OrCam device is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
The NYTimes article headlined "Simple Home Improvements for the Vision Impaired"
(https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/realestate/simple-home-improvements-for-the-vision-impaired.html) twice uses the words "visually impaired" and once uses the words "impaired vision." Not that Google-research is to be used blindly (no pun intended), but there are about 22 million hits for "visually impaired" and only about 1.4 million for "vision impaired."
No discussion of the $4500 price of the ORCAM MYEYE2? On what planet is this device going to
help any visually impaired people that have not won the "Mega Millions" lottery?
Tens of thousands of visually impaired people have no possibility of owning one. And yet based
on the equipment involved, the device cannot cost more than $500 to make. Can you say gouging??147.0.222.71 (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. That was my first question. On Amazon today, it was selling for $1,690, which is reasonable. The hardware should cost about as much as a smart phone, maybe even $200. But a product for the blind would require good technical support, and there must have been a lot of development cost for the software. I also wonder whether there are any competitive products. Google glasses were down to $1,000, and they could probably serve the same function, although it would also take a lot of software development, and there were the bystander objections to being recorded. I knew people back in the 1980s who were working on computerized aids for the blind, and this was their vision for the future. You have to be skeptical about new technology, but this one seems to be working. I would look to the WP:MEDRS medical journals for an evaluation, and I would wonder about the competition. --Nbauman (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair question. I updated the page with the vendor's retail price. At that level it is unlikely to suit the mother of a friend of mine, who suffers from age related macular degeneration. Paul (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This reads like marketing blurb. The anecdote about "Employee testing" seems like the usual testimonial; and it seems to be a single employee. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
