Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:29:46 -0400 |
Content-Type: | TEXT/PLAIN |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I mostly tend to agree with Bill here. A solution in search of a problem.
Of course, people should be allowed to use whatever works for them,
however, a company needs to make a profit and so they will need to charge
for this device. From my perspective, my IPhone can do anything this ring
can do, and my IPhone is an off-the-shelf piece of hardware, so will
undoubtedly be less expensive, and more up-to-date than the ring.
In the article, they even say something about integrating with a smart
phone. Why bother? The smart phone can do anything the ring can do, so
it would just be redundant.
I realize that I am biased by my own need to avoid adaptive hardware, so
tend to rely on off-the-shelf technologies a lot more than most, but it
still just seems pretty redundant to put a camera and speech output into a
ring, when my phone already has those capabilities.
I'm not saying this isn't an interesting idea, but not one that I would
personally spend my money on.
--
Blue skies.
Dan Rossi
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel: (412) 422-5423
VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
Archived on the World Wide Web at
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
Signoff: [log in to unmask]
Subscribe: [log in to unmask]
|
|
|