[bookport] Re: new unit proposal
- From: "Kevin Jones" <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:26:37 -0500
In general the mp3 ability of the bookport is long in coming. If the rumered
16gb or 32gb flash cards come out in the next 1 to 2 years and the bookport
can support them, we'd basically have a truly accessable ipod.
-----Original Message-----
From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Robert Carter
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 2:50 PM
To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bookport] Re: new unit proposal
Hi All,
While I agree with most of what is said below, I have been unable to
find any mp3 player that is as accessible as the Book Port. We have
seen the Book Port's mp3 capabilities increase overtime. This is
possibly due to the sudden growth of podcasts. I would like to see
the Book Port continue to develop its audio playing and navigating
capabilities. I believe that this is an important development that is
directly related to how people who are blind are going to be
attaining more and more information in the future.
Robert Carter
At 02:25 PM 9/15/2005, you wrote:
>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.
Other related posts:
