As honest as the text appears, I usually associate websites which look similar to this as outdated and untrustworthy. It's the type of website you often see for old freeware, which is why it doesn't seem so great to a potential user as they'll assume the website style may reflect on the service they're about to receive.
I would take a bootstrap style over this. Maybe that's just me.
Interesting. I prefer an older looking site like this. To me the feeling is that it has been created by more mature developers that would rather present all the necessary information simply, instead of muddling it with a bunch of unnecessary styles (or some inane scrolling page).
I think your expectations are outdated; it's extremely easy these days to create a generic templated site that looks like every other Bootstrap one out there.
On the other hand this looks like handwritten HTML so I get the idea that the creators put a little more effort into it. Someone looking to scam or create clickbait content-farms is unlikely to do such a thing, but rather use one of the various site-generators out there instead.
It's funny how you're saying this on Hacker News, which, thankfully, still pretty much fully works even with JavaScript disabled, unlike pretty much every single web2.0 site nowadays, even HN clones or competitors.
The page aesthetics work for me - I particularly liked the absence of three USP divs under the lede (though the illuminoid-friendly logo was a close second..)
Hey, feature idea - riffing off the now overdue but unlikely to happen call flag for non-human callers, how about a voice-recognised audio-captcha before you're put through during open hours?
Doable, but voice recognition is severely lacking outside of targeted small dictionaries, and a simple wav file can beat it. I wouldn't rely on it for a long while.
In that case, yes, it would be interesting to make a system to verify such and probably doable in the short term (ignoring the UI issues which are separate). The problem still remains the same that your speech recognition is going to be very spotty on untrained processing, so you can at best (key word there) match maybe 500 words on one accent pool. This means you have a limited set of questions and it does make it a barrier to entry, but certainly not unbeatable and definitely much more in favor of the AI programmer.
This is also why your average big-company automated attendant is so bad at interpreting what you want outside of the 5 common things people want to talk about (most of which I can do online, so it's never what I'm there for) and again sadly only if you're in the more common US American English accent pool. Southern accents tend to get squelched pretty bad and that's just the beginning of accents common in the US.
One could conceivably target an individuals desired accent recognition so you could let the user say "Most of my callers speak in an X accent" and then get a little more accurate for that pool of callers, but this also means installing disparate systems for recognition, each of which are quite expensive computationally.
This is a deeply interesting problem space, though, and if you're interested there's quite a bit of discussion over it in the sphinx project and several research communities.
It looks terrible? Really? It's an uncluttered layout with the tl;dr description of what it actually is prominently on the front page, and with easy-to-find navigation links to everything else above --- and if you notice, the informational links are on the left, and the actionable links are on the right.
To me, it's exactly what I want out of a product's website, and I wish more looked like it!
It's utilitarian to the max in that it cares little for graphical design. The layout is fairly functional, though I did initially think the menu links at the top were disabled given that the links below were classic blue underline.
I can easily see why someone would call that terrible; it looks like a time-warp back to the mid-90s when Netscape rendered the default HTML background as grey before everyone eventually standardized on a white background. You actually have to go out of your way to make the logo and menu medium grey on light grey when the same amount of effort could have been put towards a cleaner, more modern, and higher contrast look without changing the utilitarian layout.
I like. It has easy to glean information and no extraneous clutter. I personally have grown weary of pages with little to no information and half blurred pictures of people in coffee shops. And don't get me started on the scroll bar tricks....
I don't mind the look either. I don't mind B & W sites. (I am partially color blind, so maybe that's a factor?). Even with photography, most of my pictures are in B & W.
I wouldn't pay $15/month. I would accept one targeted ad per week? While I won't use this service, I need to know how it works. I have a weekend project?
I guess it's sufficient to create a service people want. Personally I don't really care if it's fancy SPA or a simple website with actual form elements. I just want software to work.
Could you please elaborate what you mean by "SPA". I am unfamiliar with the term, but google only returns results related to massage and nail-care services, which DOES kinda make sense in your context, but I am not sure.
Do other people evaluate the potential lock-in before signing up for something like this? This service seems great as long as you continue to use it. My fear is that I sign up, port my number, give it out to everyone like the site suggests, and love the service only for this startup to disappear in X years. The phone number used is basically poisoned and I would either subject myself to unwanted calls after porting it elsewhere or be forced to get a new number. That always is the problem with these "run your life through us" startups, what do I do if you fail?
That's a fair reluctance and I can't take it away because at the end of the day you'll just have that lock-in with anyone. Such is the nature of telco lines. I have the same problem (having carried my home phone line through multiple stacks).
What I can say is that I can cover costs out of pocket every month indefinitely (because each user covers their telco costs of that line, I'm just covering infrastructure) and my hosting fees are easy to cover even if we have no users.
We're probably not a typical startup in that sense. We have sustainability and independence in mind. At this point the only thing investors could offer us is the ability to grow faster. An important thing, but I like giving stability its own rights, too.
I'm not sure you can compare your lock-in to the telcos. The telcos are for the most part commoditized. I use my phone the same way whether my phone is on Verizon or AT&T. However, you are not exactly offering a commoditized service and I would venture a guess that you don't want to considering your pricing compared to your competitors. You are asking that we make a fundamental change to how we use our phone. Instead of filtering out spam by protecting our number, we take an active hand in managing the spam after the fact. Once we stop protecting our phone number, the toothpaste is already out of the tube.
Also self sufficiency and independence are great for a startup, but that doesn't guarantee that your company will continue to exist. Are you setting this up as your main source of income? Does it pay your bills? Will you get bored of it in 6 months? These are all questions that are going through my mind. Your FAQ doesn't answer them. Your terms of service don't address them and literally guarantee nothing: "We do not guarantee any level of service at the time of this writing. This will change when we have a significant track record with which to stand claims against. In practice we meet high standards, but will not be held to those standards." That makes me very hesitant to not only pay you $15 per month but more crucially entrust you with one of the most important ways people contact me.
You have a good point, however, I think Google Voice is already quite good at doing quite similar kind of filtering that the site talks about; as such, I don't even see what kind of value this service is supposed to provide, especially at 15$/mo.
In the absence of Google Voice, this service might be interesting; however, otherwise, why would I pay 15*12 = 180 USD/year for something that I can already get for free?
Google Fi looks interesting but it appears it will work via your cell phone rather than PC and/or land line (via, for example, Obihai's Obi200 and ObiTalk ... very highly recommended for GV as it is now). And there's Google Fi's price of $30 per month.
It is not based on Twilio, they're quite expensive, it's built on Freeswitch and normal fully open SIP/RTP protocols and what we're doing isn't exactly complex yet. I don't have a whole lot of care about going open source or not but as far as our interface you can view source at https://phonejanitor.com/app/ and you might be pleased for the moment.
Oh, sorry, I poorly worded that then (and have edited it to reflect as such to prevent further confusion, but your quote stands as good reference).
You are correct that I do care about open source. I don't have much of a care about going open source for our stuff. We make our money on service, not software, but I can see the appeal. Essentially I'm just "meh" about doing it myself here.
It should be noted I love the freeswitch folks and while I'm not involved in writing the C (that takes me back), I hang out in the IRC channel and help there when able. I've looked at the code (it's hard to use binaries with FS), but never had to submit a patch as of yet. They're rock solid and deserve every support contract the get!
This is a good question, but there so many ways you could build this yourself if you needed to[1], that I think if you relied on this, it would be inconvenient, but not devastating to rebuild if it disappeared, so long as you can port out the number.
[1] asterisk/freeswitch, cloudy telco api, custom software with myriad options for receiving and placing calls.
This is a question we're surprised to get as often as we do. The short answer is we want to run an actual stable business so people know we're profitable and can meet their needs. We don't think someone's phone number is something we would trust to anyone but a business that will be there tomorrow. We also think it's a better relationship if we're trying to sell you a service instead of provide a service to you and sell YOU as the product to advertisers. Not everyone agrees, and that's ok, but it's worked well for us throughout our careers.
It doesn't have to be either-or! Ads or fees can just be different points in a price structure. Pay nothing, and be the product sold to the ad syndicate. Or pay for the service, and don't view ads.
One consumers may be all "Death to ads!". But the next one might be "Gimme for free! (And I will find a way to block the ads or just live with them)."
In this situation, however, it's not obvious how the service could be supported by ads. This is a robot that works in the background and blocks calls. Whom do you show ads to pay for this? Audio ads to the callers who are rejected?
The whole idea behind this is that the end-user who subscribes to the service is not to be bothered. He or she is not aware that the system is working when it is rejecting calls. If that user has to somehow view ads to have the service, it defeats the point.
"An annoying call was blocked for you! Please view this 30 second ad in compensation!"
LOL!
Perhaps it could work like this: in the free version of the service, unwanted callers must hear an ad before they can get through to you or your voice mail. They are told this. If they listen to the ad, then they do get through.
In the premium version, you pay for the service. Unwanted callers are no longer told that they will have access after the ad plays. (The ad still plays, and they don't have access.)
Also, how about monetizing access to yourself or your mailbox? What if I don't want to reject people, but make them pay to talk to me? "Sorry, reaching ... Kazinator ... during these hours requires a payment of ... two ... dollars ... and ... ninety ... nine .... cents. Please enter your credit card number, followed by a pound sign, or your four-digit speed-pass payment code." :)
There are better ways to screen out unwanted callers.
As Jeff Hammerbacher, fmr. Manager of Facebook Data Team, founder of Cloudera says, "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks."
It's long seemed odd to me that people just accept ads. Imagine trying to explain that model to an alien familiar with the basic ideas of our economy but unfamiliar with ads as a primary revenue model:
"Well, say you want something from me, but you don't want to pay the amount I ask for it. Instead, you give a larger amount of money to a third party. The third party gives it to a fourth party, who gives it to me. I try to manipulate you into seeing the third party as more valuable, so you'll give them more money in the future. I do what you want in exchange for you putting up with this."
"Didn't it just cost me a larger amount of money that way? Because of all the intermediaries?"
"Well yes, but everyone just pretends to not know that. Oh, and this is the dominant revenue model for several large industries."
Thanks for that great analogy! I'm trying to articulate the problem in easier to follow ways. I've been wanting to depict it in the dreaded infographic.
Care to help with the words or the graphic? I'm going to start website for this. If anyone knows of a great website already focused on articulating the problem with ads, let me know. Email me!
I was writing from the perspective of taking it for granted that this service is not actually free. From that perspective, ads versus fees are just different points in the price structure. (The very term "price structure" clarifies that it's not free.)
Ad-supported services are quasi-free, in the sense that the the display of ads is not actually eroding any dollars from your financial portfolio. Ads potentially rob you of time. But not necessarily. For instance during a TV commercial, you can take a washroom break or fix yourself a snack.
Not all ad-supported programs are intrusive with the ads. I have a few on my smartphone, and none of them cause delays or very much interference with the operation of the program. They occupy some screen real estate and sometimes can be clicked by accident. (And that's probably a bad thing for the advertisers: an accidental click isn't an indication of true interest; such clicks will not become conversions at any significant rate.)
> the display of ads is not actually eroding any dollars from your financial portfolio.
I honestly don't think you followed my links and read carefully. And you're ignoring the opportunity costs and social costs, also explained in my link.
> I honestly don't think you followed my links and read carefully.
Indeed, but some great minds of our generation are probably working on figuring out a way to make people do that.
> And you're ignoring the opportunity costs ...
To my credit, I did write: "Ads potentially rob you of time". Reading/viewing/listening to ads isn't free, of course. Your time and attention are a resource.
But opportunity costs are fictional, unless you can show that an actual opportunity is lost. People who have a valuable opportunity to chase generally prove that by chasing that opportunity and not (for example) sitting in front of a TV watching a commercial.
If you're viewing an ad right now, it can safely be assumed that that is currently your best opportunity.
Ads certainly do not coerce you into losing opportunities.
(I will sooner believe that the alleged losses due to copyright infringment are actual!)
It's past 2 p.m. in my timezone and I haven't seen a single ad since I woke up at 6. Didn't watch any TV or listen to a radio. I use AdBlock on my web browser at home and work. Didn't bicycle past any billboards. Amazingly, nobody has tried to sell me anything yet.
Really, it's not that hard to live ad-free. Just block whatever you can, and opt out of the remaining ad-loaded culture.
By "free" he means as in “free beer” not as in “free speech”, i.e. not what RMS means by "free software".
When he writes "anti-free-software movement", he is purposefully playing with the ambiguity of the term[1] and playing off the FOSS movement's use of the term. He does so tongue-in-cheek, but for clarity I should not have quoted that part. My mistake.
"Don't Be A Free User" means don't be a user that doesn't pay. He is also specifically speaking of services, not software: "I love free software and could not have built my site without it. But free web services are not like free software."
All of the examples he gives are of services that had no revenue.
That said, I just realized that I made a second mistake. I missed an important detail in his post. He writes at the end, "Make them charge you or show you ads." So obviously he's arguing that you should use services with a revenue-based business model and he is ok if that business model relies on ad revenue. He's only arguing against using services with a non-revenue, buy-out exit strategy. He is not making a "Be the customer, not the product" argument that I thought he was. I'm disappointed that Maciej isn't a part of the no ads movement, at least at the time he is writing this. I will have to talk to him :)
I dislike ads and think they are harmful for other reasons, if that makes you feel better! But they are kind of orthogonal to the argument I was making here.
> Ads or fees can just be different points in a price structure.
Tell that to the various for-pay services which have decided to force ads onto paying users because, frankly, it's so fucking convenient that there's already an apparatus which is simply disabled for some people!
Damn, $15/month per line? At least Tarsnap is pay-as-you-go. Seems way too expensive. TossableDigits.com (1) starts at $3.49/month per number and pay per minute, with plans that drop in price as you ramp up. Pretty much the same service without the all-in pricing. And you get unlimited SMS, Voicemail and Call Recording. They've been in business since 2006 -- staying power. (2)
They also are offering Robocall Blocking -- a huge win. (3)
$15 a month. That's the number I was looking for but couldn't find until after creating an account and trying to add a phone number. Then a popup came for my credit card number (which I don't have) and finally, in the confirmation button, was the price.
Edit: Oh, it's in the FAQ. I checked all other pages except that one (seemed logical to be under either home or features, or perhaps policies). My bad.
Edit2: Giving the price a second thought, is this a normal fee in the US? Our landline costs just over 4 euros and the cheapest mobile subscription I've been able to find is 3.50 a month.
> Giving the price a second thought, is this a normal fee in the US? Our landline costs just over 4 euros and the cheapest mobile subscription I've been able to find is 3.50 a month.
No, you can get mobile service for $3/month [1] with a minimal number of minutes. I didn't look too hard, its possible even cheaper plans are available.
Excellent questions, I'll field them as best I can, if there's clarification needed just ask.
- Voice data passes through the POTS lines to our VoIP cluster, eventually getting routed to another call channel or to a recording. Freeswitch is the node of choice here, though we're doing rather simple things with it so eventually we'll probably replace this with something more homegrown. Every vendor along those legs can listen in, just like normal POTS lines. Until people get off the POTS system, this is just going to be reality. Plans and plumbing are in place when viable to make this a strictly end-to-end pass-through fully encrypted service if you're not going over POTS. VoIP is pretty awesome stuff.
- Any vendor servicing the lines can listen in. Unless the NSA has stopped, they're definitely processing some of it. If this is a concern, you really just don't want a phone number at all. I'd love to offer better privacy there, but it isn't in anyone's hands but users' really.
- No SLA for the consumer product yet. We have a track record of no downtime outside our maintenance, but we've only been doing this for a few months so that's easy. That said, everything's modular and I can replace any given piece with a new virtual server in under 10 minutes from start to finish.
- Redundancy in the web portion is there, redundancy in the database is there, redundancy in the VoIP level is sort of there, but if any node along your call chain goes down you're going to lose that call and have to start it again. This is yet another failing of voice communications in general, and not something we can do anything about.
- POTS quality is the best we (or anyone) can do. No compression, just straight uLaw without processing so it's as clear as can be expected from a phone. You can actually see this phenomenon displayed from any cell phone currenty. Call another cell on your same network, you get pretty good quality comparatively. Call another cell on another network and depending on peering you could degrade quite a bit. Call a line connected to any copper telco and you're back at the lowest common denominator. Someday if we can get people off telephone numbers (a haughty goal, unfortunately) we can do quality limited only by your hardware on each end.
This sounds crazy, but I'd have a small worry that giving out your CEO's personal phone number exposes potential attacks against other services that use the phone number as a token. Like:
(1) Do you have a store-loyalty program at CVS? Can I use your number when I buy stuff and get your coupons?
(2) Can I re-set your Amazon.com password using live chat with customer support by convincing them that I know your name and phone number and must therefore be you? Or can I at least have some of your recent orders declared missing and re-delivered to my house?
(3) Can I use your phone number in spoof caller ID then call an airline who auto-recognizes the incoming phone number and reveals info about the traveler's flights?
(4) Can I reorder prescriptions or learn about prescription drugs using your name and phone number?
Just some thoughts. Because a personal phone number is often not common knowledge outside of one's friends and acquaintances, third parties sometimes give it unreasonable importance.
You are very correct. =c) This is why I won't be using that line as a security number in any case (but you can have my coupons, sure, I don't mind). I have another line for that. I'm glad someone else also thought of that.
When I first read this, it seemed really odd to me. Before cellphones and the Internet, nearly everyone in a region had a book with nearly everyone else's phone number in it.
How have we ended up in a situation where phone numbers are now used for authentication?
