Tin Can – The landline, reinvented for kids(tincan.kids)
tincan.kids
Tin Can – The landline, reinvented for kids
https://tincan.kids/
137 comments
Maybe I’m going out on a limb here?… Even this thrifty and most excellent (party on Garth!) 3 to 17 step process might slightly reduce adoption by the target audience: kids.
Set up a couple of ip phones to connect to the other every off-hook, no dialing. Think Batman Batphone!
IP Phone Roulette!
I guess we’re gonna have to teach those kids to read the fine manual. (I agree with you entirely in this case. Show them easy mode then if they want a challenge they can do hard mode.)
Voip.ms is $0.50/mo per DID. After that billing is either an unlimited plan or per minute.
Not going to host a SIP server?
Geez this place has gone downhill.
/S
Geez this place has gone downhill.
/S
This doesn’t include the whitelisting for incoming and outgoing calls, which is a prominent feature.
That was my thought. Magic Jack basically does the same thing but cheaper and better.
[flagged]
> Why is it that there are always, always, ALWAYS super geniuses like you and bja and others who rush to ACKSHUALLY provide "alternatives" that aren't actually alternatives?
Please avoid fulminating or sneering like this on HN, it's clearly against the guidelines.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please avoid fulminating or sneering like this on HN, it's clearly against the guidelines.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Look, people fall into all sorts of categories based on various individual characteristics. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. It sounds like maybe you don't like seeing ideas that aren't best for you?
Let me encourage you to just keep scrolling if someone's idea doesn't fit you personally.
Let me encourage you to just keep scrolling if someone's idea doesn't fit you personally.
It'd be one thing if you offered a complete solution, even if cumbersome. Lots of open source projects require more steps than, and have various limitations compared to, their commercial counterparts; heck, for many of us, those extra steps are a feature, not a bug.
But all you did was to mention Google Voice, not exactly an obscure VoIP product and which, again, does not provide a whitelist. A whitelist is fundamental to this product's raison d'être, and to its appeal to parents. If you can't understand that, I don't know what else to say.
But all you did was to mention Google Voice, not exactly an obscure VoIP product and which, again, does not provide a whitelist. A whitelist is fundamental to this product's raison d'être, and to its appeal to parents. If you can't understand that, I don't know what else to say.
Dude, like I said - if my idea isn't your cup of tea, why the outrage? It took me time and effort to type it out that I could have spent elsewhere, but I wanted to help (some of) my HN community -- ok not you but why be upset at me?
It's a different idea from TA with a different set of ideal users. But it's a better idea for some who don't need all the features and want to pay less. The idea may not be perfect but it was free (but not for me).
It's a different idea from TA with a different set of ideal users. But it's a better idea for some who don't need all the features and want to pay less. The idea may not be perfect but it was free (but not for me).
Make note of the privacy policy[1]. Some users may not like the data they collect.
> Information Collected from Children: As detailed in Section 3.C, we collect voice audio during calls, call log information, and utilize the Parent-provided contact list in relation to the Child's use of the Tin Can Device. We may also collect device identifiers and technical usage data related to the Service.
[1]: https://tincan.kids/policies/privacy-policy
> Information Collected from Children: As detailed in Section 3.C, we collect voice audio during calls, call log information, and utilize the Parent-provided contact list in relation to the Child's use of the Tin Can Device. We may also collect device identifiers and technical usage data related to the Service.
[1]: https://tincan.kids/policies/privacy-policy
Yeah, this was buried under a section about "child users". I don't know how that's legal in a two-party consent state.
> C. Information Related to Child Users (Collected via the Service):
> Voice Audio Data: Audio data transmitted during calls made or received on the Tin Can Device.
Between this, and the civil and possibly regulatory liability of having 911 not necessarily work, this company might end up blowing their runway and more on lawyers.
> C. Information Related to Child Users (Collected via the Service):
> Voice Audio Data: Audio data transmitted during calls made or received on the Tin Can Device.
Between this, and the civil and possibly regulatory liability of having 911 not necessarily work, this company might end up blowing their runway and more on lawyers.
It also says,
> This includes the real-time transmission of voice packets necessary for the call to function. If voicemail features are implemented, this includes recorded voicemail greetings and messages.
So maybe it is “collecting” the data only in these limited capacities? (which seem necessary for the thing to function)
> This includes the real-time transmission of voice packets necessary for the call to function. If voicemail features are implemented, this includes recorded voicemail greetings and messages.
So maybe it is “collecting” the data only in these limited capacities? (which seem necessary for the thing to function)
They do not state that it is exclusively collected for those purposes, only that those purposes is included. As written, they'd be in line with their policy to collect that data for any purpose (including those listed).
Yeah, I was thinking that too, but I’m not sure how the law works. They might only not say it’s only those reasons as a CYA. And I wouldn’t be surprised if other recording was otherwise illegal without explicit consent, especially for minors. So I’m not saying it isn’t recording everything, I’m just not sure that it it’s.
It's really frustrating now that for every product/service, we have to go through the privacy policy carefully, especially when they're being written in increasingly generic verbiage. We pay for the product/service upfront or as a subscription, then a subscription for additional features, and on top of all that, agree to sell all our data and souls too. And Tech does all this blindly while gaslighting itself that "it's making the world a better place."
Is this just an ad for a VoIP service?
Your residential internet provider will probably already sell you VoIP that you can plug a real phone into.
Put that old hamburger phone to good use.
Your residential internet provider will probably already sell you VoIP that you can plug a real phone into.
Put that old hamburger phone to good use.
And Dropbox is just rsync.
The value is in the app for the parents. I would pay $10 not to deal with shitty VoIP interfaces.
The value is in the app for the parents. I would pay $10 not to deal with shitty VoIP interfaces.
I've set up voip instances, and not liked it, but would be willing to do it again for my kid. I'd not be willing to set them up (and be tech support!) for all of his friends' families. That's the value proposition here, for me.
We've got a group of parents around us who'd likewise like to delay their kids' smartphone access for as long as possible - but if a smartphone (or even a dumbphone with no meaningful parental controls) is the only way for kiddo to make calls, then I know some of them will defect. Selling them all on this kit (or something like it) would keep the agreement intact for a while longer.
We've got a group of parents around us who'd likewise like to delay their kids' smartphone access for as long as possible - but if a smartphone (or even a dumbphone with no meaningful parental controls) is the only way for kiddo to make calls, then I know some of them will defect. Selling them all on this kit (or something like it) would keep the agreement intact for a while longer.
Several comments in this thread give "Dropbox is just rsync" vibes. I'm curious how many of the commenters suggesting to DIY understand that having small children means essentially no free time to hack on something like that.
And it's mostly tech workers here. I would say most parents are not technically inclined. It would take the average Joe god knows how many hours to set something like this up. Even for a techie, and even if you value your time at only $10/h it would be worth it even if it took only a weekend of hacking something together, and you get something that was built specifically to your use-case.
DECT wireless phones and in router voip with a real phone number is rather simple and works. Oh wait, is that EU only or something?
What about the whitelist for the parents to approve callers?
Is it real simple for you, or for most people?
It really isn't. I got my login for dropbox, installed it on some machines, and it was just click upload or download from there. Crwating and using folders was much like on my desktop.
For rsync, a person would have to study it to learn it. They might want to look for potential gotchas in how they configure it, too. The experts at Dropbox already did all that for us, though.
For rsync, a person would have to study it to learn it. They might want to look for potential gotchas in how they configure it, too. The experts at Dropbox already did all that for us, though.
I wasn't serious. It's a reference to the comments in the initial Dropbox announcement saying it's the same as FTP+SVN+curlftpfs / rsync.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
I wouldn’t call it an ad because I’m unaffiliated. I thought it was a neat techie gadget that other HN readers might enjoy.
This has number whitelisting, and also no monthly fee.
Highly, highly, highly recommend you enable 911 calls by default on all plans -- let parents disable it if they want. Cell phones do this, even without a SIM card. Don't gate safety for $9.99/mo.
Edit: "The FCC requires that providers of interconnected VoIP telephone services using the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) meet Enhanced 911 (E911) obligations." https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/voip-and-911-service
Also "911 Services: Providers of "interconnected" VoIP services – which allow users generally to make calls to and receive calls from the regular telephone network – do have 911 service obligations" https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/voice-over-internet-pro...
Edit: "The FCC requires that providers of interconnected VoIP telephone services using the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) meet Enhanced 911 (E911) obligations." https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/voip-and-911-service
Also "911 Services: Providers of "interconnected" VoIP services – which allow users generally to make calls to and receive calls from the regular telephone network – do have 911 service obligations" https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/voice-over-internet-pro...
I kinda get why they think they don't want to enable this, but when I was a kid I once called 999 (in the UK) as a joke and let me tell you it was only once. My friends and I were there in the room watching films that we shouldn't and the uniformed and kitted-out Constables turned up and gave us an incredibly stern dressing-down about 30 minutes later.
Luckily, I am in the UK where a bunch of 12 year olds who've just watched Scream calling the police about shadows doesn't result in something getting shot, but still - I think I learned something about actions and consequences that day.
Luckily, I am in the UK where a bunch of 12 year olds who've just watched Scream calling the police about shadows doesn't result in something getting shot, but still - I think I learned something about actions and consequences that day.
What is bloody annoying is that you can't even test 999. When you set up a PBX it would be nice to know that it would work via the obvious way of actually calling it.
Surely it would be possible to create a test version which gets terminated by a computer instead of hassling an operator - you could send DTMF codes or something similar to indicate a test.
I suspect that there is a little more to your story. Probably that the fuzz had some spare capacity at the time and decided to do an educational exercise on you lot - which worked nicely. Nowadays you hear about all sorts of daft 999 calls - there is a TV programme about it.
Now we are moving into the SOGEA era in the UK. That's where we have "glass" phone lines (FTTP) that don't supply power but have jolly fast internets. 2025 is the year that the copper network gets shut down, except that it wont be! Oh and we will all be using VOIP ie SIP n RTP. The final pretense of circuit switching will trot off into the sunset and be bundled behind a green tent and a single shot will be heard.
Surely it would be possible to create a test version which gets terminated by a computer instead of hassling an operator - you could send DTMF codes or something similar to indicate a test.
I suspect that there is a little more to your story. Probably that the fuzz had some spare capacity at the time and decided to do an educational exercise on you lot - which worked nicely. Nowadays you hear about all sorts of daft 999 calls - there is a TV programme about it.
Now we are moving into the SOGEA era in the UK. That's where we have "glass" phone lines (FTTP) that don't supply power but have jolly fast internets. 2025 is the year that the copper network gets shut down, except that it wont be! Oh and we will all be using VOIP ie SIP n RTP. The final pretense of circuit switching will trot off into the sunset and be bundled behind a green tent and a single shot will be heard.
I would be surprised if you got in trouble for occasionally calling emergency services to clearly communicate you were testing if it works. During normal operations they should have extra capacity and they presumably also would like you to be confident you can reach emergency services in an emergency.
EDIT: I should specify a great way to be sure this is okay is call the non-emergency number for your local law enforcement and ask them if you can place a test emergency call. In a lot of cases, you will end up speaking to the same people who answer emergency calls, and they can tell you if now would be a good time or not.
EDIT: I should specify a great way to be sure this is okay is call the non-emergency number for your local law enforcement and ask them if you can place a test emergency call. In a lot of cases, you will end up speaking to the same people who answer emergency calls, and they can tell you if now would be a good time or not.
It is expressly forbidden to place test calls in the UK to 999. I could pretend to be a confused pensioner calling a taxi but that is not right and I can;t write that up.
The generally accepted method is to subscribe to your TSP's emergency number provision, when doing VOIP. However, it never gets tested and what if a 9 was typed as an 8 in the dialpan?
I used to put in ATAs which are SIP to copper voice bridges (for want of a better phrase) but copper is going away and ATAs are bit thin on the ground these days.
I like change in general but there are some pretty fundamental changes that our gov have not noticed might cause a few issues soon.
Ironically for me: My house is within the nearest town boundary and has copper from the cabinet provision (FTTC). The cabinet is about 500m away. We have had four separate teams rock up to pull fibre to my door and failed. Each one have decried the last team and said it will be fine by close of play.
I am seriously considering putting in wifi PtP to my office from home.
The generally accepted method is to subscribe to your TSP's emergency number provision, when doing VOIP. However, it never gets tested and what if a 9 was typed as an 8 in the dialpan?
I used to put in ATAs which are SIP to copper voice bridges (for want of a better phrase) but copper is going away and ATAs are bit thin on the ground these days.
I like change in general but there are some pretty fundamental changes that our gov have not noticed might cause a few issues soon.
Ironically for me: My house is within the nearest town boundary and has copper from the cabinet provision (FTTC). The cabinet is about 500m away. We have had four separate teams rock up to pull fibre to my door and failed. Each one have decried the last team and said it will be fine by close of play.
I am seriously considering putting in wifi PtP to my office from home.
Or you can email them and schedule your test call: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-and-broadband/telecoms-infra...
You can definitely test 999 for your own VoIP without getting into trouble. I did it a couple of times in the 2010s after moving offices. You just say you're testing, there's no emergency, thank you, and hang up.
I don't know how the UK treats this, but in the US you're supposed to call the non-emergency number and tell them you want to schedule a test call.
Makes sense. This also reduces the chances of a caller being “convinced” mid-call to tell the operator “oh, sorry, this is just a test”.
Way back when, my toddler loved to play with the cordless phone, and just happened to be able to dial 911. a lot. We'd realize a connection was made but not who was on the other end and just hang up. Eventually, 911 called back inquiring why so many hang ups and if someone needed help. I was surprised they took our explanation without dispatching someone to follow up. Maybe that's different now as I know my city has a policy of all calls require a follow up even if it's hours to next day later when they know it's not an emergency
I did this too at the age of 4. Apparently fireman Sam doesn't take phone calls, but the operator was very kind and didn't berate me or my parents for it.
FCC has rules for calling 911, and many state statutes reinforce or extend FCC rules.
Tin Can is probably not bound by these rules, but it looks like a phone and works like a phone. In an emergency where seconds matter, it better not fail anyone.
Enabling 911 calls for all could not only save lives, but also save the company from lawsuits.
Tin Can is probably not bound by these rules, but it looks like a phone and works like a phone. In an emergency where seconds matter, it better not fail anyone.
Enabling 911 calls for all could not only save lives, but also save the company from lawsuits.
Yeah, that jumped out at me. If you're doing something that looks like a phone, just do 911, always, even if you're losing money by doing that.
Yes! I am not a lawyer, but I know many… In addition to steering clear of legal issues, demonstrating overall decency is the right thing to do. In terms of $, customers have already spent money on the company’s hardware devices.
It's not arbitrary—if you look at your cellphone bill, there's a tax for 911 access. They could probably offer a cheaper plan with just 911, but they can't make it free. But I think $9.99 is fair all things considered.
I'm not sure I see the safety issue. My 7 year-old currently doesn't have the ability to dial 911 without an adult's cellphone. If I give them a Tin Can that has no 911, they are no more or less safe than they were before.
I'm not sure I see the safety issue. My 7 year-old currently doesn't have the ability to dial 911 without an adult's cellphone. If I give them a Tin Can that has no 911, they are no more or less safe than they were before.
> they are no more or less safe than they were before.
I disagree. They think they can call 911 from it, so in an emergency they will try that, and fail, and try again (because things fail all the time in today's world), wasting a ton of time.
Without this device they would try some other plan, maybe go outside and scream for a passerby to help.
I disagree. They think they can call 911 from it, so in an emergency they will try that, and fail, and try again (because things fail all the time in today's world), wasting a ton of time.
Without this device they would try some other plan, maybe go outside and scream for a passerby to help.
This is a really good point, though E911 probably costs the provider something. I wonder if they could offer 911 support at actual cost ($1-2/month).
> probably costs the provider something
Yes, So what? Eat the cost.
Any life saved was worth it.
Yes, So what? Eat the cost.
Any life saved was worth it.
If you believe it, offer up all your money to cover the cost of all 911 services and life saving tools. Then, the companies can provide them free of charge since you ate the cost.
Most will probably hold back some or all of that money. They'll make it someone else's problem. If not, they'll limit how much they eat the cost of saving others' lives. Their justification will be to put the money into their own needs or pursuing more of something. Which is what the companies do when they don't eat the cost.
If it's right for most people to charge to cover their costs (or ignore other people's problems entirely), then it shouod be right for the companies, too. If they must be selfless at a huge loss, then so must any who demand they do thay.
Most will probably hold back some or all of that money. They'll make it someone else's problem. If not, they'll limit how much they eat the cost of saving others' lives. Their justification will be to put the money into their own needs or pursuing more of something. Which is what the companies do when they don't eat the cost.
If it's right for most people to charge to cover their costs (or ignore other people's problems entirely), then it shouod be right for the companies, too. If they must be selfless at a huge loss, then so must any who demand they do thay.
To individuals, a life seems priceless. But to anyone facing resource constraints, tradeoffs are inevitable. Welcome to the quagmire where moral philosophy meets bean counting.
Then I'm sure you're willing to donate the cash to make it happen.
This should be such an infrequent occurrence that the cost should be negligible. Surely their $10/month plan has enough margin that this can be covered?
There is likely a cost to the infrastructure necessary to enable calling 911 that scales with the number of users not the number of 911 calls. Where I'm at, there is a 75 cent per month fee added to phone plans to cover the costs of access to 911. If most people are on the free plan, the margin from the few paying customers won't cover it.
Every cellphone without a valid service plan is still required to be able to call 911 in most places of the world, including the US, and carriers eat the costs. It should be obvious why.
Frankly it's weird they're making a clone of a classic touch tone corded phone and somehow get around this. Especially for a kids product when we teach kids to call 911 in an emergency.
Frankly it's weird they're making a clone of a classic touch tone corded phone and somehow get around this. Especially for a kids product when we teach kids to call 911 in an emergency.
Donate my time and services? Sure.
Donate the cash? To a business? … So, you mean, paying someone else's profit margin, while they hold lives hostage? Immanuel Kant says you don't negotiate with terrorists.
Donate the cash? To a business? … So, you mean, paying someone else's profit margin, while they hold lives hostage? Immanuel Kant says you don't negotiate with terrorists.
I'm surprised they do 911 at all. My Canadian VoIP provider doesn't do it and my understanding is that it's relatively difficult to do.
Is it possible to call 911 from a phone that doesn't have an incoming phone number assigned?
Yes, because cell phones can do it even without a SIM card
I vaguely recall that there was a time when cellphone companies were required to provide free 911 access. People that only wanted a phone for emergencies were advised to get one and not pay for service because it could still dial 911.
It's still the case now for sure on cell networks that are still active that your phone can reach. At least in the US.
Has been true for as long as I've had a cell phone (coming up to 30 years).
I think that still is the case in Europe?
It's still the case in the US, pop your SIM out and note it'll still say "Emergency calls only" on your lock screen.
Huh, I was just thinking about something sort of like this after camping with some friends and our kids this weekend -- we brought FRS walkie-talkies for all of them (cannot recommend this enough!) and on the drive home my four-year-old was asking if he could call his friends on the radio -- rather than getting him a Technician's I was thinking about finding or making some push-to-talk cell/wifi devices for them. It seems like a few of these things exist but they're marketed toward the enterprise (in at least some cases, with a family-style product unfortunately but unsurprisingly being discontinued: https://relaypro.com/families/ ), but it doesn't seem like it would be a hard build aside from making a durable/kid-friendly enclosure for it.
you could try GMRS over FRS which ends up having more range and only costs $35 for a 10 year license (no test / certification needed). I was recently trying both types of handheld walkie talkies and the FRS range was almost 1/5th the range that GMRS was able to do
alas, his friends are a couple hundred miles away so GMRS won't cut it. The GMRS-enabled radios are much, much better though
You're making me nostalgic for my old Nextel handset(s).
Right?? This was the closest modern thing I was able to find but the price point isn't there for a kid radio: https://rapidradios.com
Apple watches work as walkie-talkies with separate accounts and paired phones. I used a retired iPhone 8 and eBay'd a watch for ~$40.
This just seems like another VOIP service wrapped in nostalgia. There are MANY cheaper and better options. I say this because I recently added a VOIP line for exactly this reason to give my kids a way to call their friends without a smart phone.
Here are many good options https://www.ooma.com/blog/home-phone/best-voip-service-for-h...
Here are many good options https://www.ooma.com/blog/home-phone/best-voip-service-for-h...
Keep in mind, the main use case is allowing kids to call their friends and family and no one else.
VoIP nerds out there, is there any simple PFSense equivalent for VoIP that would allow you to DIY this? Basically restrict inbound and outbound calls to a whitelist?
VoIP nerds out there, is there any simple PFSense equivalent for VoIP that would allow you to DIY this? Basically restrict inbound and outbound calls to a whitelist?
You might like FreePBX[0] for a PFSense-style "PBX appliance" with easy WebUI. Just grab the ISO (or shell script to install on Debian). It's built on Asterisk, and more than adequate for the task. Whilst FreeSWITCH is awesome it's way more complex and overkill for this use case.
[0]: https://freepbx.org
[0]: https://freepbx.org
Awesome, thanks! I'll check it out.
Yes, get a trunk from someone like BulkVS, SignalWire and run your own freeswitch or asterix. You can set up arbitrary “allowed” lists. Hell you can even get fancy with lookups and decide on the fly to allow a call or not.
There are other comments about providers, but my way is way cheaper and you can run you EPBAX on a pi or even get a pre made VM from Azure, Amazon, etc.
Damn I hate paying rent.
There are other comments about providers, but my way is way cheaper and you can run you EPBAX on a pi or even get a pre made VM from Azure, Amazon, etc.
Damn I hate paying rent.
Whoa, love this. Do you have any recommended resources if I wanted to try this out? Any comments about FreeSWITCH vs Asterisk, or BulkVS vs Signalwire for a simple setup like this?
Freeswitch is more complicated and has a steeper learning curve, but you can pair it with FusionPBX and it will make things a lot more palatable. Asterix is the grand daddy of this stuff. The community is stronger for Asterix. Freeswitch is pretty much infinitely customizable.
SignalWire is the primary sponsor of Freeswitch but is mainly geared towards HUGE installations. BulkVS is cheaper and better in my opinion. You can also look at AnveoDirect, which is more raw than BulkVS, but you can become really really fancy with it. Like, call center fancy.
SignalWire is the primary sponsor of Freeswitch but is mainly geared towards HUGE installations. BulkVS is cheaper and better in my opinion. You can also look at AnveoDirect, which is more raw than BulkVS, but you can become really really fancy with it. Like, call center fancy.
I did a writeup of my own experiences using Asterisk for this exact use case: https://github.com/mnutt/rotary
This is exactly what I was looking for—thanks! So cool that you did this with a rotary phone.
Asterisk has better voice lines, like if-rotary-phone.wav, tt-somethingwrong.wav, shiny-brass-lamp.wav, you-sound-cute.wav, and tt-monkeysintro.wav.
Some of the providers on that link have “allowlist” as a feature, but I am curious how easy it is to manage. The parent app seems like the real value proposition here.
Why is preventing them from calling other people an important feature? The market for people who care about that sounds extremely tiny.
And that’s fine. It’s cute. It’s fun. Looks like they are optimizing for UX, design, and marketing.
Neat, but is this one of those things that becomes plastic e-waste the moment you stop supporting the service connecting it?
Of course!
"†Lifetime calling subject to continued availability of our services, a valid account, and our terms of service."
Unless they open it up enough that you can change the VOIP server it uses.
"†Lifetime calling subject to continued availability of our services, a valid account, and our terms of service."
Unless they open it up enough that you can change the VOIP server it uses.
Agreed, I would be much more likely to buy this if I had some kind of assurance it would not stop working.
Maybe instead of a flat $75, charge $5/month for the first 15 months.
Maybe instead of a flat $75, charge $5/month for the first 15 months.
Someone should open source something similar.
Why is everyone looking at me? I'm busy obsessing over how to bring BBS's back.
Why is everyone looking at me? I'm busy obsessing over how to bring BBS's back.
Love it!
To quote Dennis Duffy - The Beeper King - technology is cyclical!
https://youtu.be/bzm53FAo_q0?si=GNAiR_fgfL3xHNFX
To quote Dennis Duffy - The Beeper King - technology is cyclical!
https://youtu.be/bzm53FAo_q0?si=GNAiR_fgfL3xHNFX
The local public elementary school blocked all chat programs on student chromebooks. The 3rd graders figured out that they could chat with another in a shared google doc. They had thousands of pages of chat before the teacher finally put an end to it. The teacher only found out because a kid shared that it was getting unruly during class. I share this because most kids have an ipad and are digital communication natives. This landline concept is like puting a lid back on a can of worms.
3rd grade, sure. This seems like a great fit for my 3 year old and her friends who don't have unfettered iPad access.
A landline for a 3 year old to communicate with her friends. lol
Google Wave!
I only used Wave a little (because my netbook was far, far too underpowered to work properly with it) but I really really enjoyed it for both serious collaboration and random bullshitting with my friends. Haven't seen anything comparable since.
Wave nostalgics of the world, unite! It's the best remote collaboration tool I've ever used, and imo nothing I've seen since has really come close. It still baffles me that it wasn't successful.
I always figured that they just couldn't wrap their heads around a good way to monetize it.
It was painfully slow on netbooks, but it did work, and we used to use it to live-comment on LOST episodes with two other couples that we're friends with (but live in different cities, so we couldn't just have a watch party every week).
It was painfully slow on netbooks, but it did work, and we used to use it to live-comment on LOST episodes with two other couples that we're friends with (but live in different cities, so we couldn't just have a watch party every week).
I mentioned this somewhere else in my comment history, but I once used Wave with a group of creatives to develop a theatre piece, and everyone immediately "got" how to use it. (We'll not get into the debacle of the next project where we'd collectively run out of invite tokens, and... Ah, Google sure self-sabotaged that, didn't they?) Totally non-techy crowd, but took to Wave with appreciation and joy.
A decade-plus later, in my present (grown-up / sellout) job, I evangelized Dropbox Paper - which was sorta Wave-like, if you squinted a bit - and it Did. Not. Stick. No one else could stand it, and everything reverted back to interminable document-attached email chains and more-interminable Teams calls everyone's invited to "just in case".
I can't tell you whether that's because artistic people are more able to think non-linearly than business people, or because Paper didn't get some special something exactly right. I wish I could run the experiment.
A decade-plus later, in my present (grown-up / sellout) job, I evangelized Dropbox Paper - which was sorta Wave-like, if you squinted a bit - and it Did. Not. Stick. No one else could stand it, and everything reverted back to interminable document-attached email chains and more-interminable Teams calls everyone's invited to "just in case".
I can't tell you whether that's because artistic people are more able to think non-linearly than business people, or because Paper didn't get some special something exactly right. I wish I could run the experiment.
This is really cool—love the branding, concept and even the price point.
My cynical side thinks there's probably unlimited money to be made taking items from Millennials' youth and marketing it to their kids on a subscription model (I realize there's a subscription-free way to use Tin Can).
My cynical side thinks there's probably unlimited money to be made taking items from Millennials' youth and marketing it to their kids on a subscription model (I realize there's a subscription-free way to use Tin Can).
There was an article about kids and landline phones posted recently:
Kids Love Landline Phones - 70 comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43105961
Seems like someone decided to productize such an idea.
Kids Love Landline Phones - 70 comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43105961
Seems like someone decided to productize such an idea.
If there was an adapter version, for real old school phones, that would be fun.
There are so many real old school styles. [0]
[0] https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=vintage+phone&_sacat=0&...
[0] https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=scooby+phone&_sacat=0&_...
There are so many real old school styles. [0]
[0] https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=vintage+phone&_sacat=0&...
[0] https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=scooby+phone&_sacat=0&_...
I really like this idea, but I have 3 pieces of feedback:
1. I love the idea, but I do not love the pricing. $10 a month for something you can get for free with a Voip box is tough to justify.
2. It looks like they are refitting "antique" phones for their Flashback model. If they just sold the standalone Voip kit with their service wrapped around it, then we could find our our vintage hardware to use.
3. Realistically, 90% of the time my son would be on this would be to voice chat while playing Minecraft. So knowing that it has a decent speakerphone would be nice.
1. I love the idea, but I do not love the pricing. $10 a month for something you can get for free with a Voip box is tough to justify.
2. It looks like they are refitting "antique" phones for their Flashback model. If they just sold the standalone Voip kit with their service wrapped around it, then we could find our our vintage hardware to use.
3. Realistically, 90% of the time my son would be on this would be to voice chat while playing Minecraft. So knowing that it has a decent speakerphone would be nice.
What voip service allows free calling to/from pstn? Without an app filled with ads?
Love it, just ordered two of the flashback models! To me, the killer feature is the whitelist for incoming and outgoing calls. Is anyone aware of a VoIP provider that offers this? Ooma has a contacts-only calling feature, but 1) only on their Premier plan that costs $10/month plus taxes and fees, and 2) it’s not clear that it also restricts outgoing calls. I have not found any such feature listed for Vonage or Verizon’s digital voice, to name a few.
Why subscription service on top?
> Bestie has a Tin Can? Free calling to other Tin Cans is included for every device, no subscription required.
> Subject to a valid account & our terms of service.
Yeah, subscription aside (though that alone is a deal-breaker for me) I don't like it requiring an account.
Might there be a way that an open-software/hardware device could simply have a person enter, what, a friend's IP address to make a call? Or is there more middleware required to connect the two VoIP?
> Subject to a valid account & our terms of service.
Yeah, subscription aside (though that alone is a deal-breaker for me) I don't like it requiring an account.
Might there be a way that an open-software/hardware device could simply have a person enter, what, a friend's IP address to make a call? Or is there more middleware required to connect the two VoIP?
> Or is there more middleware required to connect the two VoIP?
You need an address of record to translate 111222333 to an actual deliverable location, like a PBX. You can do without it in a software solution, but in the age of NAT having a TURN server is highly advised.
> I don't like it requiring an account.
Remember the value proposition here is for kids calling trusted contacts. You could absolutely and easily build your own VoIP network with Asterisk etc.
You need an address of record to translate 111222333 to an actual deliverable location, like a PBX. You can do without it in a software solution, but in the age of NAT having a TURN server is highly advised.
> I don't like it requiring an account.
Remember the value proposition here is for kids calling trusted contacts. You could absolutely and easily build your own VoIP network with Asterisk etc.
Making real phone calls costs real money.
The covers the cost of calling actual phone numbers, which probably does cost the company something.
The direct calls are free, and don't have a fee, because those go over the internet.
The direct calls are free, and don't have a fee, because those go over the internet.
Companies like making money.
It's a little bit hard to figure out from the marketing but...is this just a regular old VOIP phone for $75 + $10/month? The same that Vonage, Ooma, axvoice, voiply, and others offer? Sometimes your ISP will even give it to you free or very cheap (we have it free with ours but don't have a phone plugged in to it).
Do these services have anything like the easy-to-use allowlist feature? There seems to be some value in the parent-friendly angle here.
I thought this was going to be about the old trick of wiring two land-line phones in series with a 9V battery, which allows them to talk to each other when both are off hook, over short distances anyways - like an electronic version of the string and two cans.
Can I get this for an elderly relative who has dementia? Scam calls were stressing her out (she doesn't have any ability to lose any assets, but the pressure they put on her stresses her out), so we took her phone. But we would love the ability to call her on a whim.
I've seen some similar products (controlled devices for vulnerable seniors) in the form of smart-watches, which have the advantage of being harder to misplace and more likely to be available in an emergency.
Now, whether the limitations of that form-factor/platform are worth it is a harder question.
Now, whether the limitations of that form-factor/platform are worth it is a harder question.
Yes?
I setup a VoIP.ms number with call extensions for the family and gave my kid a phone. They never use that phone because all the friends are on Messenger Kids.
Our Uniden walkies get a lot more use. Calling into the shed, or kitchen to upstairs, or across the street to neighbours.
Our Uniden walkies get a lot more use. Calling into the shed, or kitchen to upstairs, or across the street to neighbours.
It would be funny if this was a magical ethernet-connected RJ45 phone jack you could mount anywhere. And then you could plug in an old Western Electric phone if you wanted to. (Or otherwise buy a new one from Tin Can)
You'd be better off just activating a real landline and not using an app.
I am experiencing a strong sense of "why didn't I think of that" while also really hoping it isn't another strong, family friendly concept that gets quickly enshittified for profit.
Seriously, kudos, for a great concept, good website, and really, not that bad of pricing. Sure you can do it cheaper DIY... but where is the fun in putting an office-styled VOIP capable phone in a kid's bedroom? (though converting an old-phone to tunnel over VOIP sounds like a fun weekend project to do with my pre-teen)
But... dang, does it feel like yet another thing that will start great and get terrible over time or just dropped and be e-waste. Kid cell-phone plans that don't give me choice of provider, youth-focused budgeting/saving apps that are 4x more expensive than just a classic bank account and require an app to effectively use, and by far, worst of all, all the "kid" versions of tablets, youtube kids (which I can never get to not show ads even though I pay for premium!), that claim to give parents control... but really just seem like the minimum effort to make parents feel like they are putting in guardrails while still being designed to maximize the addiction early.
While I am really glad we are trying to build tech that helps kids have a better relationship each other while still using technology... it seems like most still fall to pressure of profit and either term into extremely over-priced offering that is hard to justify or can't make it and turn into junk with no re-use.
Once again, this product, right now, does not look to be that... but now having been bit a few times, I am much more cautious and either worry it will become e-waste or the price jacked up by 3x what it is today.
Seriously, kudos, for a great concept, good website, and really, not that bad of pricing. Sure you can do it cheaper DIY... but where is the fun in putting an office-styled VOIP capable phone in a kid's bedroom? (though converting an old-phone to tunnel over VOIP sounds like a fun weekend project to do with my pre-teen)
But... dang, does it feel like yet another thing that will start great and get terrible over time or just dropped and be e-waste. Kid cell-phone plans that don't give me choice of provider, youth-focused budgeting/saving apps that are 4x more expensive than just a classic bank account and require an app to effectively use, and by far, worst of all, all the "kid" versions of tablets, youtube kids (which I can never get to not show ads even though I pay for premium!), that claim to give parents control... but really just seem like the minimum effort to make parents feel like they are putting in guardrails while still being designed to maximize the addiction early.
While I am really glad we are trying to build tech that helps kids have a better relationship each other while still using technology... it seems like most still fall to pressure of profit and either term into extremely over-priced offering that is hard to justify or can't make it and turn into junk with no re-use.
Once again, this product, right now, does not look to be that... but now having been bit a few times, I am much more cautious and either worry it will become e-waste or the price jacked up by 3x what it is today.
Demand free software, open hardware and "right to repair". Capitalism with proprietary lock-in is ruining everything.
Man, I like this idea but I also really love this website.
[deleted]
nostalgia as a service
Neat product for the nostalgia factor but the pricing is atrocious.
A plastic receiver retails for $10 or less. The exact one they are selling is $18 (https://telephones.att.com/pd/200/210M-Black-Trimline-Corded...). They want $75.
VoIP is ~free (Facetime, Google Meet, WhatsApp, Messenger and a hundred others).
Saying "but it's for kids!" is a business strategy, sure, but charging $75 for the device + a $10/mo subscription for no reason is a bit too far.
A plastic receiver retails for $10 or less. The exact one they are selling is $18 (https://telephones.att.com/pd/200/210M-Black-Trimline-Corded...). They want $75.
VoIP is ~free (Facetime, Google Meet, WhatsApp, Messenger and a hundred others).
Saying "but it's for kids!" is a business strategy, sure, but charging $75 for the device + a $10/mo subscription for no reason is a bit too far.
For technical parents, you can do this with a SIP server, a pair of ATAs, and of course the phones. No subscription needed.
For those of us who are aware that these things exist, but now how they all integrate: how do you go from SIP server to actual phone service?
Are you meaning that the SIP server is shared by all the friends in the network who want to talk to each other, or that you can get phone service via the SIP server?
My dad worked on a lot of VOIP equipment in his career, so I always kind of wanted to do this, but don't like the $10/month for something almost never used, and got my kid a phone anyway because the portability and camera are pretty key. We just control the phone so that it acts like a land-line. I might be templated to do a VOIP setup for the house any if were easy enough.
Are you meaning that the SIP server is shared by all the friends in the network who want to talk to each other, or that you can get phone service via the SIP server?
My dad worked on a lot of VOIP equipment in his career, so I always kind of wanted to do this, but don't like the $10/month for something almost never used, and got my kid a phone anyway because the portability and camera are pretty key. We just control the phone so that it acts like a land-line. I might be templated to do a VOIP setup for the house any if were easy enough.
- buy an ethernet -> phone adapter (Grandstream, Cisco, and Poly sell these) and a cheap analog phone.
- get an inexpensive VoIP number[0] and set up the phone adapter to log into the service you set up.
- set up a Google Voice[1] number if you haven't already. When you want to make an outgoing call, use the Google Voice app to initiate a call to your VoIP number[2] -- that way you're technically receiving the call there, so it's cheaper or free, depending on your plan.
[0] CallCentric has a $3/month plan that gives you free incoming calls and e911 service: https://www.callcentric.com/faq/46/529. This works well if you initiate outgoing calls via the Google Voice app.
[1] As of 2023, Google Voice doesn't work directly with Obitalk VoIP service anymore, or with any other VoIP devices :(
[2] if you need to let kids make outgoing calls via Google Voice unattended, set up the Google Voice app on an old iOS device in Guided Access mode and plug it in next to the analog phone. (But make sure they know to make 911 calls using the phone itself, not the GVoice app. I suggest printing a "Emergency: call 911 on this phone" label and putting it on the back of the handset.