Category: Cell Phone Talk
I've been using tap tap see for months, but when I opened the app the other day I got a message that they now want $10 a month to use it. Are there any other picture identifying apps out there that are as good and are free? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks for reading.
cam fine will come close but it does not give you as much detail its used for finding the product online. OmObby comes close but is sorta slow when getting results back.
I honestly do not know of one that is as good as tap tap see
Ten dollars a month for an app? That's kind of insane.
hints why I said cam find, its the same company
Talking Goggles seems to do pretty well, and I think I spent a couple of bucks on that one. It uses the video camera also, so is great for groceries. You just can't repeat and it uses its own voice, but it does pretty well for things like sorting the groceries and similar tasks.
I wish I knew of another app. I would be more than glad to find one myself. Tap tap see was awesome until the corrupt bastards who own the app decided to jack the price. I'd imagine everyone will stop using it.
Yes, heaven forbid we actually have to pay for an app as blind people! What a catastrophe! They should all just work for free!
And you've got half of it right. It's ten a month, or you can pay 7.99 for 100 pictures, that have no time limit on them. For the quality of the app, and everything it does, I don't think that's much to ask on their part.
Well done Alicia. Can't said it more myself. What a provocative idea to ask blind people to pay $10 per month? Doesn't matter if Image Reckonigtion cost money, people need to be pay, developer need to survive or anything. How dare they ask blind people to pay for the service that blind people use? is against the law of blindness!!!
Well, you know what? i'm not a frequen user of Tap Tap See, but i'll pay $8 for 100 images to support the developer that have done such a great job, to assist me whenever i needed. I might take 6 months, or 1 year to use up my 100 pictures, but $8 might only give me a drink on starbug, or not.
Now, finish whining, back to the topic... You can try VizWiz, but your reply time could be varies, from 30 second to 5 minutes or more.
You can get Talking Goggle for free, or Camfind as well. Well, considering blind people shouldn't support such provocative developer, i'm not sure why blind people should be bother with Camfind.
I have to agree. I bet you'd be willing to pay that much for other things, like games and music, why not tap tap see?
Actually, I wasn't saying "ten dollars a month for an app for blind people? That's crazy!" I won't pay ten dollars a month for an app unless I can't live without the thing, I'm not exactly rolling in money over here. There's very little I'd pay that much for that wasn't, you know, necessary for my daily functioning. I use tap tap see maybe once a month as it is.
Ten bucks a month isn't much, till you consider that that's a little over a hundred bucks a year for something I might use, say, a dozen times in that year. That's a month of groceries for me, sometimes even two if I make it stretch. I'm not against paying for things as a blind person, that would be silly and I'm not usually silly.
Oh Oh, we just had this whole argument on our Ausie IOS list.
I totally understand why they need to charge for this kind of service. I honestly have only used this a handful of times so whether I'll subscribe myself is another story.
At the moment, I know of Talking goggles that is free, and Cam find? all do similar things.
There's others.
Yep, I have no issue whatsoever when people want to charge for their work, and frankly I'm a little disappointed that people seemed to jump to the conclusion that I was protesting the price on the basis of being blind. It has nothing whatsoever to do with that and I hate that entire line of thought. It's more that, considering it's an app (many of which don't cost near that much) and considering I don't use it very much, it is not justifyable for me, personally.
Last summer, if they'd started charging monthly fees for BlindSquare, I'd have coughed up, because I relied on it quite a bit. So it's all in how much you value a thing.
I, at least, didn't misread you there. I saw what you said rather than jumping to a conclusion. Ten bucks a month for something I might use a handful of times seems a bit much, for me personally. This coming from a guy who doesn't have a cat in fairly large part because it would cost probably thirty to fifty dollars a month to take care of it. It's money I just can't justify.
Maybe if you're using it all the time, to identify money or something, that'd be different, but we Canadians don't have that issue most of the time.
As someone already pointed out, the $10 per month plan isn't the only option. There's also an option to pay about $8 for 100 images, and those 100 images have no time limit.
Yeah, see that I would probably go for quite happily. It's a great app in its way.
Meglet, I was talking to the guy a couple posts after yours, not to you. Sorry, I should have specified. Though, in all honesty you could have been more clear with your intentions. It was a bit ambiguous.
I subscribed to it myself because I do use it often, but I wish it was a one-time fee type of deal. I'd be totally fine paying upword from thirty bucks for the app, etc. But most apps, regardless whether blindness-related or not, don't cost 120 dollars to maintain a year. It does add up, considering I could buy my kid twelve packs of diapers for one hundred twenty bucks. or pay an electric bill. like meglet said, a lot of us aren't rolling in money, and though the app is very useful and has actually helped me on a day-to-day basis, I do have two other people I'm responsible for and a ton of expenses.
I do need it though, so I did subscribe.
Ambiguous it may have been, but people automatically assumed I meant that it was insane to charge for a "blindness" app, when I said absolutely nothing of the kind. If I'm unclear, I would rather be asked to clarify, rather than have people simply assume they know what I mean. Just because this is the zone does not mean every single post is 100% about blindness. An app that has a subscription fee is something I find kinda crazy, and I really wish people had read what was there rather than reading what they thought it meant.
If I complain about, say, taxes, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm bitching because I'm blind and shouldn't pay them. If I bitch about a program being inaccessible, I'm bitching because I can't use it, not necessarily because I believe every single piece of software should be 100% usable at all times ever to accommodate my disability. Make sense?
When TapTapSee finishes porting the app to android I will pay the 7.95 for a hundred images, probly see if I can donate later on
No Meglet, my comment was not aimed at you. It was partly at the original poster, but mostly at this person Cocch, I believe post number seven. If you're already not a frequent user of TapTapSee, then you're right, it wouldn't make sense to pay for it.
Apologies, Alicia.
None needed. It's all good.
let us do some sums here shall we/? girls and boys, take out your pen and paper like good kids do. $8 devided by 100 =? yes, 8C! well done! what about $10 devided by 30? 33.33C! well done! try $10 divide by 31? 32C! well done!
Now, is 32/33C too much to ask per day, if you use more than say 5 photos a day?
Can also, someone tell me, is 8C too much for 1 photo reckoniction?
If so, look at what Chris N charge for his photo description service, and compare them two.
One thing that all of the posters fail to acknowledge is that Tap tTap See employ people to reckonize image. And these people need wages, developer need to survive. Even major company like Adobe, Microsoft will tell you that ones off payment is no longer sustainable for the business development.
I just removed it, but not because of the cost. I was only using it to do money every blue moon. I did play with it some when I first got it, to see what it could see, but after that the fun was gone.
I'd surely pay the 10 a month, or the 8 for 100 pics would be better for me though.
Sister said get Money Reader, and I paid 10 for it period. I wonder if they'll start charging by the month?
Other apps for sighted persons don't charge do they?
I really don't use many apps, and the paid ones I do have are like Pandora, because I wanted the Pandora 1. Other than that all the others work free. Liike Starbucks. Lol
I've got to put money on it, but it only cost me per cup. Smile.
The thing I'd really like the Tap Tap See to do is tell me how the girl looks? JK.
Seriously, Sometimes it be handy to say the color of say towels in my bathroom, but I've got these organized, so I know what set I've got out.
Do you all really use it for seeing food products?
Pretty neat! I don't buy canned foods, or vary little, like Tuna, so I don't even need that. I don't use things in boxes either.
wayne, it does tell you colors--colors of towels if that's what you were asking about. lol. and yes, it does identify food products, and not just the ones in boxes and in cans.
I tried it once on a new set of towels I had just gotten. It told me something like "towels on a rack." This was about 2 months ago.
These towels have 3 colors, so that might have been difficult.
I used it on my coffeemaker, and it told me it was a KitchenAid, so I thought that was slick.
I just don't need to know what things are, because I know what I buy.
I never tried it while out shopping. Maybe I'll get it bback and do that some.
"Harley shop. Yep, that's a hell of a motorcycle dude!" Smile.
See, Wayne hit on what I was trying to earlier: it's not charging per month for a blindness-related app that I consider a little nuts, it's charging a subscription fee for an app, period. I know of very very few normal apps that require subscription fees and none that I'd pay for.
I've had good luck with tap tap see for some things and no luck at all with others. To identify a can of food, I'd have to take about six pictures before it told me what I was looking at, sometimes only telling me the brand. Yet it would identify my scentsy bars perfectly every time.
Guess the person working on the other end figured "she doesn't really want to eat that, so I'll just not know." hahahaha
I still guess it be worth it, but only limited for me.
I'd pay, because it helps others, and wouldn't mind.
If I actually used the thing I'd pay, certainly.
Ah but we working blind are supposed to be just working machines and don't you forget it! And don't dare raise an objection lol.
I just found TapTapSee to be a bit slow, and think the video cam apps like Talking Goggles are quite innovative this way.
If they are charging for the service hopefully they have some of the server problems fixed that they had about a year ago. My days of rolling over and playing dead because we're supposed to, are long over.
I haven't used oMoby in a coufle years. And yeah, I don't have te do images all that often, even less now that I can do the shopping and I know what I brought home.
Personally I think they should just go for it, charge the ten bucks a month or the price of a set number of images, and see what happens. Quite possibly, CamFind didn't turn out as lucrative an effort as they'd hoped.
Apps development is exciting, but really hard to make a living at. The people who really make a living doing it are either apps factories or they create an app for an already-existing income structure. Just increasing revenue streams.
CamFind is not meant for purely blind people only. With a shopping database on CamFind, i'm not surprise if they keep CamFind free, and somehow get other company to pay loyalty to the service.
It was made it very clear, in ac ouple of weeks ago, either TapTapSee starts charging, or they shut TapTapSee completely.
Early last year, developer of TapTapSee got some croud funding to develop CamFind on Kickstarter. At that time, TapTapSee was not as popular as now, and they already stated that it cost at least $150 per day to run TapTapSee, a s TapTapSee employ (pay wages) people to reckonize image.
On that note, they also say that, part of the croud funding cost will go to help TapTapSee to stay sustainable. This was early 2012. $150 a day, will cost them at least $4000 a month. and these $$$ is not something that they can bring it back. And now, we talking about endn of 2013. The needs of TapTapSee grow, TapTapSee become more popular than ever, as an app. I can only imagine $150 a day in 2012 will be more like $500 a day now. I guess, unless someone is self employ or own a business, or a volunteer developer. If not, perhaps one may not understand the principle behind a business.
Ones off fee is not sustainable for a long run. The blind community is consider rather tied in population. If 10,000 people bought TapTapSee for say, $10, it only gives TapTapSee $100,000. Minus all the cost and admin cost involve, maybe TapTapSee g ets $80,000 if they are lucky. How long $80,000 will last?
If they pay $500 a day for image reckonigtion, that will only last them less than 6 months.
If they pay $150 a day for image reckonigtion, that will last them around 18 months to 2 years. Then what? Developer still need to eat, employees still need their wages to survive.
You know Meglet, I thought about why you might not get the results from the can. Maybe it was you needed to turn it around each time you take a picture.
Cans have pictures, and words, but they are not all the way around the can.
That's the thing: I kept taking it from different angles, getting fragments of words here and there.
To the second-last poster: I don't think that those of us who don't want to pay monthly for the app lack understanding about how a business is run. It's just that we, personally are unwilling to pay, and I don't think we should be judged any more harshly just because we're blind and it's a blindness-related app. Sighted people don't pay for things they don't want to, so why should we?
Yes, I agree Meglet. If you don't want a product you shouldn't feel like you have to support it.
The thing I think here is people wanting the product, but not being willing to support it. Blind or sighted, you want it, pay if there is a cost.
Meglet is right. Joane I get the sustainability argument. But this is an open market, and people pay for what they use. You can't be an economic enterprise and a cause, expecting people to put change in the collection plate at the same time.
For what it's worth, I don't think this is what they're doing. I think it's great if they can turn this app into a cash cow. To do it right though, I actually think they need to have a few more pricing options. Maybe, charge someone like me, who doesn't use it very often, five bucks an image. The more images he used, the more goes down in price. But you can't talk to so it's a nonprofit organization, taking tax-deductible donations. If it is, then I'm all for donating to a project like this. However, you cantonal honesty just treat private enterprise like a nonprofit, just because it supports one particular sector. Fleksy is another example: I think the idea was great. However, since I didn't really find a use for it personally, I didn't pony up the 10 bucks. Just because I'm blind doesn't mean that you, or a community, or the state, gets to decide how I'm going to spend my my family money. This isn't the Soviet Union, it's a free enterprise. Consequently, everybody will spend money where and how they see fit, and whether family and kids need it. To dictate how and where people should spend their money, one would have to move to communist nation. There are fewer and fewer of those around. I'm not afraid to spend money on apps. I do it all the time, for stuff that I use. Even blind only apps. I recently bought BlindSquare. It is hard for some people to understand, if they haven't been the sole provider for family for a long period of time, or if they haven't worked in the private sector. If you working on profit, I understand where you're coming from. I totally get that. Think we can all do without the self hating, communist blind, who expect to create a collective of comrades pay into a certain group of providers. It's a free market for all, and there are some very serious competitors here. The case of recognition apps, talking goggles is really difficult to beat. It doesn't have all the features, but it does use the video camera. That's really difficult for somebody to beat who is using the still camera. I'm not arguing for or against one or the other. That's simply something I would be having to consider if I was to business manager or financial manager of that company, or even a developer that company.
Hmm, ok, so it'll identify towels on a rack, a coffee maker, and boxes of food. The questions is ... will it identify that bowl of mistery goo that's been in my fridge for a couple of months? ha ha ha
Do you really want to know what it is anyway? lol
Wayne, you bring up a good point about people wanting to use the app but not being willing to support its continued operation. That, I have no sympathy for.
I still want it to describe the girl! Give me that and I'll pay the 10. hahaha.
Oh, forgot, I can't snap her naked. Okay, fine, I'll make sure she's dressed, but....
Seriously, if it is a not for profit, then they can't charge. They have to call it a donation.
Rofl Wayne, with that girldiscription, you can try Chris N's service. i think he charge a couple of bugs, but he'll give you 250 words worth of description. On the website, he didn't say anything about no naked photos? lol.
No Uncle, i'm not argue against those that are not wanting the service and not wanting to pay. I'm argue against those that want the service, but not wishing to pay. Who cares, if they don't want the service, and don't wish to pay. Like you say, it is an open market, everyone have the option and choice to choose. But for those, that wanting to use the service, but complain about how unfair it is charging and all that, that is something that i can't accept
Smile.
I for one don't mind paying for taptapsee. I use it a lot. I'm going for the 100 picture pack for now.
I just got tap tap see a few days ago, and it has not asked me for money yet or some sort of upgrade. How many free pictures do you get before this is the case? I just got it to play around with but I don't see myself actually needing it as an essential.
they do it in different stages i think. they want to keep it free for as long as they can, but pretty soon i suppose, they will go pay.
One of the arguement is that you will get 20 pictures as a trial. either they start that or not, i'm not sure. I only use TapTapSee like ones in 3 or 4 months or even less.
I jinxed myself, because now they're telling me I have to pay if I want to take more pictures.
So start with the smallest amount and see. If it is something you really like using, move up.
Hi. I'm the original poster of this thread, but only got back to it now. I decided to try the $8 package of 100 pics, but the problem I have is that it usually takes two or three tries to get the info that I want from what I take a picture of. I have no problem with paying, but sometimes it's frustrating when you can't get it to identify what it is you want to find. I only asked for alternatives because, like everybody on here, I'd try a cheaper or free option if I had the opportunity to.
As for the guy who wanted descriptions of chicks, I believe there's an app called the "Ugly Meter" available, but don't know how it works.
I'm the guy, but I was teasing. If you've read the rules on the TapTapSee about what you can and can not send them, well. hahahaha.
Forereel, you might want to check this out.
http://www.applevis.com/apps/ios/entertainment/ugly-meter
I'm with most people. I have no objections to paying for an app but I'd prefer a one-time fee rather thana subscription, especially inthose instances where you might have to take several pictures in an effort to get the directions off, say a box of cake or brownie mix. I did play with it for a while and it recognized my cat as a black longhaired one. LOL.
Just for the record Meglit, I wasn't aiming my post at you either but that one a little before yours.
But I hope those few ulternative apps I provided were useful.
No worries. :)
Yeah, if you are paying per picture and it takes several to get good results this could be a problem.
I understand why they charge per pic if they are paying for server space / bandwidth leasing.
I actually agree with Sugarbaby's audioboo post about this see @Clairerandall.
Apparently they marketed this as a free app, that CamFind was going to pay for it and that TapTapSee was a test tool turned useful to a target group. This is really common in software, sorry to burst the fantasy bubble of the blind-hating crowd. It happens all the time.
Anyway looks like CamFind turned out to be a business flop so the money comes from TapTapSee whose original purpose was a symbiotic relationship where real live humans in a target demographic were used as guinea pigs to test out a technology. Again, happens all the time, only the bait and switch that Claire is talking about has some merit.
My take on this is the original, tried and true method simply worked to create the technology, but the end product CamFind didn't turn out to be the success they were hoping for, and so they turned to their symbiotic test group for a market. This typically does not work as a model. Only the schoolyard blind hate children will try to hold up their mythology.
If they're going to go subscription, I think they're right to do it by photos / refills, only because people often feel rather nickeled and dimed to death for a monthly subscription they don't even use that often.
I don't think this demographic, and the money it doesn't make, is going to produce enough money to lease bandwidth and pay for servers though. And to first tell a demographic their primary contribution is as guinea pigs, again something that is extremely common in testing out technologies, and then to charge them for it later just won't fly. I have never seen it fly in enterprise, where the blind hate schoolchildren fear to tread, or are to under-educated on how it works to tread.
That doesn't mean it won't work: mobile apps as a marketplace is being innovated as we speak. So who knows? They thought to try this, and in the traditional business world with traditional marketing ethics that simply would not fly, just like Claire has pointed out. Symbiotic test relationships function very differently than do customer end-product relationships.
But if it does work out, there will be an actual economic reason, and a method to the madness, and one that ultimately makes sense.
The reason Amazon succeeded during the dot com bust, and all your competing FrozenBroccoliOnAStick.com businesses failed was that Amazon had the hindsight to use traditional business practices and the foresight to innovate new marketing strategies that actually worked online.
We'll see how this one works out, and what methods ultimately work in the mobile apps space. Every operation has a brick and mortar component, and the brick and mortar component has those annoying costs associated with it. How those costs get paid for requires new innovations in new markets, though. I'm personally not sure traditional marketing ethics violations are going to cut it, though.
It's a shame too because the fact that it takes several pictures to identify certain objects is not, from what I can tell, a flaw in the app, but rather an inherent flaw in the way we blind people are able to take good pictures. It's a challenge, and while practice does help, it's not always possible to give the app a decent picture. If only there were a way to charge for each object successfully recognized. I don't think it's possible, but one can dream.
I agree, and I for one am glad I don't have to be the financial manager of such a project.
Talking goggles is pretty good in theory as you can take a real time vidio of the item/s, and it even seems to have OCR built in so one is able to read what CDs are what though I haven't been very successful with getting it to work yet. :(