(4) Reordering prescriptions would be useless unless you could pick up the prescription. The security apparatus for this seems to be a little more robust - when I pick up a prescription for my wife I'm usually asked for her birthday and sometimes her street address. Not that that's good security, but there are less people who know those than who know her phone number.
I've been using very similar features of Google Voice for several years and I have to say it's been GREAT. I can't imagine going back to a regular number.
I sincerely hope Phone Janitor can compete in that space, I'd love to see what improvements can be made and what new features may result from the differing perspectives.
I love GV, started with many years ago, but found it limiting (hence the push to Phone Janitor). Long-term plans depend on user desires, but right now you can do this on Phone Janitor, can you on GV? http://i.imgur.com/HTnJ7FB.png
I would legitimately like to know if I'm missing that kind of flexibility in GV.
I really like your having exposed me to more feature overlap there. Some things I didn't know about GV have been learned, thank you! I'm going to make some notes about things I like and improvements we might get to incorporate in further development.
I can set it so that Family always gets through. Other groupings can be created and customized, like Friends, Coworkers, Acquaintances, etc. Each can also get their own voicemail greetings.
People not in my contact list will be answered with an automated greeting asking them to announce themselves, which I will hear and then have the option to pick up or send them to voicemail.
There's a feature that lets me dial a number on my phone to record the conversation, which also announces that the conversation is being recorded so as to adhere to various local laws.
Plus there's automatic voicemail transcriptions powered by Google's awesome voice recognition software, which just got a 49% boost in accuracy in an update this week.
I also haven't had to worry about transferring numbers as I switched carriers. I just let the carrier give me whatever number they want, and when people dial my Google Voice number it's automatically forwarded. I can even set it to forward to multiple numbers simultaneously, making it so I can even answer my "cell" using my desk phone at work during work hours.
Again, I sincerely hope Phone Janitor can compete with all that. I think competition has been sorely lacking in that space, and I'm eager to see what improvements it will bring to bear.
better than google. which actually owns your google voice number. and the chance of google just shutting down a service they can't show text ads on is much, much higher than some company shutdown (instead of being bought by the google or facebook).
google is already dropping the ball on google voice.
the app has no updates since android 2.3. just so you understand how behind it is... the app cannot support two messages in the notification. after you get the second message, instead of the usual two lines in the notification as with SMS or any other app, you get the literal text "2 messages".
if you cave in and use hangouts for SMS, you then have to use hangouts dialer... which is a still-born app. for example, if you route your calls to your regular phone AND gtalk (i think the gvoice UI still calls hangout as gtalk) then your phone rings for both things at the same time! and you never know which one you are answering when you swipe right.
2. I highly doubt google voice is going anywhere with Google's commitment to mobile.
3. The voice message app was updated last year. Yes it hasn't got the full treatment, but I assume this is because its primarily a background service. sms is done primarily through your favorite messaging app and phone calls can be made all the time through your gv number or you can choose when making a phone call.
4. You're not forced to use dialer. GV can be set to prompt you to ask you when using dialer or just use your GV number everytime. Your last point makes no sense and is completely false. I have hangouts, google voice and route my number to my phone. Calls come in through the main dialer app.
> the FCC has mandated that carriers allow callers the ability to block their Caller ID information and thus place “anonymous” calls. T-Mobile is obligated to honor the privacy of the caller in these circumstances. Of course, you may choose not to accept such calls. But we cannot block the call or override the privacy choice of the caller.
Thanks, FCC. Maybe this is a fix? If so, sign me up!
We're not a phone company, and we don't block them for you, we give you the tool to block it yourself, so yes. Yes it is a fix, just as much as any other app you could use to do such. For instance, my number (on that front page) is a whitelist thing. That would cover anonymous calls. If you want to specifically target anonymous, we can't do that (because it's not actually definable in telecom terms, as they each in practice represent such differently). They would, however, always fit in the "other" category.
Other commenters have touched on this as well, but I'd be really interested in seeing a breakdown comparison between this and GV. Clearly they're different, but I'd be interested in explicitly seeing what PJ is not. Really cool idea, though. Not sure I need it right now, but bookmarked.
On a superficial note, the website looks like it was thrown together in minutes, and I think it's actually really refreshing. It honestly grabbed my attention more than a bootstrap site with a full window background image and a snarky tagline overlaid. No cheesy stock photos and disruption talk, just paragraph tags and bullet points. Kudos.
Thank you! I think we might be too far to the simplicity but we can err on that side for the moment and think about going closer to aesthetics people like as we go. We're devs and businessmen, not designers, but we have designer friends that have given us some great feedback (not to mention the public feedback) and I think always improving is a good roadmap to have.
It’s unfortunate that SMS isn’t supported—that’s practically the only reason I still have a phone, and the entire reason I’d want this service is to block all calls, excepting the ones I’ve specifically authorized.
Oh how I want that support. Our trunk providers at the moment say they've got it coming and then we just turn it on after testing it, but until then we're at their mercy. Don't forget MMS in there, too. That's a huge gotcha for some systems.
This seems like a cool service, but you may want to think about a site redesign. The bare bones look may appeal to the Hacker News crowd, but most people may hesitate to port their number over to a company with a site that looks so dated, which in turn makes you look less legitimate/professional.
I agree. We were doing a soft launch to convert some beta customers to actual customers and get feedback, and the site was on the agenda for this upcoming week before announcing it. Then cue one of those customers posting to HN and now we're kind of exploding a bit more.
Thanks for the added data point, you are heard loud and clear and we will do our best (we're not designers, we can't be good at everything)
Thanks for taking the criticism so well! If you're looking for an easy solution where you don't have to worry about design but still want a nice, modern site, I'd recommend looking into purchasing a Bootstrap or Wordpress theme that you can just plug your content into.
We also conform to law enforcement inquiries only where legally required, and with notification to the account owner of any and all inquiries legally allowed.
This is precise wording! Sort of refreshing; I can't recall seeing anything like this from my mobile provider.
We do not delete call records actively, and we keep history of where a number has been provisioned. We do this for support and analytics purposes as a matter of good record keeping. This is not likely to change.
You must not have many customers yet if you don't have a schedule for deleting CDRs. Surely this will happen at some point? I guess $15/m pays for some storage... Anyway the moralistic "matter of good record keeping" is a bit of a turn-off. Deleting unnecessary data is a kindness to one's customers.
We don't keep much data around for a CDR, just who called, what time, and what happened to it. Even my number hasn't generated more than 1K of data thus far. I don't see that being a big problem for 10 years of someone's line data.
We can change the wording on that, but there is a requirement for when a number is active or not and who it is attached to, and there's some significant liability if we can't say where a number was supposed to be going at some point in the past. We want to acknowledge that requirement so everybody knows what's happening and why. I understand completely if that's a turn off, but do realize that anyone who has a phone number has such records kept around for several years. My approach is that telco stuff is not something I want to be unprofessional about, and I don't want to hide that either.
Knowing that philosophy, I'm open to suggestions for restating that particular phrase. I suppose it's also worth expanding what "provisioned" means here (specifically it means we put a line on an account with this ID at this time, not a function of identifying WHO owns a number at a time).
You might also note that we don't ask who you are. We don't care. Stripe (payment processor) does, but our system honestly has no idea. If that changes, so will our policies to reflect exactly that, and why.
Thanks for your detailed reply. Can we agree that there is a difference between CDRs and provisioning info? No one will complain that you are obeying the law with respect to the latter, but "never" is a strange call record deletion policy. Not even an ILEC would try that. A policy this strange will cost you customers, especially since anyone trying this service is much more likely to think about privacy issues.
That's a fair perspective and I will give some sincere thought to the prospect. Striking a balance is important to us as a team, so I can't say I will cater to everything you wish, which I'm sure you understand easily enough, but I do wish to treat it with the weight it deserves when you're being very reasonable about explaining your position. Cheers.
just who called, what time, and what happened to it. Even my number hasn't generated more than 1K of data thus far. I don't see that being a big problem
It's enough that I'd prefer to have a sunset / data retention limit. Somewhere from 3-18 months, preferably on the shorter end of the scale.
I've also been looking for UI / features, haven't found that yet on the site.
If you're into this kind of thing, I've used anveo.com before which has a pretty powerful call flow engine that can be programmed via a nice drag-and-drop web ui. I found it similar to Yahoo Pipes but you're dealing with phone calls instead of web data.
Fantastic idea, but they should be clearer about what happens if someone sends you a text message. It seems from the FAQ that maybe you wouldn't get it? If I ported my number over, and didn't get texts anymore, I'd be pretty sadface about it.
That seems like a lot, considering I can do basically the same thing with a ton of flexibility using Twilio. At $1/mo + very reasonable per minute charges, you'd have to spend well over 1000 minutes/mo on the phone before the $15/mo becomes cheaper.
Anyone who is considering porting their current mobile phone number to your service should be aware that most mobile carriers will cancel their account if you port your number away from them.
If you have a contract, you will then be billed the early termination fee.
This is mentioned in the faq about porting numbers, but we also address it when someone requests a port so they don't have a bad experience (this is why it's currently a support request rather than a UI capability, until we've got that workflow working for the customer's overall experience). We haven't had any mobile lines cancelled yet, but we've only worked with tmobile, sprint, and AT&T so far. It's usually best if you work with your carrier at the same time and we can provide some advice on that for those that request a port.
This might be more prominently featured as we go forward.
What about calling out? I know with GV you can dial your GV number to dial the number you actually want to call (So the recipient sees your GV number in their caller ID). It was a little cumbersome, but it worked. Does PJ have something like this?
Good question. I think eventually it's a given probably using your data connection or any SIP phone or soft phones we might provide, but not yet, no.
We're not sure of the value add here and it's a lot more work to get happening (and expense of development). If there's user demand we'll obviously do it, but so far feedback has been requests for SMS and MMS support (we're ready when our providers are, which they say should be later this year, or we'll move providers to providers that are).
What's the UI/UX like? Screenshots / video / explanations of mobile, Web, phone, voice, etc., interactions would be useful.
This is very much the sort of thing I'd love but:
1. How do I add/remove numbers especially when not at a full desktop, etc?
2. How do I bulk add/remove numbers? Being able to download/upload lists would be a plus.
4. Data retention generally. Both in terms of my being able to export it, and on your retaining data. I really don't need YAN metadata store of my call history. Not for any longer than it takes to transact basic functionality.
I like the design, it reminds me of tarsnap and putty, othe utilities that have been in use for decades because they put functionality first. I would like to see a pricing page though, without having to sign up.
I don't see how exactly it is different from Google Voice, other than requiring 15$/mo (x12 is 180 USD per annum!) for seemingly the same service (except GV also has SMS support, as well as Voice-to-Text and many other useful features like automatic crowdsourced spam blocking).
Heck, even doing PAYG with the unlocked SIP providers like Anveo and would seemingly provide the same feature set, at a lower price.
HECK, THEY DON'T EVEN SUPPORT SMS! Seriously, they aren't even in the same league as Google Voice or Anveo! Next!
Are there screenshots of the interface somewhere? I don't see any, and it's not clear if signing up without paying would let you see the interface.
Today, I use Anveo.com for this sort of thing. It also suffers from a relatively stodgy web presence, but the call flow builder, used to route incoming calls, is pretty much a full fledged IVR...really nice. Screenshot here: http://i.imgur.com/54aJqGn.png
Don't some VOIP services offer slightly less powerful versions of this? The one I used to use (Primus Canada) allowed me to set call treatments (with a limit of 50, but that was plenty for me). Some of the options included send to voicemail, forward, hang up, etc. and offered some time-of-day rules too.
It's the one big feature I miss after switching to Ooma. All I want is to direct anyone not in my contacts to voicemail by default, and add exceptions, and I can't do that. :(
Remember the lady in texas who committed suicide? Those friends she tried to contact but couldn't reach feel horrible about missing her call.
The problem with a service like this is that it will block calls from friends and family who are not whitelisted. Not to mention those dreaded emergency calls made by family members using a borrowed phone or public phone.
Line2 (www.line2.com) has decent inbound call screening capabilities similar to Phone Janitor, plus lots more for the same $14.95/month: Outbound calling from your private number, auto-attendant, unlimited SMS, and apps for Android and iOS win WiFi calling so you don't burn minutes. Seems like that would be your real competition.
I've found that asynchronous voice chat programs (WeChat got huge in China, then the West got WhatsApp, Nextel etc) make for much easier voice communication. There's zero overhead of waiting for a ring & voicemail message and a beep -- just press a button & speak.
I'd love to see this integrate with phone lines but I doubt the feasibility.
Personally I've found voice messages incredibly useful during transit (texting & driving isn't safe, and riding a bus bouncing over potholes is difficult to type.
WeChat supports address sharing which integrates to mapping, which works well. It support regular text messages to, and voice calls -- so your options are covered.
I'm not dissing the function. I'm amazed at how well WeChat's various functions (address sharing, video/voice calling, money transfer, ...) work. I just don't find voice messages useful for me as the recipient. The people who have sent me voice messages don't own cars so they have no excuse!
Really, what I want is the ability to shunt unknown callers off to a holding area where they have to listen to a message and press a button in order to be let through. If it's a legitimate caller, then the inconvenience is minor.
This works very well in my experience. I wrote a "captcha/graylist-esque" rule for my asterisk server which intercepts unknown incoming calls with "because we don't recognize your phone number, please press one now -- or leave a message after the tone". Pressing one transfers the call to the ring group and whitelists the caller id.
For grins, _failing_ to press one results in my office speakerphone playing "sad-trombone-sound.wav" -- how I love to hear that sound.
I thought the same thing. I assumed it was an app for dealing with clutter on your phone. I'm sure they have their reasons for naming the product as such, but I think 'Butler' or 'Secretary' or something that implies your inability to contact someone directly would have been better.
If those are taken, then there are synonyms like sentry, sentinel, guard, guardian, watchman, protector, monitor, screener, defender, shield, chaperone, paladin, vigilante, ...
How did they end up with "janitor". I'm looking at thesaurus.com and it doesn't list "janitor" as a synonym for any word that denotes a protector of something.
There is "custodian"; sometimes building janitors are called custodians, but that word has connotations of taking care of something (having it in your custody).
Congrats on launching! Can you call out from a phone janitor number as well? It sounds great, but if I return a call then they have my real, unfiltered number.
Why? The CEO of PhoneJanitor is no longer reachable by a bunch of people in ways that I find useful. The associated at the VC firm that wants to follow up on funding this company? Denied. The CVS courtesy number reminding him his prescription is ready for pickup? Never gets through. His wife borrows a friends phone after hers dies? Can't even leave a voicemail.
It's one way to deal with spam and cold calls, but there's a real cost to these limits.
Tried that but it doesn't always work. The important people in your life may not know or remember that they've been given your real number, and they end up passing your number along to the next degre of people who you may not want to have your real number...and of course you have to juggle one more number (not unlike most of us who juggle more than one email for work, personal, side project, or side business, etc.).
I can't really answer that exhaustively, as I am not intimately familiar with all of GV. Phone Janitor does have some things I couldn't find in one package elsewhere that I wanted for managing my own stuff (some of which might be doable in GV? I'm not totally sure), and these include:
- Being able to route based on group, contact, time of day, day of week and to any phone number I want all in a single rule
- Linking my voicemails to family and friends without having to go through some authentication stuff I never saw a reason for (there's a story to this one actually, and I'll happily tell it to anyone interested)
- Not having to call anyone to access my voicemails
- Being actively developed on (this space seems rather stagnant to me from big tech. I have some tools options as a developer, but my parents can't really take advantage of any of that)
- Something I can integrate into other things I care about through some sort of API or export format or something (we chose the API route).
- Support. I don't need 24/7 instantaneous phone support (and don't want it, ideally) but somebody in the case of a huge issue should be contactable, fairly easily.
Even Phone Janitor isn't everything I want it to be (yet), but we've found customers find it incredibly useful, and we've had some good feedback for features that others will also find useful but still stick to our core goals (so ads probably won't be supported any time soon). Some of the feedback has been here today as you can see. I'm pleased with the criticism and praise we've received here, and I'm hoping to incorporate some of it into some progress in the near future.
There is not, especially where POTS is concerned. If you want private calls, you don't want old POTS interactivity at all (and there are services for this). If you don't involve POTS at all, this become easy to achieve.
Why this over Twilio? As far as I can tell, this does what Twilio does, but they're much bigger and more established.
With my setup, inbound business calls get routed to the right person during the day, an automated message if we can't pick up at the moment, and a different message outside of business hours. Outbound calls from our personal numbers get forwarded through the business number our numbers aren't exposed.
> Use our public API to develop your own controls for your phone
I don't understand how it's supposed to be used aside from the API. They say "from the browser", but without examples, it's impossible to tell how much control you have without writing code.
The new STEEL CRADLE protective cup will protect your most important part like it's a state secret. But don't just take our word for it - try for yourself! Our CEO, proudly joining other CEOs in putting all their trust in their company's product, is wearing a STEEL CRADLE all day long and he's walking the streets of San Francisco from 8am to 8pm, inviting you to kick him straight in the family jewels.
Wear steel-capped boots! Use a hammer! Catch him while he's least expecting it! Our CEO knows that STEEL CRADLE will give him all the protection he needs.
For a group of people that see a dozen bootstrap / sandwhich vid style launches a week this stands out, and got me to read 3 paragraphs of ad-copy.
Other notable examples of this launch strategy, intentional or not, in recent memory were Pud launching DistroKid (1) and the team behind Magic (2)
I think in all of these cases the simple, functional approach serves in bringing us closer to the product vs. focusing on the pitch.
(1) https://web.archive.org/web/20130717051607/http://distrokid....
(2) https://getmagicnow.com/