61–70 of 149 posts
I think it's a stroke of genius to launch something so aesthetically terrible on HN / PH (aka the early adopter crowd). 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 th…
801? Are you guys still in Utah?
From the FAQ: Why isn't it free? So many things are free! 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 se…
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." :)
Bizarre name. People who screen calls and control access to other people are receptionists or secretaries, not janitors. When was the last time a janitor told you that Mr. Smith isn't taking any calls right now?
Nice start.
Now send all those unwanted calls and texts to email and let it handle them. Then you'd really have something there.
From the FAQ: Why isn't it free? So many things are free! 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 se…
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 s…
Maciej Ceglowski (idlewords) also calls for an "anti-free-software movement" in Don't Be A Free User: https://blog.pinboard.in/2011/12/don_t_be_a_free_user/
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."
Bizarre name. People who screen calls and control access to other people are receptionists or secretaries, not janitors. When was the last time a janitor told you that Mr. Smith isn't taking any calls right now?
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.
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).
I like the control. I wouldn't use it. 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 d…
Presumably you can always just give important people your "real" number like you already do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 s…
Yes, it does. We all collectively pay for the economic and social costs of advertising. Advertising makes nothing free for anyone: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585237 Maciej Ceglowski (idlewords) also calls for an "anti-free-software movement" in Don't Be A Free User : https://blog.pinboard.in/2011/12/don_t_be_a_free_user/ There are better ways to screen out unwanted callers. As Jeff Hammerbacher, fmr. Manag…
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.)