any kind of discount because we happen to be disabled. You know how many cases of people faking a disability would happen? And you know how many people can get fake doctors notes say that they’re disabled when they’re really not just to get a discount. Just would never work. This whole thing is just a bad idea and I will not be putting my name on it ever.

I'm not a fan of this idea. As others have stated before me, we do not deserve a quote unquote disability discount from brands like this. If we can't raise the funds to either buy the newest devices or purchase what we'd like, either refurbished or used, that's on us. It's not down to companies to pull out the pitty cards just because we're disabled. Screw that.

I am absolutely astonished by how people reason. You know that everything you have is based on somebody else’s efforts, right? The fact that you can even get on this website is based on somebody creating accessibility software that makes it possible. Even braille was created by a sighted person. You’re5 not as independent as you actually claim to be. That’s probably why there is no blind community. Every other community will take any discount. And that includes people that aren’t disabled. You want to make this about pride, then enjoy the lack of progress. while everybody else inches forward

Honestly, I'm of two minds on this issue. A government plan or deal with Apple, and other companies, to provide devices at a discount for the disabled sounds like a good idea to me, but for minors or those considered invalids. If your disability is lack of sight and *only* lack of sight, and you're an adult capable of working, I don't see any particular reason why any corporation should go out of their way to sell devices at a loss, A case could be made for developing countries, where such tech is difficult or impossible to come by otherwise, but again, wouldn't it make more sense for those same corporations to take the risk of investing in those countries as a whole, rather than the disabled segment of the population of those same countries? the money the disabled spend in those countries is the same. they have to live under the same economic conditions as their sighted peers.

Now, I could get behind the idea of providing disabled minors with necessary tech. After all, they are minors and the government's responsibility, one of them athe many responsibilities, is to make sure that the future workforce can actually work. This would, and should, be part of a broader push to get the disabled, no matter what the disability, into the workforce. Provide the necessary devices, provide the job training, and once those people are old enough there would be no excuse other than lack of initiative for people not to invest in their own devices bought with their own money. Of course, I have a double standard here; disabled-specific devices devices like Braille displays and the like should,, in my opinion, be subsidized by the government, at least the more expensive ones.

Duly noted. My contribution to this topic is at an end. Good day.

Ash, you might want to check your facts. Braille was invented by Louis Braille, a totally blind French student who was dissatisfied with but inspired by a code of dots designed for military use in the dark. We all go farther thanks to the accomplishments and efforts of others, so this whole drive for pure independence has always struck me as pretty stupid.
That being said, I don't think having a disability related discount would be altogether wise. Because we pay full price for devices from Apple, we have a much stronger place from which to complain about shortcomings and demand better. When the same company builds the accessibility tools that builds the product, the business case to invest in perfecting these tools is all the more critical. Were we to demand a discount because of not being able to use all of the millions of apps available, we would be forfeiting more of the moral high ground we stand on than many of us would realize.
I'm on a fixed low income and could certainly benefit from a discount. I never could have justified buying the Pro iPhone I'm typing this on. However, I would feel more confident over all in future accessibility improvements if I paid full price for a basic iPhone that I could afford thanks to two year repayment contracts. Had a number of generous readers of my book not stepped in, that would have been what I did a year or two from now. The previous and next editions would have been based on what I could gather from the experiences of other people rather than my own.
There are cetainly cases where a discount makes a lot of sense. The example of minors earlier in this thread is probably one of the best examples. This is really where society ought to step in rather than businesses themselves. There is such a thing as the greater good.

So here's my incoherent string of thoughts.
Michael Feir writes, "Braille was invented by Louis Braille, a totally blind French student who was dissatisfied with but inspired by a code of dots designed for military use in the dark."
The military dot code was invented by a sighted person, and Ash Rein's post has a kind of "standing on the shoulders of others" tone to it. Don't know if that is what Ash Rein intended, but that was my circle of thoughts.
The word "petition" used in the title of the thread bothers me for some reason I can't quite identify. Perhaps, petition has a hostile tone? An open letter to Apple, maybe?
If there were a disability discount for an iPhone through Apple, I probably would take it. Apple would want information about you in exchange, and bragging rights. They kind of already have that... Grocery stores give senior discounts and such without strings attached beyond the exchange of information with an ID with your birth date. I've experienced other ways of getting disability related equipment or resources that are much more intrusive and confining... That's the situation where I reject the discount or "free" merchandise for the blind.

This will not happen, nice thought but apple is all about money. You do not even see discounts for any of their products. Only on Amazon or other stores.I mean big discounts.

I'm reading through the comments here and I wanted to offer my opinion.

I'm not sure why it would be a good idea for Apple to get into the business of offering discounts to people with disabilities for all the reasons people mentioned above. All the overhead would be way too expensive. Besides, Apple is not a charitable organization. If Apple builds a superior product that is accessible, then it is up to the consumer to find a way to purchase said product. Last I checked, there are other accessible phones, watches, headphones, laptops, etc from other manufacturers at lower price points. If a consumer has a preference for one over another, it is the consumer's duty to figure out how to pay for it. As mentioned above, there are plenty of schemes out there designed for people with disabilities.

As mentioned above, there are plenty of refurbished Apple devices available for resale. I've seen iPhone 14 for sale around $200 USD. And please don't tell me that it is old technology. I read almost all the threads on Applevis and it seems to me that only a minority of people are using all the advanced features found on the latest devices.

I would be in favor of government agencies purchasing devices for their clients with disabilities for all the reasons mentioned above. If these agencies are able to negotiate bulk discounts for purchasing a large number of devices, well then good on them. If another party, such as a non-governmental agency wants to negotiate a bulk discount to purchase Apple devices and then sell them to qualified individuals at a discount, I would welcome that as well.

However, I strongly disagree that Apple has any obligation be it ethical, moral, or legal to offer discounts to anybody for any reason. If Apple wants to offer a discount to students, well, they can do that but certainly they are not obligated to do so. And as somebody pointed out, it is likely a hook to get them to become lifelong Apple consumers.

Hi,
Apple is not a charity, simple as that. There are lots of ways people can pay for an iPhone which have already been stipulated above. As for the question of unemployment, the laws regarding accessibility don't go far enough. I used to work in web accessibility as a tester, and there is a tonne of info and legislation available for making a website accessible, but virtually nothing about software. And let's face it, when you're in an office using a company's rubbishy inaccessible software they've bought, yep it's software, not a website, so no accessibility for you. You might get lucky and your company uses Google and Microsoft etc., but lots of workplaces use other systems for their processes, nothing to do with MS or Google. On Jonathan Mosen's Access On podcast, there was a very interesting segment from Amos Miller from Glide about how much of the software, or parts of the software he has to use for his job are actually inaccessible or very difficult to use with a screen reader. These were software packages ranging from HR management, project management, managing staff payroll, company stocks etc.. This is industry standard software that is used in the business world. There is virtually no legislation on making software accessible. Not only is there seemingly no legislation for software accessibility, but when you Google how to build an accessible app, there are way more resources out there for web development than software. Because of course, blind people only use the web right? We never need to use apps for project management, managing an employee's pay, accountancy, HR responsibilities, a company's stocks and shares etc. etc.. The lack of employment opportunities are for various governments to deal with, not Apple's. There should be more legislation and laws put in place that companies have to adhere to as regards software. If they make a certain turnover, they should be compelled to make their industry standard software accessible. But on the other hand, there are some blind people who have no interest in improving their knowledge of tech so they can improve their employment opportunities. Trust me, I've encountered a few people like that. If more blind people were employed, cost would be less of an issue. The only time blind people's tech should be subsidised is when it's specialised tech like braille displays and notetakers, JAWS etc., because it's more expensive than what the average sighted consumer has to pay. Apple's prices aren't that bad in the grand scheme of things, especially when you look at products like the Monarch and all this specialist blind tech. None of this stuff is Apple's problem. I'm glad I don't have to pay tripple for a specialist smart phone because Apple has made something I can actually use. I pay the same price as everybody else.

If Apple isn’t a charity, then voiceover should not be free for anyone. We should all be paying for it. Just like people pay for jaws. Similarly, Be My Eyes should not be free. We should be paying for that too. Similarly seeing AI should not be free. People should be paying for that as well. Similarly any navigation app that any blind person uses should not be free. We should be all paying for it. It’s silly because people are missing the point. It’s not so much about Apple lowering their cost. It’s more about Apple subsidizing their cost with government vouchers. And ultimately it needs to be something that is provided to blind people simply because they are on fixed income or low income. This is not going to change because you want to magically be hired. This will change because you have the tools and resources to be hired.

I am furious at the idea that anyone would go against something like this; Or anything that’s related.

And even if I was wrong about braille (I was not), what about the other million things that blind people didn’t create? Everything you use was based on somebody else’s “charity. “ because they were interested enough to think that you were and are worth caring about; to make an effort for.

Louis Braille was blind. The code itself was created by the French military captain named Charles Barbier. Again, do as you will. I’m tired of this.

Just for context, VoiceOver is not free is it? To access it you must buy the product, therefore Apple gets your money. Even if you bought a used product, someone had to buy it first, again Apple still got the money.
Why is it that blind people think they're entitled to all these things?
Blind people get disability benefits, buy your Apple products with that, if you can't afford it, buy used or use a different product.
Blind people are capable of work, so use wages, nobody said you had to have the latest iphone direct from Apple.
For you to have all these beautiful discounts, it'll just cost everyone else money, even governments wouldn't give you anything for free, it’s all tax money!!
I work, pay tax, and even before I did I found ways out of the money I got to buy the products I needed.
Its mental, and that's my genuine last comment because there's no other point to make anyway.

So let me get this straight: because VoiceOver is free, Apple’s a charity now? Please. By that logic, we should all be mailing Apple a check every time we open Safari since the browser “comes for free” too. Maybe charge extra to see your screen since the display is included in the box. And while we’re at it, want to change your keyboard language from English to Spanish? Pay up — clearly that’s a luxury feature. Or maybe you’d like to use Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or AirDrop — do you? Great, that’ll be another five bucks each. And don’t forget to pay when you restart your Mac; apparently that’s charity too.

VoiceOver isn’t charity. It’s part of the operating system you already paid for. Accessibility isn’t a favor — it’s infrastructure. Apple didn’t bolt it on out of kindness; they built it because accessibility is a legal and ethical standard. You don’t pay to see, you don’t pay to type, and you shouldn’t have to pay to access what you already own.

And the “government voucher” idea? That’s just a polite way of saying prove your disability before we’ll sell to you cheaper. That’s invasive, stigmatizing, and wide open to abuse. The second you turn disability into a discount tier, you stop treating people as equals and start categorizing them.

The “fixed income” line doesn’t hold either. The issue isn’t Apple’s price tag — it’s the lack of equal opportunity. A discount won’t fix employment barriers. You don’t fix inequality by pricing disability differently; you fix it by giving people a fair chance to earn equally.

And since we’re talking about “charity,” let’s look at reality. Accessibility isn’t born from pity; it’s born from persistence. The reason games get modded and made accessible isn’t because some dev felt sorry for blind people — it’s because players said, “We want in,” and someone listened. That’s not charity, that’s innovation.

You think Zoom added accessibility to their new Essential recorders out of sympathy? No — they did it because blind users buy their products. Because there’s demand. Because accessibility sells. That’s business, not benevolence.

Even right here on AppleVis — how many developers have updated their apps after feedback from blind users? You think they did that out of pity? No, they did it because they realized accessibility expands their audience. That’s market logic, not mercy.

Same with Braille. Charles Barbier didn’t invent his code as an act of charity, and Louis Braille didn’t sit around waiting for a handout — he took an existing idea and revolutionized it. That wasn’t someone “feeling sorry” for blind people; it was a blind inventor changing the world. Accessibility advances exist because of pressure, demand, and brilliance — not generosity.

And this “everything we use came from someone’s charity” take? Ridiculous. By that logic, every invention ever made — cars, computers, phones — is charity because someone else created it first. That’s not charity. That’s progress. Collaboration isn’t pity.

Accessibility exists so we don’t have to rely on charity. That’s the entire point — independence, equality, and respect, not corporate sympathy.

And being “furious” that people disagree doesn’t make the argument stronger. Volume isn’t logic. Passion’s fine, but if your point collapses under scrutiny — hint, it does — we’re finding that out right here, in real time.

Accessibility isn’t charity. Equality doesn’t come with a discount code.

From my point of view, this is still a bad idea. It would absolutely get abused, and it would single the blind community out even more. And if you open that door, you can’t stop at one group — if you give discounts to blind users, you have to extend that to every other disability category. That’s where the whole thing collapses, because you’re no longer promoting equality; you’re building separate lanes for every condition. Look at what happened with Disney when they used to give free fast passes to guests with disabilities — people faked it to skip lines, and the system was scrapped because of abuse. The same thing would happen here.

That’s not to mention the obvious: doing this would mean providing some form of proof that you’re disabled, and that’s not foolproof. If someone knows how, it can easily be faked. And even if it weren’t, this wouldn’t solve the main problem — the lack of employment and opportunity. It’s just putting a bandage over a bullet wound.

And there’s another consequence people aren’t thinking about. If Apple started giving discounts, They could easily say, oh yeah your already giving you discounts, we won't keep inovating. Discounts don’t motivate progress — demand and accountability do.

@danno5 I agree completely with your point of view. I’m not saying everyone in the blind community is like this, but some of the entitlement on display here is, frankly, embarrassing. The world isn’t going to revolve around you. You adapt to it, or you get left behind. That’s reality — and pretending otherwise just makes it worse for you, then again, your life, your choices, so if that's the way you want to go... Have at it, by all means.

None of these things are about entitlement. They are about need. 80% of blind people do not work (in the United States). There’s a reason for that. Some of it is because a person cannot do it. But mostly, it’s because people aren’t getting the chance and don’t have access to the technology they need. Whether people like it or not, cost is a Whether people like it or not, cost is a major part of this. And nothing’s getting cheaper.And more access to technology is a good thing. Whether it’s through government subsidized programs, corporations doing some charity work, or a system change that allows everyone to have access to the things they need. Get past yourselves. It’s not as easy as work hard for something and earn it. If it was, everybody would do it.

We are damn lucky (up for debate) that voiceover is provided to us for free. I myself don’t even need it to be free or discounted. I work very hard for what I have. But I’m not so rigid thatI think that others wouldn’t benefit from it. And in fact, when I was going through school and figuring life out, I was given charity. I was also given tools at discount or for free. I utilize them. And I build my life from those things. It was a good thing. And it continues to be a good thing. Again, get past yourselves.

The braille code was created to innovate. It was created to get one over on the enemy. Because they wanted to win a war. And there is no legal standard. It’s all up in the air. If maybe some of you actually fought for anything, there would be a legal standard. But as of right now, your rights are being stripped away little bit slowly. And you don’t even realize it. Because you’re OK with having a cousin fill out those stupid forms just to get your dog on a plane. And any other people that come on this website are doing it because it expands their audience. There is enough of you that buys any of those apps to make it worthwhile for them financially. They do it because they want to and they do it because they believe that it’s something right. An apple didn’t create voiceover because it was right or because of any legal guideline. They did it because of whatever moral thought that one or two of them had, so they pushed for it. there’s a story that you hear and then there’s the actual truth. And the truth exists beyond what you might be aware of.

Even this website continues because people decided that it was the right thing to do. And it’s run for free. They could change it at any point. And most of you either won’t pay or can’t pay for that. So Be My Eyes keeps it going. But let’s get things straight. The original website manager was tired of the complaining and a bad behavior. He decided to shut it down. This site keeps going by the grace of people who decided to be charitable to you.

You opened with “this isn’t about entitlement, it’s about need.” That’s an emotional appeal, not a solution. Everyone has needs—housing, healthcare, food. That doesn’t mean Apple, a private company, is responsible for subsidizing them. The fact that 80 percent of blind Americans are unemployed isn’t caused by iPhone prices; it’s caused by systemic hiring barriers, inaccessible workplaces, and limited training opportunities. Discounts on hardware don’t fix any of that. You’re describing a social problem and blaming a retailer.

“Cost is a major part of this.” Sure. But when has government subsidy ever solved discrimination? Every country that’s improved employment rates among disabled people did it through education, enforcement, and inclusion mandates, not coupons. You can’t price-cut your way into equality.

“We’re lucky VoiceOver is free.” Wrong. We paid for it when we bought the device. Apple sells accessibility as part of the product package, not a handout. Calling it luck rewrites decades of advocacy and law—ADA, Section 508, EN 301 549—all of which require equal access. That isn’t “luck,” that’s compliance and progress.

“I got charity in school; it helped me.” Great, personal experience. But anecdote ≠ policy. Just because charity once helped you doesn’t make charity a sustainable model for everyone. Charity depends on goodwill; rights depend on structure. One gives temporary relief, the other guarantees permanence. Which would you rather rely on?

“Braille was created to get one over on the enemy.” No. Charles Barbier designed night-writing for soldiers; Louis Braille adapted it into a universal literacy system. That’s innovation, not charity. You’re proving my point—blind people solved their own problem by building something better, not by begging for discounts.

“There is no legal standard.” Flat-out false. ADA Title III, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, WCAG 2.2, EN 301 549 in Europe, the U.K. Equality Act—all binding or enforceable frameworks. Companies ignore them at their peril. Pretending none exist is either ignorance or misdirection.

“If maybe some of you actually fought for anything…” You’re talking to people who are fighting—by demanding equal treatment, not pity pricing. That line was pure deflection. The right fight is for enforcement and opportunity, not discounts that label us as a separate market class.

“Apple didn’t create VoiceOver because of law; they did it from moral thought.” False again. Apple introduced VoiceOver in 2005, the same year accessibility compliance began gaining legal teeth in the EU and U.S. It was smart business and good ethics, not random moral charity. You don’t spend millions building global accessibility teams out of guilt. You do it because the law and the market both demand it.

“Even this website continues because people decided it was the right thing to do… by grace of charity.” No—it continues because volunteers believe in community. That’s collaboration, not charity. The difference matters. Charity expects gratitude; collaboration builds equality. Nobody here owes AppleVis worship for existing, just appreciation for effort. And let’s be clear, AppleVis isn’t running purely on “the grace of charity” anymore. It’s supported in part by Be My Eyes’ partnership, annd yeah, this includes to my understanding, people getting payed, so it’s no longer volunteer work. Some people still volunteer sure but, yeah some people do get payed for their job, per my understanding, That’s not charity—it’s a sponsorship model. Be My Eyes didn’t step in out of pity; they did it because AppleVis is one of the largest blind-tech hubs online, and visibility benefits both sides. That’s cooperation, not benevolence. Pretending otherwise cheapens the work of everyone who keeps the platform running.

So, no—this isn’t about “getting past ourselves.” It’s about recognizing that equality built on charity collapses the moment generosity runs out. We need enforcement, opportunity, and innovation—not dependence. Discounts and vouchers don’t make people equal; they just remind everyone who’s considered “less.”

Accessibility isn’t grace. It’s infrastructure. And the second we start calling it charity, we’ve already lost the argument.

Given that, I’m done here. You’ve ignored every fact presented and doubled down on emotional appeal. I’ve addressed it point by point. If you still can’t see the difference between charity and equality, that’s on you—not anyone else.

If we were to ever ask for discounts, just purely out of being disabled, there would be so many cases of abuse, and he would never be able to fully prove that. This would also be something that would isolate ourselves from our communities even more than we already are. We really want to stay isolated in our own little blank in this community bubble? I know there’s a need for things that are specifically blindness made. Of course there is I’m not saying that, but as far as I was letting ourselves with a ride alive and making more things isolating first than we already do that’s crazy. And yes, people that want discounts just for the fact of being disabled or definitely acting as though they’re entitled to things. It’s totally true and I completely agree with that.

I think that much of what is being said is absolutely wrong. Go enjoy all that progress that doesn’t exist. I hope it all works out for you. Go enjoy the eight out of 10 websites that are inaccessible. Go enjoy the 70 to 80% of physical places that are inaccessible. go interact with the vast majority of the population that doesn’t understand what blindness or visual impairment are; let alone how to accommodate it. Go live your life. Most disabled people barely leave the house. It’s not like iPhones and Apple Watches Encourage people to actually leave their house and explore. Creating more visibility for them and greater understanding by the public. No that doesn’t happen at all. It’s not like discounting these products would help people, who previously would not purchase these devices, to finally taking a chance on them. No they just have to work really really really hard. That’s the answer. Work really hard at jobs They don’t have.

Providing some discounts to people who need it is a bad idea. It’s awful. It’s the worst idea that’s ever existed. Never mind that historically, discounting andsubsidizing devices like this ensures mandates that actually improve accessibility on the hardware and the software. never mind that it would provide needed exposure/awareness to companies and businesses, suddenly realizing they have an influx of potential customers meeting greater accessibility in their stores and websites. Never mind that historically, creating programs like this actually ensures that blind people get hired into corporations like Apple. It’s always no on this website. It’s always negativity and rigidity and impulse reaction. No thinking, no consideration, no worthwhile discourse. Just know. Good luck with all of that.

Night writing was invented for the blind. Only later was it proposed for the use of the military.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_writing

I know I said I was done contributing to this topic, but I'm a little confused. @Ash Rein, in any earlier response to my enitial comment on this matter, you said, and I quote:

"I am absolutely astonished by how people reason. You know that everything you have is based on somebody else’s efforts, right? The fact that you can even get on this website is based on somebody creating accessibility software that makes it possible. Even braille was created by a sighted person. You’re not as independent as you actually claim to be. That’s probably why there is no blind community. Every other community will take any discount. And that includes people that aren’t disabled. You want to make this about pride, then enjoy the lack of progress. while everybody else inches forward."

Later, in a response to @Igna Triay, you said, and I quote:

"I think that much of what is being said is wrong. Go enjoy all that progress. I hope it all works out for you."

What, precisely, is your stance on the matter? You're being incredibly vague here and it's making you look incredibly silly at best, and downright indecisive at worst. Either you want this sort of thing, or you don't. Sure, you can see both sides of the coin all you want, but what is your exact stance here?

Also, before I sign off, you clamed that there is no, quote unquote, "blind community." Are you somehow claming that the community of blind people does not exist?

FYI. VO was created because the US government required accessibility with law 501/ I think. VO was not created because apple was kind or of the goodness of their heart. Same with Microsoft narator.

What is even more striking is the overly idealized world that some people seem to imagine. Many of you already live in societies that provide extensive benefits and entitlements for persons with disabilities — from transportation concessions to educational allowances and accessibility schemes. So why, then, this sudden idealism that rejects any form of support simply because it is framed as assistance? Isn’t the whole purpose of such measures to promote equal participation, opportunity, and achievement?
Do you not require workplace accommodations? Are these not, in essence, forms of support—only under different names? Many of these perspectives, however well-meaning, are deeply Eurocentric and American-centric, detached from the lived realities of those in less affluent contexts, where earning $300 a month means that even a small “discount” can significantly improve one’s quality of life.
Students and academics routinely receive educational discounts—so why should persons with disabilities be denied comparable recognition of their specific needs? If you truly reject any form of support linked to disability, then be consistent: discard everything you’ve received through DSA or similar national schemes. In fact, if you insist on absolute independence, abandon your cane, turn off VoiceOver, give up your talking and braille technologies, and try to navigate the world exactly as sighted or non-disabled people do—without any of the tools, devices, or adjustments that make equality possible.
The point is not to ridicule, but to remind: support is not charity—it is equity in action.

Accessibility may be viewed as a business like any other in the modern society, but let's not forget that **generally speaking**, in the past, religious institutions and similar were responsible for health, general care and what not.
Yes, I will say that we must be grateful for all those unpaid hours millions have worked through for xy minority group simply because it was the morally right thing to do, and not take it for granted. True independence will never exist, because first literally everyone depends on somebody else for something, human beings are social beings, and second, because what we have today was done by someone for us in a way or another.
At the same time, accessibility is a never ending journey, and the day we stop being proactive about it will be our doom.
Yes, depending on where we are and our personal situations, we do already have a lot, especially considering the likely demographics of people on this very website. We do have support, accomodations and etc, and yes I am a student who get loans converted into bursaries because I have a major permanent disability.
But phones are the worst things to get discount on, because there are infinite ways to get one, even iphone, if we really need one, and they have already been mentioned. Less true for emerging countries , yes I get that.
I don't like this idea as framed in the title and general discussion thread, because its execution will create infinite more problems than it would ever solve.
This thread is already near explosion :) before discounts on phone, maybe reconsidering a so-called (some country I shall not name) healthcare... system, could be of a higher priority.
Coming moderators' hammer aside, this will never happen, and if it ever hypothetically does, this will create a very dangerous precedent that would disrupt smartphone and general tech market.
I don't get the priority. If we really want discounts, why do we tollerate something like Monarch while Dotpad X is roughly twice as cheep (tax included)?
Anyways.
I want to stress that I do acknowledge and recognize the unique role of smartphones for blind and visually impaired individuals, something that most sighted people could have a hard time grasping.
We have carrier plans, used / second hand market, Refurbished, phone it forward through CNIB in Canada, friends, families, what else do you need? And yes, apple does planned obsolescence, but generally speaking their software support, roughly 7 years, is very, very generous, especially from a blind perspective. My iPhone XS only now stopped receiving updates on ios 18, but literally everything still works perfectly fine. I am myself on a 14 now. My sister's iphone 11 is on ios 26. I just found an iphone se second edition? 2020. for around cad$160 just doing a quick google search. If you can't afford that, than you are in way more troubles to have the priority/time for thinking about getting a phone; even to post / read this you would have needed an internet connection; And God bless you.
PS: to the person who said feeling second hand embarrassment, I 100% agree and feel the same, with some messages here it's ... difficult to be proud of that "blind community". Why not advocate so we don't need to get any discount? Which mean getting both job and education. Discounts and services are most welcomed there! Nobody could ever disagree with that right? Though humanity can surprise itself sometimes.

For starters I'm not even sure why this thread from 2020 was necromanced, but since it was, I'm just going to offer my own perspective on this subject.

I was not born blind, wasn't blind for most of my life, and by the time my vision became an issue I was already pretty established in my adult life, so the transition was very difficult for me. Even then I still found a way to rise back from the shadows and completely surpass my former self in terms of competence and potencial, and these days I find myself in a position where I can easily compete with the overwhelming majority of normal people in my professional field, even in areas where blind people would never be expected to have any kind of competence like computer graphics and computer vision. The reason why I'm saying this is because, from my position, many people would simply choose to display arrogance by saying things like if I can do this nobody has an excuse to not do the same, however I attribute breaking the mold to simply being born with the right instincts, as well as enjoying an otherwise quite healthy situation since despite already being well into my 40s, the rest of my body still works like a clock, and I contributed absolutely nothing to any of this so none of this is my merit, it was just a lucky draw.

Having experienced living a sighted adult life I can also tell that it's a lot easier than living an blind adult life, and to me the difference isn't even small, as I estimate blind life to be 10 times harder than sighted life. Now if we consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of normal people struggle in life, I don't think it's reasonable at all to expect the average blind person to succeed. This is how I personally rationalize disability benefits, and thus is also how I would rationalize something like this.

As to whether a benefit like this should be privately or publicly supported, I think that it depends on how everyone aligns to the economic axis of politics, since in my opinion both the hands-off approach of reducing taxes so that companies can budget more social responsibilities is as valid as the hands-on approach of having governments subsidize things, but I am generally in favor of benefits designed to level the playing field for the disabled. On the other hand I don't think that privately owned companies should be called out for not supporting the disabled beyond their legal obligations, and it is for this reason alone that I stand against the petition suggested on the original post 5 years ago.

There have been a lot of valid points in this thread. On both sides of the equation, in fact. Of course, there has also been a bit of hostility, miss direction, and miscommunication. I wonder if the original thread title had been labeled differently, would people have had a more positive attitude about the subject matter?

Like in the comment above, I too spent most of my life cited. The first 33 years of my life, in fact, and wholeheartedly agree that life as a sided person is much, much easier than life without site. Not impossible, not even close, but definitely more difficult. However, I also do not subscribe to The 'one blindness to rule them all' philosophy that certain organizations adhere to. The controversy and this thread also exhibits an important, yet underrated truth; what may benefit one, will most likely offend somebody else.

With that said, how about we all stop arguing about who, how, and why, somebody should get a smart phone, and focus on something truly inclusive, and seldomly discussed.

Tell me, have you ever heard of this fantastic little device? 😇

Ash, I totally understand your point about 80% of blind people being unemployed, I think in the UK we're at 75%. So I get that.
But what I'm saying is that if people with disabilities are already receiving money from the government, that can be used to buy these devices. I'm not just saying go and work, and if that's how it came across, that was not my intention.
I'm lucky to be in the 25% in the UK that do work, the point I was making is that when I didn't, I had to use this money to buy my Apple products.
If you didn't have a disability, you'd of course not be receiving this money, so isn't that in a way the help to obtain the devices you want or need?
It’s money that's essentially being given to you?
I'm not here in any way to argue, and I won't come after those who agree with this idea, I just feel like if you're being provided money, that is kind of like that assistance

I agree with previous comments. This isn't practical at least here in the U.S. Yes, we have government runned subsidized programs for education, transportation, housing, etc all due to our disabilities. When I attended graduate school at university, I had to justify to Florida Division of Blind Services why I needed Jaws on my computer for my internship and it had to be something other than I'm visually impaired. Justifying my visual impairment with a company like Apple using a Dr. note would definitely backfire. My eye doc would be laughing now if I justified a discount on an apple product solely based on my visual impairment. Justifying my need for paratransit recertification due to my visual impairnment (which is a joke) is one thing. I can't see this in the U.S. when Apple products are equipped with VO and if you can't afford the top product than there are more affordable options.

Hi,
The fact a large percentage of blind people are unemployed has nothing to do with Apple, although it would be nice if they employed more competent tech-savvy blind people so they could have enough money to buy these products in the first place. Even then, this won't automatically solve the problem of unemployment amongst blind people. I've already stipulated above about the law not going far enough, and I should add it seems to be extremely difficult to sue any software manufacturer on the grounds of their software being inaccessible. There should be legal aid for things like that, and there doesn't seem to be, at least here in the UK. And of course you get the whole thing of companies not wanting to employ a blind person no matter how tech-savvy they are. Mal you talk about our comments being Europe and America centric, but the fact that less developed countries don't have good welfare is not Apple's problem. And you talk about discounts for people in education, those discounts don't last forever. Once you're no longer a student, that's it. And I remember reading that in some states in the US, if you get some equipment through education, you have to give it back when you've finished your course. I'd rather never have had something than have to give it back after a certain time but that's just me. This petition implies that every time a blind person wants to buy something new from Apple, a new phone or whatever, they get a discount. And Mal you say, 'If you truly reject any form of support linked to disability, then be consistent'. I personally don't reject any support linked to disability, but I don't think it should be big corporations' responsibility to pick up the pieces from insufficient laws regarding accessibility, numerous software that isn't accessible making it hard for a blind person to get a job in the first place, society's stance on whether blind people are employable or not, those blind people who don't want to improve their knowledge of tech so they can get a job and be a productive member of a company or go self-employed, or developing countries which don't have good welfare states. It should be a government's responsibility to insure citizens in a country either have sufficient employment opportunities or welfare if they can't work. Either decent welfare or a decent salary will ensure a blind person can buy an Apple product. This is equality. This is me paying exactly the same price as my sighted friends or family.

When working as a social worker and my work system went from 100% accessibility to zero, was told by supervisor that if she put the assessment from word to the system is call accessibility. This was in 2016. With the way things are now, any corporation could get away with not doing much regarding accessibility. Do not think apple or any other company will give low cost for disability. Would not want it because it will prevent me from pointout issues that are related to accessibility, although some may consider it negativity. I purchase my iPhone, watch, airpod pro 2 and iPad 9 and gives me the right to discuss issues that do not think apple is addressing regarding accessibility. Long live cats.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Vivek, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong, India, and I am fully blind!

I have followed this discussion about the petition asking Apple to consider Disability Pricing , and I must admit, the sheer confidence with which some dismiss it is nothing short of impressive. The tone, though, reeks of a comfort only possible in the world’s richer latitudes. Permit me a view from elsewhere.  1. Context matters In my country, India , the per capita income is about USD 2,500 a year —roughly ₹2 to 2.2 lakh.
An iPhone or Mac costsmore than half of an average annual income of a person.

Now remember that fewer than one in four persons with disabilities in India are employed, and most of them earn below even this modest average. I teach brilliant blind students who often cannot afford a decent meal, let alone a device that would allow them to study independently.

So when we speak of accessibility , we are not speaking of convenience. We are speaking of basic participation in the modern world.
2. “I don’t want it, so don’t take it” Some here have loftily declared: “I don’t want a discount.” Excellent. Then don’t. I won’t either, because I can afford Apple products on my academic salary.
But tell me—what about those who cannot?

A systemic discount does not coerce anyone. It simply levels the ground so that one’s dignity does not depend on one’s wallet. If you find equality distasteful, at least have the honesty not to disguise your privilege as principle.
3. The myth of “charity” This is not a matter of pity, but of parity.
Students receive discounts because education is considered a public good.
Accessibility serves precisely the same purpose—it empowers people to live, learn, and work .

To call this charity is to mistake fairness for favour. If Apple can give concessions to university students in wealthy countries, surely it can extend a similar courtesy to disabled persons worldwide, many of whom will never step inside those universities.
4. “Apple already provides accessibility features” Indeed it does, and admirably so. But a feature one cannot afford to access is a feature in name only. The finest accessibility tools on earth mean nothing if they remain locked behind a paywall taller than the average citizen’s income.

It is rather like building a ramp to a house whose door is sealed with gold.
5. “Verification will be difficult” Nonsense. Governments across the world verify disability status daily for benefits, pensions, and travel concessions. Apple employs some of the brightest engineers on the planet; surely it can devise a secure and respectful process to do the same.
6. “Fix employment first” An admirable sentiment, but not a reason to deny access now.
To tell a disabled person they must wait for society to reform before they can use a phone that reads text aloud is like telling a drowning man to wait for better bridges.
7. Perspective from the other side Many who object speak from nations where accessibility is publicly subsidised, infrastructure inclusive, and social security dependable.
From that vantage point, it is easy to declare that “everything’s fine.”
But it is a rather Versailles kind of fine, spoken with a full plate to those who have none.
8. A closing reflection I am not pleading for myself. I can afford the devices I use to teach and write.
I am speaking for those who could teach, write, and live more fully if only the tools of access were not priced beyond their reach.

If Apple truly believes in its own motto, Think Different , let it think beyond affluence.
Let accessibility be not a slogan but a practice. Accessibility that cannot be afforded is not accessibility at all.

I thank you all for the patience with which you have indulged this rather long epistle. It is not, I assure you, my wish to wound any tender sensibility; I sought only to set before you a little portion of the world as it appears from less comfortable latitudes. Should offence be taken where none was meant, I can only plead that truth, unlike tea, is seldom sweetened to taste.

Very well thought statement. In most of your point agree but here in the US there are some entitlement that happens with people. It is true, here people worry about not being able to get an iPhone and others places some worry about just surviving. Still do not want low cost for device. Thanks for your view and long live cats.

well said, sir. coming from a country with a similarly abysmal unemployment rate for those with disabilities and a similarly abysmal minimum wage income for those who are, I have to agree, while still accknowledging that those who point out that point out that receiving devices on a discount from Apple might make it difficult, in theory, to demand the same rights that the sighted do who have purchased their devices at full price.I still believe that empowering the disabled to enter the workforce should be part of the broader push, as well as getting the necessacary tech into the hands of those who need it as early as possible. Your post provides some valuable perspective.

Thank you for the kind words. Indeed, entitlement is a curious thing—it flourishes best in climates of comfort. You are right: in some places, “not owning the latest iPhone” counts as misfortune, while elsewhere people count coins to afford dinner. I am not asking that Apple make its products cheap; only that it make them reachable. Let the cat sleep soundly, then, but perhaps let humanity stir a little.

Firstly, it's great to get different perspectives on here and I for one really appreciated the post.

I think the debate here is not whether someone who cannot afford something that is essential for their life should not be aided. It is whether Apple has any responsibility to do this.

Apple is, of course, a for profit company. That is why it exists. It may provide educational discounts but I am sure that is seen as an investment. Get young people using your tech early and hopefully they will continue to do so, and paying the full price when they do.

So what would Apple's incentive be here? If we are leaning on their morals, then I don't see how that isn't asking for charity because we are essentially asking for them to give us something for nothing.

And let's face it, whilst we might agree that owning a smart phone is essential these days, owning an iPhone specifically is not.

Maybe this is a bit ideological, but I would say that if a significant part of the population is being held back because they cannot afford the things they need, whether it is through disability or not, then this is exactly what the state should exist for. It is publicly funded and its purpose is to serve. Admittedly this isn't always how things go but that is surely where this sort of thing belongs.

There are many things that I feel are essential to me - clothing, food, health, electricity, heating, hygiene etc. And many of these things are provided by profit-led companies. Should we therefore be expecting all of these to do the same? Or are we saying that Apple should do this because they are so big that they can afford to do whatever they want?

But as I said before, I think if Apple saw that, say, India was a market where people were struggling to afford their phones they might decide that this is a market where they are losing out. Maybe they introduce a lower-end phone at a cheaper price, or maybe they decide that they can have a finer profit margin just to make sales. But I would see this as a corporate not moral decision on their part.

Thank you for your kind and perceptive words. You articulate the dilemma well — the worry that a concession in price might somehow diminish the customer’s right to demand parity with those who paid full fare. But I rather doubt it.

A discount does not dissolve agency. Students, after all, enjoy academic pricing and yet still berate Apple when a MacBook misbehaves. Their invoice may be lighter, but their voices remain quite heavy. The relationship is transactional, not feudal.

We are not asking Apple to grant us access out of benevolence, but to sell us access on fairer terms — so that those excluded by circumstance can participate as equals, not supplicants.

As you rightly say, empowering the disabled to enter the workforce requires getting the tools of empowerment into their hands first . Equality cannot be demanded effectively from behind a wall of inaccessibility.

I value your thoughtful engagement — it is rare, in such discussions, to find disagreement expressed with such grace.

Thank you for that reasoned and generous reflection. You are quite right — Apple is a profit-making enterprise, not a benevolent foundation. Its motives are economic before they are moral. Yet, I have long believed that morality, properly packaged, is excellent marketing. Educational discounts, too, began as strategy before they evolved into virtue; they create lifelong customers under the halo of generosity. There is no reason why accessibility pricing could not function similarly — a marriage of conscience and commerce. One might call it marketing with manners. Perhaps the solution is pragmatic rather than utopian: Apple need not discount every gleaming Pro device, but might consider entry-level models or refurbished lines for verified disabled users. That way, accessibility is broadened without wounding the profit margin.

As to whether this is the duty of the state rather than the corporation — ideally, yes. But the disabled in most parts of the world cannot wait for their governments to discover efficiency. In the meantime, a company that already claims the mantle of inclusion might, at minimal cost, give substance to its own rhetoric.

Your comment struck the right note of realism, and I thank you for it. The conversation, at least, has moved from sentiment to sense — which is progress enough for one afternoon.

Discount for phone. There are many stores or phone companies that provide discounts for phones. Also Amazon tends to provide deals on phones that had been refurbish. If no one else did it, I would perhaps agree. Also iPhone are not the only accessible phones, there are android that do the same thing. My personal preference is iPhone and with Verizon got a nice deal.

Many people disagreeing with this petition have a perspective problem. They here “discount” and it’s almost like an involuntary response to recoil and get defensive. They here about something that they themselves don’t need and unanimously decide that no one else needs/should need a discount.

Look let’s be honest… Apple is worth trillions of dollars. They make more money than a lot of countries. A disability discount program is not gonna kill them. y’all act like someone is asking for discounts at a mom and pop store that makes less than $5000 a year.

They already do discount programs for education and business. Why is everyone okay with those vs this? Really sit with the question and dig deep into why you think disabled/people with disabilities (whichever terminology you prefer) are the only ones that don't deserve a discount.

And why do you think this discount would only apply to blind and VI adults? What about those with other disabilities or co-occuring disabilities? What about children who come from school districts with limited tech resources? What about those who can’t work for various reasons. You gonna tell them to buckle down and get a job too???

Discounts don’t have to be handouts. Holding on to that sentiment is only gonna keep us eating from under the table of those who have a full course meal and then reach down to take our meager findings. That’s not your fellow disabled people by the way, so it would serve you all to stop acting like it.

I think tweaking this petition to offer a disability discount to low-income individuals with any disability would be an excellent idea. I know startup app companies who are doing this just fine and are hiring developers for $100,000+. And yes, disability can be verified without needing medical paperwork.

It's a discount, not a free phone program that’s being proposed. And at the end of the day, if you don’t want/need a discount? Then don't take it if it ever does become a thing. I promise no one’s gonna force you to take a discount you don’t want/need.

TL/DR: Apple makes more money than some countries will ever see in their lifetimes. having a subsidy/discount program for disabled people with low income isn’t an attack on your worth or independence. Blindness isn’t the only disability and blind adults aren’t the only ones who exist. No one’s gonna force you to take a discount you don’t want. Just because you don’t need it doesn’t mean someone else doesn’t.

Love discount. Get it when amazon does their prime deal like today. I get things for the home, Christmas shopping and other things. My AirPod pro 2 got it from amazon. discount are cool and save money. I think people love it and they probably get it if they can. Do not think that is the issue with this topic.

I think the problem is that it is unrealistic to demand that Apple does this. Unless they are getting something in return, why should they?

I think the suggestion that they give older models away at a discounted price and target those that need them is excellent because it solves the problem we are talking about whilst offering something to Apple in return - they get to clear old stock and at least get something back.

The reasoning behind the educational discount has been discussed in this thread already. I don't know anything about the business discounts but I suspect it might be because businesses can buy in bulk and they want to get their tech into that space. But they will be doing it for commercial reasons not just because they like business.

A disability is often not curable, so if we get a discount for those reasons, it is quite liekly that this would be something we would keep needing over time. I think I mentioned before that if this was tied into the educational idea it might make more sense - for example, Apple providing low cost equipment in conjunction with some sort of training programme to help push people away from needing the discount. Again something like this might work better because it provides a long-term win for Apple.

I've always wanted to on on an equal footing with other customers so that my voice counts as much as anyone else's. Maybe this isn't true - Apple certainly aren't going to be fixing VoiceOver bugs as quickly as they introduce them, or fix bugs that sighted users find. And I don't want them to feel that it's hardly worth their time.

I also want to say that the idea of offering a disability discount doesn't quite sit with me. For example, I am in the UK, I have enough money to buy the tech I need, I have a job. But I am blind, so I am disabled. Contrast that with someone with no disabilities who happens to be born into poverty and are trying to make a better life for themselves. Who would be most deserving of help? Disability may make one path more likely than another of course but not necessarily.

Anyway, I think if anyone was to succeed with this kind of thing it would be by providing Apple with some sort of business plan and incentive rather than a petition.

Anyway, this is a very interesting debate and it is certainly thought provoking.

Here's what I love about these discussions. We suddenly lose the ability to think. What does Apple get?

Well, let's think about this for a second here. I can't buy an $800 iPhone. Apple gives me a discount because I'm blind, let's say to $500. That's permanent once I prove I'm blind, in other words I get whatever discounts Apple offers without having to go through whatever again.

Now, if I can't buy an $800 phone, but I can buy a $500 phone, but phones don't last forever, I'll need a new one. Let's say we're talking a period of fifteen years, and I need a new phone every five years. That's $1500 Apple has from me that they wouldn't have gotten, because I couldn't buy their higher priced phones.

Is that enough money for Apple to consider doing it? Maybe, maybe not. That's not my point. My point is, it's fairly obvious what Apple would get out of this, more money from more disabled people buying phones or having phones bought for them. That doesn't necessarily mean it will work out in Apple's favor as a thing they should do, but again, what they get out of it seems pretty straightforward.

It's not like they'd be giving away phones so they'd lose profits entirely. They just wouldn't be making as much money. Now it's true, with my made up numbers, that Apple would be losing just over the price of a phone over fifteen years. Multiply that over however many people, and sure, you can conceptualize it as Apple giving away X phones. So there are absolutely economic considerations for Apple. But again, it's clear what they'd be getting out of it, if we assume that the choice is to buy one of their phones or not.

While I agree there are some strong arguments on both sides here, I am still not convinced that Apple or any other corporation is responsible for giving discounts. As mentioned above in another post, why ask only Apple? What about clothes, furniture, automobiles, houses, etc? I would certainly like to have a Giorgio Armani silk suit but at over $1000 USD, you best believe that I cannot justify that. Do I deserve a discount b/c I'm blind? The next argument goes that "You don't need an Armani suit" and as pointed out above there are plenty of places to purchase refurbished Apple devices or use an alternative such as Android. And what if I need a suit for a job interview and my preference is Armani? Ridiculous. Maybe I'm just a lousy, pathetic capitalist that believes in markets. Last I checked, the education discount was not all that significant...and if Apple did decide to give a discount and people with disabilities thought it was too small of a discount, would there be more of this? And just because Apple is worth multiple trillions of dollars, why is it any more justifiable? Sheesh...

This is crazy. Before you come at me with your pitchforks claiming that my western POV is the problem, please go petition your own representatives to change the laws. People in the u.S. have been fighting for decades for equality. This has lead to many, many steps forward but I absolutely agree that it is not sufficient and that is why we keep fighting. Hold your representatives accountable. I am 100% in favor of government and non-government agencies purchasing these devices for people with disabilities and if they are able to negotiate a discount, well good on them but to ask corporations is just insane in my opinion. If a company decides it is in their best interest then they will pursue it.

Apple has phone that is close to 400$ and also going to amazon, you find phones that are soldby third party. Remember apple is over 1 trillion dollar company. They make 1500$ in 10 seconds.

That maths makes a lot of assumptions.

1. That if I pay $500 that Apple gets a $500 profit. I don't know what the markup on an $800 phone is, and I'm sure Apple do very well out of that sale, but we're not talking 100% profit.

2. That the only people who take up the scheme are those that are not already paying full price.

3. That this is going to be free to setup and administer. It would take a lot of time, effort and therefore money just to get this off the ground. Not to mention actually the administration of it. If this is purely an Apple thing they would have to have people on hand to establish whether you qualify, to process your application, deal with problems, and manage the logistics of getting the phone to you.

I still think this needs to be state lead, even if Apple are providing the phone to the state who can then distribute it out to those who need it. And I still think there is mileage in the idea of Apple using this as a way to clear old stock.

But I also agree that there are plenty of cheap Android phones out there. I don't know how well they run TalkBack, but it is definitely not going to be the case that if you are in poverty you must specifically have an iPhone and there are no alternatives.