Assistive technology markets profit from exclusionary design
The assistive technology industry operates on a foundational contradiction: it profits from solving problems that universal design principles could prevent from existing in the first place.
The exclusion-correction economy
Assistive technology markets require exclusionary design to justify their existence. If mainstream products were designed inclusively from the start, the $26 billion assistive technology industry would largely evaporate.
Screen readers exist because software interfaces are designed visually-first. Mobility aids proliferate because environments prioritize aesthetic and economic efficiency over physical accessibility. Communication devices fill gaps created by systems that assume standardized speech and language processing.
Each assistive technology purchase represents a market success built on a design failure that could have been avoided.
Profitable segregation
The current model creates profitable apartheid: mainstream products for the “normal” market, specialized expensive solutions for disabled users.
Mainstream manufacturers can ignore accessibility during design phase, externalizing disability accommodation costs to specialized vendors. This reduces their development costs while creating lucrative niche markets for assistive technology companies.
Insurance and government funding subsidizes this segregated market structure, making exclusionary design economically rational for mainstream producers while guaranteeing revenue streams for assistive technology vendors.
The system incentivizes maintaining barriers rather than removing them.
Design apartheid mechanics
Assistive technology markets function through systematic design segregation that appears natural but is economically constructed.
Software accessibility illustrates this clearly: adding screen reader compatibility during initial development costs minimal resources. Retrofitting accessibility later requires expensive specialized software that generates substantial profit margins for assistive technology vendors.
Physical products follow the same pattern. Universal design principles could eliminate most mobility barriers at marginal cost increases during initial design. Instead, we build barriers then sell expensive solutions to navigate around them.
The retrofit economy
Assistive technology creates a secondary economy based on fixing problems that shouldn’t exist.
Building modifications for accessibility generate more profit than building accessibly initially. Retrofitted elevators, ramps, and accessible bathrooms cost multiples of inclusive initial construction while creating ongoing revenue streams for specialized contractors.
Digital retrofitting through assistive software and hardware creates recurring revenue models where disabled users pay ongoing costs for basic functionality that non-disabled users receive for free.
Medical model monetization
The assistive technology industry depends on the medical model of disability that locates problems within individual bodies rather than exclusionary design systems.
Individual solutions for systemic design problems generate per-person revenue streams instead of system-wide fixes that would eliminate market opportunities.
Clinical assessment and prescription models medicalize access to basic functionality, creating professional gatekeeping systems that generate additional revenue while delaying access to needed tools.
This framework presents accommodation as medical treatment rather than civil rights implementation.
Innovation misdirection
Resources that could address exclusionary design instead flow toward creating more sophisticated Band-Aid solutions.
AI-powered assistive technologies receive massive investment while basic accessibility standards remain unenforced. Smart prosthetics attract venture capital while simple environmental modifications that would eliminate the need for complex assistive devices are ignored.
The innovation focus stays on individual technological solutions rather than systemic design changes because individual solutions create scalable revenue models.
Regulatory capture
Assistive technology companies shape accessibility regulations to maintain their market positions.
Compliance standards often specify particular technological solutions rather than functional outcomes, creating mandatory markets for specific assistive technology categories.
Testing and certification requirements create barriers to entry that protect established assistive technology vendors while making it difficult for mainstream companies to integrate accessibility features directly.
The regulatory framework maintains market segregation by making universal design more bureaucratically complex than purchasing segregated solutions.
Universal design threat
True universal design represents an existential threat to assistive technology markets.
Curb cuts demonstrate this threat: once incorporated into standard street design, they eliminated the market for portable ramps for wheelchair users. Closed captions integrated into all video content would eliminate most assistive listening device markets.
Voice interfaces and gesture control built into mainstream devices reduce markets for specialized input devices. The assistive technology industry resists these developments through lobbying and regulatory influence.
Insurance dependency creation
The funding structure for assistive technology creates permanent dependency relationships that serve vendor interests over user autonomy.
Prescription requirements for assistive devices create professional mediation that generates additional revenue streams while slowing access to needed tools.
Insurance approval processes favor expensive specialized devices over simple modifications or mainstream alternatives that might serve user needs better but generate less profit for the medical-industrial complex.
Replacement cycles built into insurance coverage create recurring revenue opportunities while preventing users from choosing more durable or repairable solutions.
Value extraction from vulnerability
The assistive technology market extracts maximum value from users with the least economic and political power to resist exploitation.
Disabled users typically have reduced income due to employment discrimination and cannot easily boycott assistive technology products because they need them for basic functionality.
Captive markets allow assistive technology companies to charge premium prices for basic functionality while providing inferior user experiences compared to mainstream alternatives.
Vendor lock-in through proprietary formats and incompatible systems prevents users from switching providers even when dissatisfied with products or services.
Alternative paradigm suppression
The assistive technology industry actively suppresses awareness of universal design principles that would eliminate their market rationale.
Design education funded by assistive technology companies emphasizes accommodation over inclusion, training future designers to see accessibility as an add-on rather than a fundamental requirement.
Disability advocacy funded by assistive technology companies often focuses on expanding access to assistive technologies rather than eliminating the need for them through better initial design.
Research funding flows toward developing new assistive technologies rather than studying why exclusionary design persists or how to implement universal design effectively.
The inclusion elimination
True accessibility would largely eliminate assistive technology markets by making them unnecessary.
Universal interfaces that work for everyone would eliminate markets for specialized input devices. Flexible environments that accommodate diverse bodies would reduce mobility aid markets. Multiple communication modalities built into all systems would eliminate specialized communication device markets.
The economic incentives currently align against this inclusion because it would destroy profitable market categories.
Corporate diversity theater
Companies use assistive technology partnerships and disability-focused initiatives as diversity performance while maintaining exclusionary design practices in core products.
Accessibility labs and disability employee resource groups provide good publicity while product development continues to ignore universal design principles.
Assistive technology donations and accessibility scholarships generate positive media coverage while avoiding the systemic changes that would eliminate the need for such programs.
Reframing the value question
The value question isn’t whether assistive technology helps individual disabled users—it clearly does within current exclusionary systems.
The value question is whether maintaining markets that profit from exclusion serves broader human flourishing or primarily serves vendor interests at the expense of systemic inclusion.
Current assistive technology markets create economic incentives to maintain barriers rather than eliminate them, generating profits from problems that universal design could prevent.
Conclusion
The assistive technology industry represents a sophisticated form of exclusion economics: create problems through exclusionary design, then profit from selling solutions to the problems you created.
This system presents itself as helping disabled people while actually perpetuating the exclusionary design patterns that create disability experiences in the first place.
True accessibility would largely eliminate assistive technology markets by making them unnecessary—which explains why the industry resists universal design implementation despite rhetoric supporting inclusion.
This analysis examines market incentives and system structures rather than criticizing individual assistive technology users or dismissing the value of current assistive technologies for people who need them within existing exclusionary systems.