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.
