[bookport] Re: new unit proposal
- From: "John & Heather Fritz" <fritzfamily@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:41:45 -0500
Mr. Ring, I completely agree with this message. I use the Book Port as
a book reader period. The ability to play MP3's is a plus. I am
getting tired of the unproductive messages. Let's continue to make the
book Port the best reader out there and not what it is intended for. I
have been with the Book Port since the beginning and a Roadrunner user
before that. I use the Book Port everyday to read text and daisy books
as well as newspapers and html files and occasionally to listen to
music. Remember if one fails to research the product prior to purchase
than just return it before the 30 days after purchase for a refund. It
doesn't get any better than that. So, happy reading.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Ring
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 4:42 PM
To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bookport] Re: new unit proposal
Walt and list:
I must agree with you!
I did not purchase my Bookport because I wanted a music system. I
purchased it because it was a great reading device. And, many of its
features have greatly improved insofar as reading is concerned.
When I purchased the device it did not support books from Audible, and
it did not support books from RFB&D.
It didn't have a Braille find mode. All of these improvements serve to
enhance ones reading experience. These are the kinds of improvements I
want to see, the kind that make the unit a better reading machine.
If you want a radio, buy one. If you want an MP3 player, buy one.
-----Original Message-----
From: bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bookport-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walt Smith
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 2:26 PM
To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bookport] Re: new unit proposal
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:
