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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I could get behind a nonprofit organization handling something like this, whether they bought old stock in bulk, directly from Apple, or from a 3rd-party vendor, and distributed them as needed to those who in fact, needed them. Old stock could be sold at a discounted price because, it's literally just sitting around, collecting dust. Also to note, these devices are designed to last a while. Never mind the trend that persists where everybody absolutely must have a brand new phone, every single year, like it's some kind of fire sale. Just for an example, I am using a three year-old model, though I only bought it last year, and granted it was brand new, but I imagine a used or refurbished device Could have been purchased for as little as $100, this is considering that I only paid about $400, give or take a few dollars. Also, to support my point about the longevity of these devices, I have a 5year-old device, an iPhone SE 2nd GEN, that currently is running the latest public build of iOS 26. Bugs aside, it runs really well, for such an old device.

TLDR,
I believe a nonprofit organization could do this, especially when considering used and/or refurbished older devices.

Thanks for reading. 🙂

When I was working as a social worker, I tended to get the iPhone the next year. I went from the 4, 4s, 5, 7, xs, 11 pro max, 12 pro, 13 pro and 16 pro max.Since I do not work any more, I make sure get deals from Verizon, the 13 pro and 16 pro max were nice deal. Long live cats.

But not jobs, no. If they can't pay their own way, how could we trust them at work? sighted people are clearly superior when it comes to employment. Hmm. when it comes to equal rights, too, for that matter. Special treatment and equal rights aren't exactly compatible, are they? sure. give them their freebee iPhone, Pat them on their poor little heads and send them back to their corner with their little tin cups selling pencils. Smile. And they'll have their charity iPhones to keep them quiet!

Hello,

Most importantly, Apple is not obligated to support the visually impaired and blind community at all. The fact that they do at tremendous cost to their bottom line is already a cost benefit to the blind. Microsoft has taken a different approach to supporting the blind community, and have allowed after market options such as JAWS--very expensive, or NVDA--virtually free to fill in the gap here. Microsoft is making small incremental improvements to Narrator, but it is not really ready for prime time. So I commend Apple for including accessibility right in the OS be it iOS, TVOS, or MacOS. One can look at it like this. The fact that you do not have to purchase additional software to make your stuff accessible is already a discount.

So i would stop complaining.

feofil

Secondly, Ap

I mean, in some ways, sure. But you don't need those assumptions. Apple is getting more money than it would if J. Random BLindy never buys a phone, or has a phone bought for them. Again, whether that's enough to justify such a program is another matter entirely. I'm not arguing that it does, or that we should have a discount. It may be entirely the case that it's just not enough money in the end.

I'm just saying, what Apple gets out of it is really pretty straightforward, even if what they get ends up at three dollar per phone, and that's nowhere near enough to make the discount a sensible option. Let's assume they get $3 per phone and a thousand people a year get phones who wouldn't normally.

Now let's assume they lose a third of that to overhead and people taking advantage of the program. $2K a year wouldn't be enough to justify such a program. But it's a simple fact that it would be $2K a year more than Apple had without the program.

Really my only assumption is that the discount would allow people to get phones who wouldn't otherwise get phones. Assuming that, it readily follows that this means more money for Apple, however much that turns out to be. But as can be seen above, there are all sorts of considerations that could mean this doesn't really turn out to be a viable strategy for Apple to implement. That's all I'm saying. I'm not arguing for anything other than establishing that basic idea.

In fact, we *know* it would be taken advantage of, and we don't even have to make any assumptions about human nature or whatever. We have the test case of Microsoft offering a free upgrade to Windows 10 I believe, if you were using assistive tech. That got taken advantage of by people, I clearly recall getting into debates with them where they insisted it was no big deal because MS knew that would happen and had taken it into account. I argued, naturally enough, that it was to help people who couldn't afford upgrades and that they'd end up ruining the program for people who really needed it.

That is the question. I see more people becoming entitle for some reason. At the end of the day, the discussion can go on to the end of the universe and apple will not do so. Bella the cat has a better chance of coming back from heaven than apple doing so. PS if someone does not like my comment feel free to move on, so I will not get an email from Michael about negative views. Long live cats.

this is a horable idea, yes iphones are expensive but you can just get one through your carier if you really want one that badly, or just use android

people should helping us get jobs then we can buy our own stuff like everyone else

I want to be honest here. From reading through the thread, the only thing it has shown me is that, sadly, we as a community are often very selfish and individualistic — and we lack empathy and perspective. Many of the voices dominating this conversation are coming from privileged countries, countries where people already have access to services that are deeply embedded into their daily lives and infrastructure. They can sign up for independent living programs, trade in devices, and benefit from systems that simply don’t exist for many of us living in developing countries. Yes, many avenues have been mentioned — the iPhone Upgrade Program, discounted phone offers, trade-ins, carrier deals — but those ideas don’t exist where I live. That’s why a lot of the people speaking so boldly here don’t feel the full effects of being blind. From where they stand, blindness is just a quirk — a personality trait anyone can “overcome.” Or, at the very least, it’s “not that bad,” because they’re not feeling the full impact of the inaccessibility that exists elsewhere. As someone else pointed out, even if Apple wanted to give away iPhones to blind individuals — say, upgrading every two or three years, or maybe providing a model a few years back — that’s still fair. They wouldn’t need to give away the latest or greatest or the one with the most storage. Apple is a company that makes billions of dollars, and I promise you that even if they gave away some older or even new iPhones, they would not go broke. In another comment, someone said, “Well, if Apple’s going to give away iPhones, should others also give away clothes, food, or furniture?” My answer is: why not? Maybe I’m idealistic or naïve, but I’d rather my money — and leftover stock — go to individuals in need, or to communities altogether, than to some greedy corporation padding its own profits. Do I know if Apple should do this? Not exactly. I'm sorry, but the specific answer to this question is well above my pay grade, but even if they did, nobody is forcing you to participate. I’m far more concerned about the attitudes I’ve seen here. It’s disheartening to see how we think as a community — or as people, really. I don’t expect everyone to agree, but many here need to step out of their bubbles and look at the situation from the perspective of those who aren’t half as privileged.
Many of the people talking here, I assume, once had their eyesight before they lost it. That’s difficult — no doubt about it. But they never earned their eyesight any more than I earned my blindness. I’ve been blind from birth, but that doesn’t make my reality any easier. There’s no handbook for parents or caretakers on how to raise a blind child. If you don’t have people around you who are willing to invest in your education, mobility, and technology — the basic resources that give you quality of life and purpose — you’re not going to make it. When they make the wrong choices, or they don't make any choices whatsoever, you're the one who is going to suffer, and unlike someone who is able to see who is able to move around a bit easier, you don't necessarily have that agency. None of my problems Were easier because I was born blind. A baby can’t feed themselves, change their own diapers, or enroll themselves in school. If your parents or caregivers don’t see the need to invest in you, it won’t happen.

Now, let’s talk about the cost of an iPhone. The latest iPhone, even with the lowest storage, would cost me around $150,000 to $200,000 in my local currency — at best . While it might be difficult for someone in the U.S. to find $1,300 or $1,500, there is no way on Earth I could afford an iPhone that costs the equivalent of $150,000. Even a refurbished or secondhand iPhone here costs around $80,000 to $100,000. Take away the screen readers, the accessible transportation, the Social Security, the housing programs, and all the other safety nets you have in America — and then tell me how “fortunate” you are. None of the people on this thread are smarter than I am. None of you are more curious, motivated, or determined. The only difference is that you were lucky enough to be born in the right country, at the right time, and to be helped by the right people. What I’m hearing from this thread — intentionally or not — sounds like, “Those of you in developing countries didn’t work hard enough,” or “You’re not advocating to your government.” That’s far from true. Some governments will never prioritize individuals like us. And again, I’d rather be poor with my eyesight than blind. Because blindness often comes with poverty, lack of education, and lack of access to resources. Many blind people live in rural areas — they can’t pick up and move. They don’t live that “American lifestyle” where you can drive at sixteen and own a car. They’ll likely never afford one, not at eighteen, not even at twenty-one. There are no after-school jobs at Starbucks or McDonald’s to save money for college. Those systems simply don’t exist. So when I hear people from privileged backgrounds saying, “Just relocate,” or “Go apply for assistance,” I wonder if they have any idea what they’re talking about.

Even walking on the road here is dangerous. We don’t have proper sidewalks. We walk in the streets — where there are potholes, gullies, construction zones, animal waste, motorbikes parked in the way, and other hazards. And yet, some people seem to think that with “proper orientation and mobility training,” blind people here could navigate that. Imagine, I don't shop at the supermarket. I go downtown in a crowded open market. It's often messy and very noisy, with individuals calling out $50 per pound or $100 for a dozen green bananas.

I’m not saying it’s easy to go blind later in life. Transitioning is hard — but just as you didn’t earn your eyesight, I didn’t choose my blindness. A baby doesn’t have agency. If you don’t have educated, supportive people to advocate for you from birth — to relocate if necessary, to enroll you in proper programs, to expose you to technology — then your life path is severely limited. It's not only ignorance or apathy — sometimes it’s language barriers, bureaucracy, or lack of options. And for those who think relocation is easy: it isn’t. Getting a visa to the U.S. is nearly impossible without a large bank balance. The process is long and expensive, and if you get rejected, you lose that money. Even if I could move, where would I go? Another Caribbean country? Who would I stay with? Many of us don’t have family abroad. And without support, you risk ending up in abusive or unsafe situations — just to survive. You keep saying, “Go to your government, demand better.” Do you realize how disconnected that sounds? The only thing you did differently was being born in a country that cared about accessibility and human rights. It’s not for lack of trying. Many of us are barely making enough to eat. Some don’t have access to clean water. There’s no Starbucks, no McDonald’s, no Target, no Walmart where we can grab a bottle of clean water. When I read these comments — dismissive, privileged, and self-satisfied — it makes me incredibly sad. Because it means a lot of people are ignorant of how the world works. We are angry, we are tired, and we are unkind — even to our own community. If a company has leftover stock, whether it’s food, clothing, furniture, or phones, and they throw it away rather than give it to someone in need — that’s a moral failure. Companies lose millions every year to wasted inventory. Why not redirect that to people who need it? You cannot materialize services that do not exist — and may never exist in your lifetime. Even if every person with a disability who could work had a job, there would still never be enough jobs for everyone. The world is dynamic and ever-changing, and those of us living in poverty simply cannot keep up. So yes, I’ll say it again: I would rather be poor with my eyesight than blind, every single day of the week. Because blindness, especially in the developing world — and especially for women — compounds poverty, neglect, and vulnerability.
Listen, I don’t know whether or not this is Apple’s responsibility — but I don’t think that matters. Humanity is everybody’s responsibility. Yes, Apple is not a charity, but I also support the idea of humanitarian organizations buying Apple’s products in bulk and then reselling them at a lower cost. Where I think things went wrong is that when the topic of disabilities came up, it suddenly meant every single disability. But I can’t take on the fight for every single disability. So I’m going to be selfish here for a hot second and say, let’s prioritize the blind community. And if any other community wants to fight for their own inclusion or access, then they are free to do so. If they think they want or need an iPhone more or less, then fine — let’s leave it at that. I’m not here to debate whether Apple should or shouldn’t do this. But even if there’s no direct benefit to Apple — let’s say, for the sake of argument, there’s absolutely no benefit other than simply doing good — why are you all against it ? That’s what I’m trying to understand. Because everything I’ve read in the thread — and please don’t tell me otherwise, because I’ve seen it — basically points to this attitude: “If I don’t want or need a service, then nobody else should get access to it either.” And that’s a deeply troubling mindset. The fact is, there were legitimate contracts and legitimate programs in place that people were taking advantage of — and yes, some of those programs gave away free or discounted products. But that doesn’t mean accessibility shouldn’t be prioritized. I highly doubt Apple would ever “take accessibility away” because of this. Whether or not you’re paying into their system, I don’t think they’d drop accessibility — they haven’t done that yet, and I don’t believe they will. Maybe I think differently from most people here, but my priority isn’t feelings or emotions. Even if Apple — or any other company — was pressured or “bullied” into providing these tools, or even furniture or other essential resources, my only concern is that they do the right thing. Sometimes you have to force people to do what is morally right — even if they’re not doing it for the right reasons. Millionaires, billionaires, and even everyday sighted people take advantage of systems every single day — simply because they can. And that’s the power imbalance. They have access and we don’t. They have power and we don’t. I might never step foot in America, or even on a plane. So what? Am I supposed to be okay with not having access to opportunities — like being able to travel at least once in my life — simply because I was born in the wrong country?

I don’t have all the answers, and please don’t come for me. I don’t have any special loyalty to Apple or any other company. But what’s concerning is how everyone seems to be bashing the entire idea — simply because Apple supposedly “doesn’t get anything” from it. But they don’t need to get anything. That’s literally the point. They already have the money. If this proposal had been made and Apple said, “No, we’re not doing a discount program because we’re already doing too much,” then fine — that would be one thing. But I don’t see any harm in people having access to a program like this, even if the iPhones were given away every five years or so. I’m not more entitled than anyone else, and I don’t see myself as a charity case either. I don’t care whether people call it entitlement or employment or whatever — just give me what I need, let me live my life, and stop making it harder than it already is. If any of the top executives at Apple, Microsoft, Google, or any other major company heard that they were going blind tomorrow morning, and the only way to keep their eyesight was to donate money or give away their stock, I guarantee that many of them would empty their entire bank accounts in a heartbeat. If these individuals were blind, they would never have half of what they do today, and that's the truth. Your eyesight is priceless. I’m using this as a hypothetical example, but you get the idea. These same people would give anything to keep their sight. So why act like investing in the blind community is such an unreasonable concept? I’m not saying that sighted people can’t live without their vision, but let’s not kid ourselves — losing your sight is one of the hardest disabilities to live with. Believe me, it can be a massive challenge. Even with support, it’s hard. Without support, it’s nearly impossible.

I’m not saying it’s easy to get help. I know it’s not. Even in countries with programs and services, people still fall through the cracks. There are blind people in America, Canada, the UK, and Europe who still can’t access what they need — I know that. It’s not about pretending that everyone has access. I understand that resources, technology, and time are limited. Some people will get help, and others won’t. Some will benefit from these systems, and some will never even see a fraction of that support. So I’m not sitting here thinking, “Oh my God, everyone in America has it easy.” What I am asking is that you consider another perspective. Even if there’s no benefit to these companies — no profit, no incentive — just the fact that they can help should be reason enough to do so. I’m not saying they’re a charity. I’m saying people need to survive. And even as a blind person, you can’t take me out of my Caribbean country and drop me in America and expect me to start working the next week or even the next month. It takes time — time that I probably don’t have, and patience that others probably don’t have for me. I’m not saying I have all the right answers, but honestly, maybe it would be simpler for companies to pay blind individuals directly via sponsorships — maybe twice the amount they’d normally earn — because life is unfair. I know this is a big idea, but what I’m saying is: if 70% of the blind community is unemployed in America, what is happening? I don’t believe 70% of the blind community is unemployed because they are not trying, but the underlying point stands: no matter how much technology or resources exist, if employers won’t hire or accommodate you, how is anyone supposed to improve their situation? If you sit at home for years with no opportunities, what are you supposed to do? You can’t keep training for jobs that may never come. If the job doesn’t appear until you’re 35 or 40, will you be able to assimilate into workplace culture then? I need to survive right now. If a blind person has been isolated for years and never practiced problem-solving or workplace skills, how are they expected to adapt quickly? Maybe such a program can’t solve everything, but I’m 100% for prioritizing access and employment for blind people so they can afford independence and pay back into the system. If that isn’t happening, then why not put money directly into people’s hands and let them live their lives? Anyone who wants to re-enter the system later can do so. To the people from developing countries: how do we get infrastructure into your hands? How do you tell a 20- or 30-year-old to rebuild their whole identity when they never had support from day one? If your parents couldn’t invest in your education or mobility early on, how do you suddenly uproot and relocate somewhere else to start over? It’s not simple. How do you prioritize learning Excel or job skills when you can’t reliably find food or clean water? People need to live and have some enjoyment — it’s not all work, all the time. The commentary I’m seeing basically says, “If you can’t afford it, you don’t deserve it.” That’s a cruel mindset.

Look: iPhones aren’t a complete solution, but imagine Apple giving a blind person an iPhone every five years. Even if the device isn’t the absolute latest model, the access and tools that come with it would be life-changing. I’m not demanding miracles, I’m asking for practical empathy. If companies can afford to discount or donate a portion of stock or devices, why not do it? You won’t lose your fortune by giving a percentage away. If top executives found out they’d lose their eyesight tomorrow, many would empty bank accounts to save it—so why not act now and help people who already need assistance? I’m not pretending to have all the answers or the logistics sorted. I get that this might not be pragmatic at scale, and fine—if it won’t work pragmatically, say so. But what’s upsetting is that most reactions are reflexively negative, dismissing the idea out of hand. If Apple gave an iPhone to a blind person every five years, who would it hurt? Nobody is being forced to take it. Nobody is losing anything essential. And the benefit—actual, tangible accessibility—would be enormous for the recipient. I can’t pass on my blindness to you, and you can’t pass your sight to me. I can’t hand over my condition like it’s a choice. I can't give you cancer, or bipolar, or ADHD, or autism, and obviously, I'm not saying that these disabilities are any less, but is is very easy to lose your eyesight. If companies can help, even in small, structured ways, we should be pushing for it rather than reflexively shutting the idea down.

First mistake is I do not consider this a community but a group of people who became blind. Just a group of people who share tips, ideas and so on about a device that we use. We do not have much in common with each other beside using apple devices. I am sure someone will indicate that I am negative and will complain about it, Apparently even when I sign out with Long live cats, some object. This is a very interesting topic but of the end of the day, is just talk. Long live cats.

the pospectives raised here are interesting, but I have one question to ask, not out of malice, I’m genuinely seeing an issue here, we’re comparing education discounts and we want something similar to it for disabled, now, some excelant points have been raised about people that could barely get an iphone’s price in a year, my question is, this is troublsome, because while education discounts exist, I’ve used it, it’s barely a thing, for example, for the cheapest ipad it’s not even a $100 discount, maybe if you go higher it increases, but for the iphone it’s going to be $100 or so, so even if apple agreed, I’m doubtful it’ll be a big enough discount that it drasticly improves the lives of the ones that struggle getting a device, and yes, I’m worried about us being considered less because we pay less if this thing happened, but honestly there are so many valid points everywhere I don’t even know who to agree or disagree with anymore lol.