Comments on: Mark Gibbs writes about PhoneGnome http://www.phonegnome.com/blog/2005/10/26/mark-gibbs-writes-about-phonegnome/ Miscellany from the PhoneGnome trenches Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:22:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: PhoneGnome http://www.phonegnome.com/blog/2005/10/26/mark-gibbs-writes-about-phonegnome/comment-page-1/#comment-98 PhoneGnome Thu, 17 Nov 2005 07:47:58 +0000 http://www.phonegnome.com/blog/?p=23#comment-98 The issue is, without the POTS line, it becomes a so-called "replacement" service. Without the POTS line, where does the user get the phone number? And where do they get 911? And how do they place phone calls? What does a PhoneGnome-like product look like without the landline? What does it do? What is it used for? The issue is, without the POTS line, it becomes a so-called “replacement” service. Without the POTS line, where does the user get the phone number? And where do they get 911? And how do they place phone calls?

What does a PhoneGnome-like product look like without the landline? What does it do? What is it used for?

]]> By: Jeff http://www.phonegnome.com/blog/2005/10/26/mark-gibbs-writes-about-phonegnome/comment-page-1/#comment-85 Jeff Fri, 04 Nov 2005 21:26:02 +0000 http://www.phonegnome.com/blog/?p=23#comment-85 If POTS is a REQUIREMENT, that is unfortunate. There is nothing wrong with making POTS an OPTION and if it exists and can be detected, it provides extra features. Should take that much extra coding to do a detection pass for POTS and if it exists use it. Too many items on the market today dictate how users MUST use the product. By doing so, they often limit the scope of their sales needlessly. It is your companies decision to do so, but I can't say I understand the reasoning. Is it possible this could be fixed with a software update of some sort? If POTS is a REQUIREMENT, that is unfortunate. There is nothing wrong with making POTS an OPTION and if it exists and can be detected, it provides extra features. Should take that much extra coding to do a detection pass for POTS and if it exists use it.
Too many items on the market today dictate how users MUST use the product. By doing so, they often limit the scope of their sales needlessly.
It is your companies decision to do so, but I can’t say I understand the reasoning.
Is it possible this could be fixed with a software update of some sort?

]]> By: Mark Gibbs http://www.phonegnome.com/blog/2005/10/26/mark-gibbs-writes-about-phonegnome/comment-page-1/#comment-84 Mark Gibbs Tue, 01 Nov 2005 19:12:21 +0000 http://www.phonegnome.com/blog/?p=23#comment-84 "The one statement that concerns me is where he says 'One disappointment: the PhoneGnome won’t initialize without a POTS line!' This complaint is somewhat baffling. This complaint is somewhat baffling. Unlike the countless rabble of me-too VoIP products and services, PhoneGnome is (snip, snip, snip)" PG is indeed pitched differently but it is still part of the VoIP market and not so different that you can afford to miss a trick. My office is wired so that I only have VoIP to my desk and getting access to a POTS line required running a 100' cable from the nearest jack. Sure, I still have a landline but that's backup -- both my house and office numbers were transferred to VoIP -- and the POTS line is only available in the comms cupboard until I get the switchboard installed. I like the fact that the PG can fall back to VoIP or POTS -- it is a very clever feature which is exactly why having to set up with a working POTS line doesn't make sense to me. Associating a POTS line should be optional. In fact given PG's pricing I would have thought there was a strong market in replacing and adding extensions in SMEs and SOHOs where a POTS line may not be relevant or available. I like the product (although that call screening feature turns out to be unacceptable to lots of non-sales callers who just seem to loose their minds and hang up ... who knew?). Cheers, Mark Gibbs. “The one statement that concerns me is where he says ‘One disappointment: the PhoneGnome won’t initialize without a POTS line!’ This complaint is somewhat baffling. This complaint is somewhat baffling. Unlike the countless rabble of me-too VoIP products and services, PhoneGnome is (snip, snip, snip)”

PG is indeed pitched differently but it is still part of the VoIP market and not so different that you can afford to miss a trick. My office is wired so that I only have VoIP to my desk and getting access to a POTS line required running a 100′ cable from the nearest jack. Sure, I still have a landline but that’s backup — both my house and office numbers were transferred to VoIP — and the POTS line is only available in the comms cupboard until I get the switchboard installed.

I like the fact that the PG can fall back to VoIP or POTS — it is a very clever feature which is exactly why having to set up with a working POTS line doesn’t make sense to me. Associating a POTS line should be optional. In fact given PG’s pricing I would have thought there was a strong market in replacing and adding extensions in SMEs and SOHOs where a POTS line may not be relevant or available.

I like the product (although that call screening feature turns out to be unacceptable to lots of non-sales callers who just seem to loose their minds and hang up … who knew?).

Cheers,
Mark Gibbs.

]]>