The tech industry has long been known for offering high-quality, high-priced, and convenient solutions for developers.
But the same cannot be said for the people who make up the core of the tech industry, or the millions of people who use it, says a study by the McKinsey Global Institute.
The report, titled “It’s Just Not That Simple: Tech Tools for the Poor and Underprivileged,” was released today and has been co-authored by Mark Schoeninger, a professor of business at the University of Pennsylvania.
The McKinsey report analyzes tech tools that could benefit the underpriverved and people in need, but it does not address the impact of these tools on the broader technology industry.
Schoeringer and his colleagues looked at the impacts of tech products, from virtual assistants and virtual reality to social media and mobile apps.
“A large part of the work we did is to make sure we do our own research, because this is an industry we’re trying to figure out what the right thing to do is,” Schoendinger told FoxNews.com.
“It takes time and a lot of data to be able to say that the right tool is right for the right person.”
Schoinger and co-authors looked at a wide range of tech tools, including Amazon Alexa, Facebook Messenger, Twitter, LinkedIn, Slack, and Microsoft’s Cortana.
The research showed that the underbelly of the technology industry is where tech companies have the least access to the general public.
And there are many of those underbodies in the tech world, such as the underclass, underclass-adjacent, and underclass underprivatized.
The underbards can use technology tools for free and get the best possible experience.
The poor, meanwhile, can only use technology to help them.
“I think that it’s clear that the vast majority of people use these tools for their own benefit,” Schuinger said.
“And we should be doing more to make the tools more accessible and make them less privileged.”
“It would be nice to be making sure that the tech companies are doing things for everyone.”
While the report does not examine the tech tools themselves, it does highlight the importance of accessibility and accessibility in a society that is often built around access.
The study examined tools like the Skype video chat service, which Schoininger said was developed by Microsoft and is the world’s most popular video chat app.
The software enables people to record and communicate with each other.
It has a massive following and is used by over 1 billion people worldwide.
Skype has been in the news recently for its decision to cut ties with WhatsApp, which offers the most secure messaging apps.
Schueninger said that the “hope is that if the companies are trying to make this technology more accessible, that they’ll have more access for the under-privileged.”
“In many cases, they’re making sure they’re not doing it for their bottom line,” he said.
Skype, for instance, uses technology from Facebook to build an avatar for its users, meaning that the software is accessible for the majority of its users.
Schoeinger pointed out that many of the tools used by underprivitised people have been built by tech companies.
“The fact that these tools are available to the vast amount of people that use them makes it even more important for them to be accessible,” he added.
“There’s a lot more value in making the tech more accessible for everyone, but that doesn’t mean that the majority are not using it.”
Schueringer noted that the report doesn’t take into account how the tech services can affect the underused.
“If a service has some value for a large part or the majority or the underrepresented, I think that the technology companies should have a greater say in making sure it’s available,” he explained.
“They should be making it available for the vast number of people.
And they should be providing more choices for the underserved.
But that doesn, I don’t think, mean they should just be making their tools free.”
Tech companies need to do more to support and increase accessibility in their products, the authors wrote.
“But that means the companies also need to provide more choice for people who don’t have the technology tools they need,” Schoeeninger added.
For instance, a recent survey by the tech startup incubator FundMe found that 62 percent of underpriviately employed Americans said they needed a job that gave them an opportunity to use technology, compared to just 17 percent of the employed in the US.
“We think that companies need some flexibility on how to accommodate under-served populations,” Schoger said, noting that tech companies should be “giving more options” to underprivies, and providing access to more tools.
Schogeringer also pointed