[bookport] Re: new unit proposal
- From: "Kevin Jones" <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:56:27 -0500
and even if you own a packmate or in my case a nokia communicator, i might
be some where only with the bookport and need one of those extra features
-----Original Message-----
From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Gary King
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 9:07 AM
To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bookport] Re: new unit proposal
Well, if we're renaming blindness products because they contain features
that are beyond their primary purpose, we would have to call OpenBook the
OpenBook Photo Copier Fax Money Identifier. How many copies of OpenBook and
Kurzweil 1000 would Freedom Scientific and Kurzweil Educational Systems sell
if these extra features were removed? There are cheaper OCR solutions for
reading books.
I am for getting all of the features I can get in a device or a software
package as long as they work well, don't raise the price and have good
accessibility. A lot of blind people can only afford one really nice device
like the Book Port, and why shouldn't they get the benefits of added
functionality? Those who have the resources to own a PAC Mate or a PK may
not care if the Book Port has extra features for its users, but I suspect
only a relative few belong to that exclusive club.
Gary King, w4wkz@xxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Allen" <wd8ldy@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 4:43 PM
Subject: [bookport] Re: new unit proposal
> Hi Walt and list:
>
> I agree with your reasoning. Book port wouldn't be relevant because books
> have been marginalised by adding all those other gismoes. Perhaps
smartport
> might be worth considering.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.5/110 - Release Date: 9/22/05
>
>
Other related posts:
