Last updated on 8 May 2025
Sunday, the 27th of April 2025 marked a major turning point for Tech-Freedom, one of the blind-specific apps on Android, which includes features like a document reader, AI-generated image descriptions, and an assistant, among others. On that date, the developers gave up their initial plans of a totally free, ad-free experience, with users now having the choice to either purchase a subscription plan or keep using the app for free but encounter an extensive display of ads. Some of the reaction to that announcement, along with experiences with people’s attitudes toward other apps, made me think about whether the current mentality of blind users builds a supportive environment for fruitful initiative and innovative ventures—or the opposite. Since the blind community is not isolated from the rest of society, some of what I will discuss in this article holds true for sighted users as well.
Table of Contents
Give me everything for free
People are used to getting apps and services for free, with popular messaging services, social network apps, AI chatbots, and others all provided free of charge. Many of these apps include paid plans, but usually, most users may not need what these plans add. We all like free stuff, and this is a normal attitude, but we have reached a point where we take this free experience for granted without thinking about how we are getting it in the first place. We may repeat the saying that states, if you don’t pay for a product, then you are the product, humorously, without even thinking deeply about what this means.
But wait, nothing is really free
Take a moment to think about the website where you’re reading this article. Do you know that, in order for it to stay online and working, there are costs that someone is covering: like hosting, spam protection, etc.? And this is just a simple website. What about apps that require a lot of data and servers, or apps that offer online functionalities like interactions with AI and other services? Simply put, there are costs that must be covered to keep these apps running and available. These costs vary based on what the app does and the number of users it serves.
Look at Google, for example, the huge company with a diverse selection of free apps and platforms. Not only is it able to cover the gigantic costs, it is also earning a respectable profit. Most people already know that Google gets revenue from ads. This article is not meant to discuss how companies like Google or Meta are harvesting people’s data and what that data means for those companies. This example is only provided to reiterate that even if you are not paying anything directly, costs are still covered and a lot of money is collected.
Apps we use aren’t only from big companies though, as Android is full of indie and small-team projects. While no one could ignore what voluntary work has achieved in terms of providing free, useful apps—both general and blind-specific—it’s important to remember that even if a developer provides their time for free, there are still other costs that someone, somewhere, is paying.
Developers’ available choices to pay the app’s bills
As costs vary based on what an app does and whether it works online or offline, the choices available to developers are impacted by this variation.
A developer or team of developers could decide to keep the app offered for free, covering any payment requirements from their own pockets. These developers often work on these apps in their free time, as they are not a source of income for them.
Keep the app for free but display ads in the UI: Ads are a good source of money for developers, especially full-screen video ads. Stories of game developers who became rich when their games went viral because of ads
are there to show how ads can be an essential source of revenue.
Opting for partially or fully paid alternatives: Developers could opt to offer two tiers of their apps—a free tier with ads and limitations, and a paid tier that could be subscription-based, a one-time purchase, or both.
Relying on external support and donations: A prominent example is the Windows screen reader NVDA. It is open source and available to everyone for free, yet it has a team behind it that doesn’t work for free. The screen reader’s goal—to be a free alternative to expensive options—gained traction and received support from large organizations and companies. Without the money poured into the project, NVDA wouldn’t have reached where it is today, even with the team’s good intentions and true devotion.
The current mindset among blind users
Let me be clear from the outset that I’m not generalizing. The sections below are based on my experience as a member of the community who has observed the behavior of many users and their interactions over the years.
Give me the app for free, or let the features I don’t use be paid
Blind users follow the general attitude of being attracted to free stuff. They don’t ask about the source of funding as long as they aren’t the ones expected to pay. But there’s a catch here: the nature of blind-related applications. These apps are built to serve a limited set of users and are sometimes created and maintained by enthusiastic individuals driven by the noble idea of improving people’s lives. These developers are either genuinely passionate and willing to invest their time and effort carefully, or they hope their apps will be recognized and supported by a big donor who can keep the project alive and improve their situation as well.
Beyond the small user base, the type of sensitive data these apps may handle is also important. If this data isn’t treated responsibly under legal and ethical standards, it might become an undisclosed source of income. We tend to praise free initiatives—especially when they give us a lot of useful features—and we usually don’t bother to ask how we’re getting these services or what we’re giving in return. This fits our unrealistic expectation that there are always people willing to do things on our behalf. And license agreements, what are license agreements? Aren’t they just the annoying screens we try to get rid of as fast as possible by tapping the “Agree” button?
It’s important to clarify that I’m not accusing any particular app. What I’m suggesting is a likely scenario, especially considering that many blind users dislike ads and prefer a completely ad-free experience.
Another trend observed among some blind users is accepting paid plans, but only those they don’t plan to use. These users are bold enough to try to dictate what should be removed from behind the paywall. They might say, “This is an essential feature; it shouldn’t be in the paid plan,” as if the paid plan wasn’t meant to be used at all. They seem to forget that the pro version needs to include enough enticing features for people to actually consider paying.
The Cracks Curse
I’m not revealing a secret when I say that it’s easy to obtain cracked apps on Android. Cracks are widespread, and blind-related apps—including screen readers—are not immune. Channels, groups, and websites that distribute cracked software are well known among blind users. Crack sources even rank high in search engine results. Before Accessible Android became known, searching for the Jieshuo Screen Reader, for example, would often return cracked versions as the top results.
While it would be unfair to claim that only blind users rely on cracked apps, there’s a particularly troubling aspect to how some in the blind community justify their use. It’s not uncommon to hear someone proudly announce their success in cracking a blind-focused app, hoping to be praised as a hero improving the lives of a marginalized group.
Moreover, those who use cracked versions often share their excuses without hesitation. Some claim they’re too poor to pay and thus deserve free access. Others present themselves as vigilant users fighting back against what they call greedy developers trying to exploit them. A common line of reasoning is, “The app isn’t good enough to deserve payment—if it gets better, I’ll pay.” But of course, it never does, at least not in their eyes.
None of these justifications hold water. Cracking apps denies developers the revenue they need to continue improving their products. This is especially damaging when the app serves a small, specific group like blind users. And the problem goes beyond lost income: developers end up covering the cost of serving these cracked versions, responding to feedback, fixing bugs, and even implementing feature requests from users who haven’t paid a cent.
Worse still, many of these crack users act as if they are legitimate paying customers. They report bugs, submit feature requests, and even express frustration when their issues aren’t addressed. There’s an irony in hearing someone speak proudly about avoiding “greedy developers,” while using a cracked app they downloaded without taking a moment to consider what it might contain. In the case of screen readers, this is especially dangerous. Cracked apps could easily include keyloggers or other malicious code that silently harvests personal data and interactions. And once the data is gone, no one knows where it ends up, or how it will be used.
“I’m Poor and I Have More Important Bills to Pay”
This statement isn’t inherently wrong. Many blind people do fall into the financially unstable, marginalized category. In many countries, it’s genuinely difficult to find reliable work if you’re blind, and there are no organizations or government institutions stepping in to cover your needs. Being blind also brings extra expenses compared to sighted peers.
But here’s the question: are app developers responsible for this situation? Should someone who builds apps for a living be expected to offer their work for free just because the user is blind and poor? Are developers supposed to be the soldiers fighting poverty and social inequality?
This “I’m unlucky” symphony plays over and over, especially when a free app becomes paid, or when someone justifies using a cracked version. And it’s not just about wanting basic access. These same people usually want the best service, the most advanced features, no ads, and a premium experience. In their minds, being poor and blind should grant them unlimited access, no questions asked.
What makes it more ironic is how this view often ignores the situation of others. These users rarely stop to think that the developer might also be struggling. The developers are expected to show compassion, and if not, then they’re painted as a greedy capitalists exploiting low-income users.
Blind-Related Apps: Specific Troubles
As stated above, blind-related apps are built to serve a specific limited set of users. With AI now taking the lead and its potential to improve blind people’s lives quite clear, apps that offer AI-generated image and video descriptions or AI assistants have become especially popular. But AI services aren’t free. Even if a user can access basic versions of popular chatbots and APIs without paying, more advanced usage often comes with a price. These costs grow as demand and data usage increase. So, if an app provides image descriptions using an AI service, it must cover the cost of each description the user receives.
More traditional services, like simple OCR scanning, also come with expenses. Funding an app isn’t just about paying for online services either. Even offline apps may ask for money. That’s because app developers are people with real needs. They have bills to pay and goals to reach like everyone else.
Still, some blind users believe that the developers of blind-related apps should work entirely for free, donating their time and effort as a form of charity. While such developers do exist and deserve recognition, that shouldn’t be the standard expectation, nor should anyone be shamed for choosing not to go down that path.
A blind-related app can also be a source of income or even a lucrative business. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Rude Behavior and Developer Burnout
Although we often complain about being exploited, we sometimes end up exploiting others ourselves. Many blind users seem to believe that if an app is made for them, then its developer must be available 24/7 to make sure everything runs smoothly. This developer is expected to respond instantly to emails and fulfill every request—otherwise, they’re labeled as arrogant or ungrateful.
This issue becomes even more intense when the app is paid. Some users feel that even if they’ve only paid $1, they now hold power over the developer. They ask for more features, they use existing features heavily, and they rarely pause to consider whether what they paid actually covers the value they’re getting.
Worse still, they proudly “collaborate” by pushing the app to its limits—like scanning a thousand-page PDF in one go—and then complain if there’s a delay or a warning. Suddenly, that small payment becomes a source of entitlement and regret.
This kind of behavior is extremely frustrating for developers. Even the most passionate ones eventually burn out. Through careless actions, parts of the blind community push away well-intentioned developers and end up destroying projects that could have been truly useful.
The Residue of Bad Reputations in Blind-Related Products
How many times have you gasped after looking at the price list of blind-related products? From watches and canes to braille displays and other specialized tools, there’s one consistent theme: exaggerated prices. In many cases, you could find a talking product at a local shop or pharmacy for a fraction of what a blind-specific company charges for something similar. Add to that hidden costs like overpriced repairs and limited support designed to push users toward unnecessary upgrades—none of it is uncommon.
Over the years, these experiences have built a widespread belief: if a product is for the blind, then it’s likely overpriced and a means of exploitation. The equation becomes simple in many minds: paid blind-related product = bad product sold at an unfair price.
Because of this mindset, many companies and developers automatically find themselves under suspicion. They have to justify every dollar they charge, always on the defensive, always assumed to be taking advantage. Even when they’re simply trying to make a fair profit—like any other business—they’re met with doubt and criticism. This toxic environment makes it difficult for genuinely helpful projects to gain trust or build on solid ground.
The Absence of a Donation Culture
It seems logical that we would support those who understand our needs by contributing to their efforts with our own money. Unfortunately, most of the blind community doesn’t follow this logic. If an app is free and donation-based, many users will simply ignore the donation request. Some might even complain if the app asks for donations in the middle of their work. Interrupting their workflow to ask for donations can feel frustrating, right?
While it’s true that some people genuinely can’t afford to donate, others have the means but choose not to. They might believe that larger donors will cover the costs or think that developers, as “charities,” will continue to fund the app’s maintenance themselves. The lack of a donation culture doesn’t only affect apps, it extends to websites and content providers as well. A “thank you” is a kind gesture, but it doesn’t pay the bills or put food on the table, no matter how many times it’s said.
We Understand You Need Money, But Hey, Ads Are Not Allowed
Ads are annoying. That’s a fact. Blind users, in particular, are affected more by them because they have to spend extra time navigating through the ad or dealing with full-screen ads that don’t have an accessible way to close them. But just because ads slow me down doesn’t automatically make an app inaccessible. A full-screen video ad that I can close is the same one sighted get. And, by the way, they don’t like it either. They’d rather not deal with it.
However, ads are a main income source in many apps. When Tech-Freedom took the excessive ad-displaying approach to promote its subscription plans, people quickly complained. They linked ads to accessibility to criticize what the developers were doing. Yes, ads impact ease of use, but that doesn’t make the app inaccessible.
In Tech-Freedom’s case, the app took an aggressive, yet understandable, approach by not starting if an ad blocker was detected. People considered this a privacy violation and a blow to accessibility. Some even saw it as an excuse not to subscribe, even though the limitation is lifted once you do. While not all apps take such strict measures, taking this step isn’t wrong. If a free version of an app is ad-supported, users can’t expect to keep using the app while blocking ads. It’s as simple as that.
Every Change is Suspicious
It’s a common practice for apps to be offered free of charge during a beta stage, then transition to a free version with ads or paid plans. Blind people assume the beta stage should stay forever. They might write reviews packed with a dictionary of appreciation synonyms, only to forget all about it when the app is out of beta. The same developers who provided features for free now become the greedy evildoers, and words of appreciation quickly turn into public insults.
Another scenario is when passionate developers, in the heat of excitement, declare an app will be “free forever,” to pull back later and decide to include ads and subscription plans. At that stage, people start talking about “principles” and how they can’t trust someone who changes their mind with their money and data (it’s not important if those people themselves might not be the best with their promises, even their simple New Year’s resolutions). And then, you witness the storm—good intentions become bad, and praised developers become thieves and blind people’s enemies. Many don’t care to discuss the alternative paid plans or what led to them being applied in the first place.
You might think criticism only affects apps that transition from free to paid. Well, no, that’s wrong. What about the regret some felt after the Envision app became free, because they were the idiots who paid? Those people never thought of what their money was able to accomplish for other users or how it kept the app running until it reached a free stage. Not only that, people assumed the service had deteriorated simply because it became free (it’s likely that many of these people were using cracks, by the way).
The waves of complaints continue to hit developers who decide to raise subscription prices, without any consideration for the fact that big players with a lot of money also raise prices, and that a price hike affecting a blind-related app could be more justifiable than a price hike for a well-known, general service.
Final Remarks
When you read this article, you might say that I was too harsh and that I’m drawing a bleak picture which could put off developers from starting new projects on Android. I believe that we must point out the injury and acknowledge its presence to stop the bleeding and start treatment. Unfortunately, there is a toxic mentality that makes working in the blind-apps-related sector not a very pleasant experience.
There are already free, appreciated applications that are well-supported, like Be My Eyes
and Seeing AI, but they are not enough. Innovation needs the right environment to thrive. But with cracks everywhere and people dedicating time to making them, with developers stuck in a constant cat-and-mouse game with crackers, with users justifying stealing simply because they can’t afford or refuse to pay, won’t use free alternatives or tolerate ads, and with feedback often reduced to personal insults and accusations instead of constructive input, I must say that yes, there is a problem, and a serious one.
We think that we own the apps we use, ignoring that the devs are the ones who set the rules. They can ask for money or display ads, and when we don’t like what they’re doing, we can stop using their apps, not crack them or throw baseless claims.
It’s okay to like free apps (I personally have participated in giveaways and am delighted if I get a promo code from a developer, even if the app is not one I need), but a balance should be struck, and appreciation should be shown to those who take the time to develop and maintain apps. I don’t need to subscribe to or pay for every blind-related app out there. I have the right to not like a certain app or consider it a waste of money, but I don’t have the right to attack developers just because they ask for money.
I can go further to say that it is completely fine for a blind-related app developer to make a profit from their app. The right way to combat greedy developers is by searching for alternatives and supporting other projects.
One advantage of iOS over Android is its closed nature. If you like an app there, you can’t grab a crack and install it. You either get the app if you can or don’t use it at all. Maybe this is one of the factors contributing to having more blind-related apps on iOS.
Everyone should remember that if it seems too good to be true, it probably is. Don’t feel glad when you get everything for free because there could be shady tactics happening behind your back that harm you more than you’d imagine.
I should reiterate that I never meant to generalize. However, bad attitudes outweigh good ones, especially in the age of social networks and huge groups where everyone can throw their opinions around, designating them as facts, putting all sorts of terms reflecting the harsh circumstances of the blind and how they are surrounded by wolves who have nothing other than trying to eat them.
It’s time to pause for a moment and think: who are we hurting, and what’s next?
good thing we have adblockers
Until the app forces you to turn it off. That’s the problem here. I was going to pay for the subscription to the app. They mentioned just as soon as I had funds, but when I opened it up to see what he actually changed and got a message demanding, I turn off my ad blocker, That shot down any chance they ever had of seeing a dime from me. Now it’s never going to happen and they only have themselves to blame. They don’t get a pass for being a small company either. ASR, free version has ads and limited features. You can get rid of the ads with an ad blocker and just have the limited features, which doesn’t bother me because I just need to hit record and get on with my life. Several of our games, ads. Do they demand a disabling of the ad blocker to play? Absolutely not. I bought one of those, paid the lifetime subscription for it, simply because the developer was extremely responsive and actually cared about our concerns. This isn’t even strike one for the app they’re discussing here. When they first came around, they demanded some kind of proof of disability certificate, just to use the darn app, which I might add is not always something we can easily obtain. Not every country hands out ID cards that say hey, use me for proof of disability. It just doesn’t work like that. I’ve got friends, software and web, developers themselves, and even they disagree with this. It’s not that I have a problem with paying for stuff. I have a problem with you telling me how I can run my devices. That’s why I don’t use Samsung. They force a lot to boot loader. That’s telling me how I can use my device and I will not deal with it.
I don’t think that cracking apps is the answer. But I also think that checking if users are running ad blockers and demand them to disable it is a huge problem as well. Ads have time and time again been security- and privacy riscs.
Also there are people who just don’t have the money to pay for an app. If one would subscribe to everything one would perhaps get into the dripple didgets.
Personally I got rid of subscriptions. If I can pay for a life-time license I will if set app is worth it to me. I even payed fo rlicenses for other people. But the minute some developer intrudes on my personal device, forcing security mesures to be deactivated, that is a clear no for me.
Developers should be able to earn their living. Putting the blame on the users does not work though. There are people who crack apps just to safe money. But i do not think those are the majority.
In short: We need to have a discussion about all of this. but this article strikes me as very one-sided, which is sad.
No one is saying that we must purchase or subscribe to every app. It’s also fine to say that what a certain app provides isn’t worth the money. However, what is not fine at all is using the same app without paying for it.
Regarding ad-blockers, when an app is ad-supported and someone uses an ad-blocker, they are simply depriving the developers of their source of income, and the developers have the right to prevent them from using the app, especially when they offer an alternative option, which is to pay for the app. In that case, the app will not have any problem with the ad-blocker.
We should always distinguish between how we would like things to be and how they should be. I don’t like to watch ads, but an app developer who relies on ads has the right to tell me not to use their app, even if I see this as an extreme measure.
The article represents a point of view that you can agree or disagree with. There is no problem with that at all. I also made it clear twice in the article that I am not generalizing.
Thank you for such a well reasoned and well thought out article.
Thank you Kareen, for a well-thought-out article!
The unfortunate truth is that anything for those of us with disabilities, is prohibitive (price-wise) and this one shouldn’t be an exception.
Back in 2004, I purchased a Braillenote for the first time for $6,500, an amount that could get my family an almost brand-new car!
That device was only for my use, not for my entire family, yet, I sank all that money into that device.
Sure, I could have asked Rehab to buy it for me, but while working, I think I shouldn’t’ be taking advantage of the government.
Thus, I paid from my pocket and I paid because I saw the value of it.
The one thing that noone should ever forget, is that everything in life is based on “value” and “value” is simply a market term; thus, me valuing that Braille device as worthing 6500-bucks doesn’t even worth spending a dime on it by someone who doesn’t use nor has the need for such a device.
What am I trying to say?
What I am trying to say is this:
If one doesn’t like seeing ads, then there’s an option to get rid of those ads by choosing to pay for the app.
Matter of fact, if there are apps that I hate, it would be those that don’t have a way to make a payment to get rid of the ads; in which case, I simply don’t use such apps, regardless of what they do!
Consequently, if someone doesn’t want to pay for an app that has a payment method, and instead they want it free without ads, then the best thing to do is to not use the app!
Why this is complicated, is beyond me!
A blind friend of mine constantly reminds me that blind folks are prone to complaining about stuff, something I disagreed with him about, but I’ve lived long enough to see what he’s talking about.
If you don’t like something; don’t’ use it!
I don’t like the fact that the “Jieshuo” AKA “Confused Screen Reader” isn’t on the Play Store, thus, I don’t use it, but you won’t find me saying that the developer is doing something wrong by not putting it on the Play Store.
All I can say is this:
I think a lot of blind folks need to grow up and start adulting!
But we can’t pay if the work you are giving us a raw deal like Tech freedom is doing. If you are confident of your work, why do I have to turn off my ad blocker in order to test your app? Jishuo itself is in many ways an incomplete screen reader yet has image description as a paid feature what is the justification of that really? Kareen must just give us a break.
I didn’t write the article in defense of Tech-Freedom. I only mentioned the app as an example. Whether the features it includes are worth a subscription is a separate issue and not part of the article at all. They could have chosen a different strategy to promote their paid plan, but that doesn’t affect the legality of their decision. As I’ve repeated several times, deciding not to allow users who use ad blockers is a normal — even if radical — step, and it’s understandable that some people may not like it. I personally hate ads and am willing to uninstall an app if it uses them excessively, but that doesn’t contradict the points I made in the article.
Interestingly the coincidence is that this article came out after your video presentation about Tech-Freedom.
Besides some of these apps duplicate services which other organisations already provide. If Be My eyes provides chat GPT 4 image descriptions for free, why should I subscribe or even buy piccy bot? We have lessons learnt, where is KNFB reader the app for which we paid very high prices yet its service was extremely poor. If app developers want us to pay, they must stop giving us a raw deal.
Interestingly the coincidence is that this article came out after your video presentation about Tech-Freedom.
There’s one issue that this article did not address. Blind specific apps have terrible marketing. For one, many of the app descriptions don’t sell. They don’t convey the value to the blind user, nor persuade the blind user to purchase their product. They don’t showcase their apps on social media. They don’t shamelessly promote promote, promote, promote. Every single day, sales should be at the top of their list. Keeping their names and brands relevant should be at the top of their list. However, it doesn’t seem to be. It doesn’t matter whether a developer is passionate about the product or not, or their feelings on the product. If they intend to sell it, they need to shamelessly sell it every single day. I don’t see them doing that.