[bookport] Re: new unit proposal
- From: "Neal Ewers" <ewers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:03:40 -0500
Here is my take on the kinds of open discussion we have been having.
1. It's true that Larry, Rob and others at APH know what can be done
and what can not be done.
2. However, I suspect that if there is a suggestion made, like for
example a calculator, they will decide two things. First, can it be
done within the reasonable framework of the price structure.
Secondly, how many people on the list would like to have it. This is
obviously where we come in. My guess is that this list is monitored,
among other reasons, because APH wants to keep up with what users
want. So, if we want to have our opinions known about the new
features or lack of we want to see, we should comment on the features
that make a difference to us. I don't believe we need to go back and
forth trying to convince others why the feature someone is proposing
is either a good one or a bad one. The fact is, you either want
something or you don't. You can explain why you fall in either camp
and let it go at that. APH will do the rest.
Of course, I'm not Larry or Rob and if they have a different
interpretation on this, I am sure they will offer it.
Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick Alfaro
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:40 PM
To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bookport] Re: new unit proposal
Great post and I agree totally. I personally find that far too often
people make assumptions that are not based on fact at all thereby
coming to erroneous conclusions. Let the real experts, those that
produce the unit, decide what can or can't be done. Personally, I'd
love to see folks be able to voice their ideas without being knocked
down so quickly, especially with assertions that are not based on
solid knowledge. Just my humble opinion of course.
--Best regards,
--Rick Alfaro
--rick.alfaro@xxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gary Wunder
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:27 PM
To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bookport] Re: new unit proposal
Folks, I'd like to respectfully suggest that when new features are
presented here we ought to limit our comments about them simply to
whether we like them or how better to implement them. I don't think it
is our place to worry about the capacity of the unit - APH and
Springer know about those things and if it can't be done, it won't. If
APH doesn't think a feature will be worth enough in potential sales to
justify implementing it, then that's their decision.
I'd prefer to see more questions and less about reactions to reactions
to feature suggestions. Can we refrain from telling one another the
function of the BookPort, how some of us live in the stone age, and
how still others want the BP to do everything. We have a wonderful
product, a fantastic support team, and a list which has been a real
source of good feedback and an instrument for learning. Let's not let
it become a vehicle for argument please.
Other related posts:
