[bookport] Re: Suggestion for New Feature
- From: "Don Barrett" <donter@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 08:36:54 -0400
And guess what A P H's numero uno motivation is in designing features into
the Bookport! Ease of use, nope; good feature set, nope; appeal, nope; it's
to make money, and they do that by doing the other things and doing them
well. The more features they can add for which there is a good market, they
will sell more BookPorts, and that's our wonderful marketplace. That's why
mainstream companies don't give much of a hoot about accessibility; aside
from Section 508, there's no money in it. APH doesn't care about the
sacredness of the Bookport as a book reader only or the philosophy of purist
technology; they care about what features are wanted by blind people who
can't afford anything over $400, and in doing so, they will continue to keep
the BookPort the valuable versatile, and wonderful unit it is. If there is
a cry for the note taker and it will fit in the firmware, voila, there it
is; the same for alarms, and whatever else the market wants. To keep the
unit the way it is out of fear of function creep is just plain, well, not
thinking in a market driven fashion.
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of David Tanner
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:01 AM
To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bookport] Re: Suggestion for New Feature
My whole issue is that the original response was to the effect that the
person writing the message was saying "we don't want that" as though he were
speaking for APH and the whole group. To say that he disagrees is fine but
to imply that he and noone else wants the feature is not his place to say.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Ring" <ring.richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:58 PM
Subject: [bookport] Re: Suggestion for New Feature
>I truly understand that many cannot afford a PDA nor would some be able
> to learn to use one even if they could. What I believe is unfortunate
> is that if individuals bring an idea to this or any other mailing list
> that they feel it must be met with unbounded agreement or, those who do
> not agree are branded as elitists, technically gifted, or in the case of
> some Luddites. To disagree with a proposal is simply to express an
> opinion. And, if I choose to disagree with an idea, this doesn't mean I
> intend to attack or criticize the source of that idea. Every suggestion
> is valid, but if I choose to make a suggestion, I'm not going to flame
> those who do not believe that my idea is a good one.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walt Smith
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:22 AM
> To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [bookport] Re: Suggestion for New Feature
>
>
> Isn't it interesting how these discussions immediately degenerate from
> issues to personal attacks? And isn't it interesting which side is
> always
> doing the attacking?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Tanner" <david-tanner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:31 PM
> Subject: [bookport] Re: Suggestion for New Feature
>
>
> I know, and I even see a lot of folks in the BEP program in a lot of
> states,
> including ours, that aren't getting rich at it, and are not tech savy.
> But
> I am sure they could get a lot of good out of a simple to use device.
> But I
> guess our friends would rather they continue to use a Perkins Braille
> Writer
> since they aren't technically gifted.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/310 - Release Date: 4/12/2006
>
>
Other related posts:
