[bookport] Re: Progress and the Book Port
- From: "Julia Cosgrove (Mrs.)" <j.cosgrove@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:55:24 +0000
I certainly agree with all you had to say regarding the Book Port. It is good
to see progress in things and it certainly does not detract from what the Book
Port was originally intended for. After all, if people do not wish to use a
new feature they can take it or leave it and, in the endpoint, APH will decide
what is to be implemented or not - this is something people appear to forget.
I think the Notetaker is a very useful part of the Book Port but just rather
wish that they might be able to one day make it so that one can copy a piece,
URL, or whatever from a magazine one is reading straight into a file on the
note-taker. Very long URLs can be a pain!
Julia.
>One of the recurring topics on this list is that of feature suggestions and
>why they should or should not be implemented. People have very strong
>viewpoints on this issue, and they tend to polarize users into two camps, two
>camps which rather vehemently oppose each other. One camp views the BP as a
>complete solution as is, and feel very strongly that no changes should be
>implemented, as making such changes would dilute the existing features, or add
>new functionality that opposes the BP's original purpose. A classic example of
>this is something I saw on a list for the Book Courier, in which one person
>said that what makes the Book Courier so much better than the Book Port is the
>fact that it doesn't have a note-taking feature, as the Book Port does.
>
>The other camp, the camp to which I personally subscribe, feels that the Book
>Port is a great unit, and that great things can be made even greater, that the
>truly great products continue to evolve. Anyone who saw the Braille 'n Speak
>evolve before Blazie Engineering was swallowed up by Freedom Scientific will
>know what can be achieved through this sort of thinking. The eveolution of the
>computer, once thought of as only useful for crunching numbers, is another.
>People in this second camp believe that the Book Port, too, can be such an
>example.
>
>Over the course of its existence, the Braille 'n Speak became more powerful,
>more flexible, more versatile, and it did so while battery life increased as
>opposed to decreasing. It outgrew the limitations of just being a notetaker,
>while at the same time staying true to the needs of that original purpose.
>
>One of the arguments I hear again and again is that the Book Port is a book
>reader, and it should not be anything else. This is the path taken by the Book
>Courier, and there's nothing wrong with it. But APH has seen fit to expand the
>usefulness of the unit. It has flown against the conventional wisdom which
>says that, if you want a notetaker, you ahve to shell out thousands of dollars
>to do it. This probably irritates some of the people who have been in the
>business of either designing, selling, or procuring the multi-thousand-dollar
>notetakers, becasue the Book Port is available for a few hundred dollars, and
>for it to seriously rival one of the "big boys" would seriously challenge the
>conventional wisdom, and force those who claim that you need to fork over
>thousands for a decent notetaker to seriously rethink those claims. It's not a
>lot of fun to find the book from which you've been preaching for years to be
>totally discredited. The flat-earth hold-outs are still strug!
gling
with it.
>Another argument against increased functionality is that increased
>functionality yields increased bugs. My only answer to this is: Nothing
>ventured, nothing gained.
>
>Another argument suggests that the long life of batteries would be compromised
>by increased functionality. I submit that my current cellphone lasts twenty
>times longer than did my first on one battery charge, is much more powerful,
>is smaller, and much faster. My Braille Lite M20 lasts at least ten times
>longer on a charge than the first braille 'n speak, is only slightly larger
>(and this because of the addition of the braille display), is much faster, and
>much more versatile and efficient. People seem to forget that technology has
>come a long way since the original technology behind the Book Port was
>introduced: it's faster, it's cheaper, it's more efficient, and consumes less,
>not more, power.
>
>Finally, I suggest that if one likes things the way they are, one is not
>obligated to turn in their unit. If you don't want the new progress, fine, but
>why stop the rest of us? Is there insecurity among some because they have
>always felt at the forefront of technology, but now don't want to move on, yet
>they still want to be at the forefront, so the best way of handling that
>insecurity is to stop the progress so they'll remain at the forefront without
>moving? I can relate to this. I wanted to stay with Dos. I wanted efforts to
>make Windows speak to be quelled so I could stay at the forefront of
>technology without moving. Eventually, I grew up and moved on, and I'm glad I
>did.
>
>The basis for the Book Port is exciting. But I truly believe that, in the
>future, if we can replace some 1990's technology and some 1990's thinking with
>some 21st-century technology and thinking, the opportunity exists to keep the
>Book Port what it once was: a device which does what it wasn't thought could
>be done, affordably, and efficiently. It's a wonderful, fabulous unit. But the
>talking MP3-players are whizzing past it, or at least preparing to. Others are
>innovating. The Book Courier is sticking to its roots. The Book Port has the
>potential to take flight with the rest.
>
>Finally, whether or not any of this happens is not our decision, ultimatelhy.
>It's APH's. I honestly belive that these people know what they're doing; they
>know if an idea is doable; they know what's realistic and what's not; they
>know what the Book Port can become and what it can't.
>End of lecture. <GRIN>
>
>Brce
>
>--
>Bruce Toews
>E-mail and MSN/Windows Messenger: DogRiver@xxxxxxxx
>Web Site (including info on my weekly commentaries): http://www.ogts.net
>Info on the Best TV Show of All Time: http://www.cornergas.com
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/193 - Release Date: 06/12/05
Other related posts:
