I agree totally with Jerry and resent the implication that this makes anyone who does some kind of reactionary, anti-technology Luddite. The Book Port is a reading device, first and foremost, and that is precisely what it should remain. If people want truly full-function MP3 players, that's perfectly fine, but I do not want, just for example, any MP3-related innovations to get in the way of the device's being the finest _reading_ device ever designed up to today. The real problem is that some people still insist on confusing change with progress and improvement and this is simply not always the case. It would not improve the BP as a reading system to integrate a radio into it; it would not improve the device's ability to read books to include a shuffle mode. These are just two examples out of many that simply don't improve the Book Port as a _reading_ technology. On the other hand; and note the qualification; if a shuffle mode, for instance, could be incorporated without in any way limiting the potential improvement of strictly reading-related features, I don't necessarily oppose it. However, if the code would take up space that might be used for some future reading functionality, it should not be included. The fact that the BP happens to play MP3 files as an incidental side effect of its being a reading device does not mean that significant time should be put into turning it into an MP3 player for persone who have little or no desire to use it as a reading system. There are less expensive and better-designed MP3 players already on the market. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick and Pauline" <daltontwo@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:03 AM Subject: [bookport] Re: new unit proposal Hi Jerry, What do you have against progress and innovation? With this sort of thinking we would have never replaced the horse and buggy. It seems to me that you are too easily satisfied and are not thinking outside the box. Rick ----- Original Message ----- From: Jerry Weinger To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 11:29 PM Subject: [bookport] Re: new unit proposal Tom and List, My hope is that the Book Port evolves based upon its ability to read books, its small size, and its reasonable cost. Here is why I bought the Book Port 1. I can read a book, in all of the formats, with a device that fits into my pocket. And I can have 100 more books on hand, in my other pocket. Doing this with a CD player would require a larger CD player, and a stack of CDs. 2. The Book Port uses inexpensive off the shelf batteries, which I can replace myself. 3. I had no further expectations for the Book Port; any more than I would expect a hammer to do the job of a drill. Sincerely, Jerry Weinger ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of tom hawkins Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 8:29 PM To: Book Port Subject: [bookport] new unit proposal Any consideration of a new unit should include a wide, thick rubber edge to protect the unit from accidental falls from tables and pockets etc.