4 ms·

The one thing keeping me on Google is Google Voice. I have yet to find another solution that allows calling and SMS in/out on desktop and mobile all from the sa

The one thing keeping me on Google is Google Voice. I have yet to find another solution that allows calling and SMS in/out on desktop and mobile all from the same number. What I need is simple, a single VOIP number linked to: - Calling/SMS on the desktop (Windows/Linux) and on the phone - Shared contacts and call/sms history on all devices - When I call out/text on any device, show the VOIP number in caller ID not the device number - When I receive a call, ring all devices I don't need any fancy handoff from device to device, or IM integration, or anything else. Just ring all my damn devices and let me pick up one. Ideally it would have an API that allows IM clients to integrate with it as a protocol, but hell, at this point I'd go for a black box app if it could do what I want. Is there an app for that? I'm not sure its even possible on iPhone unless you're iMessage, but of course that doesn't work if your desktop is non-Apple. Seems like it would be fairly simple. Tempted to build something out myself, but that's a lot of ongoing support. Twilio -- that'd make a great showcase app and it's something I'd personally pay for. Any chance you guys might pick that up?

EADGBE 9y ago
Apple has all this; if you play in their court. But that's who they are. Everything is set up to "synchronize" with one number. If my phone rings, my watch also does (when it's on my wrist, no cellular required), so does my iPad. I can answer on these devices. I can also make calls on them from my iPhone number. I don't have a mac at home (because, why desktop?) but If I did it would also ring and allow me to make calls from it too. iMessages and text messages work the same way, alerts and ability to reply on the watch, synchronization with my iPad and iPhone, and the Messaging app on OSX.
- chrishynes 9y ago
  Yep, but only if you play in their sandbox. I'm not going to jump from one walled garden to another, particularly when it's going from GV which is at least cross platform to a Apple only solution. I'd be tempted if they ever had a Windows app that actually worked and was supported, but they've killed off everything. Or if they had an API for iMessages so third parties could access it.
  - EADGBE 9y ago
    > Yep, but only if you play in their sandbox. So true. Why is this becoming more and more common? The internet, and all its byproducts, used to be open.
scrdhrt 9y ago
I might be misunderstanding something, but doesn't Skype fill your needs? It's been a couple of years since I used it outside of just personal chat and the occasional skype meeting, but I think Skype might be something to look into.
- chrishynes 9y ago
  The point is to have a VOIP number that is abstracted from the real world, but to everybody else looks like a normal 10 digit phone number. That way I can answer on my desktop at work, phone on the go, or log in from anywhere and still have that same one point of contact to give out to everybody. Basically what Apple/iMessages give if you play in their sandbox. AFAIK, Skype and similar services don't let you port in your number and use that for inbound and outbound calls -- you're locked in to a Skype name or whatever. Or if they do allow a number its some ungodly expensive thing like "Skype for Business": https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Transfer-phone-numbers-to-Skype-for-Business-Online-47b3af8e-4171-4dec-8333-c956f108664e https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Transfer-phone-numb...
dhd415 9y ago
I'd happily pay for an alternative to GV, too, especially since Google has shown little interest in GV and has a tendency to shut down services in which they've lost interest (RIP, Google Reader). Better support for MMS would be nice, too.
- dannysu 9y ago
  I would pay for this as well. Especially because GV was left for dead for so long. I'd like a company, that I can give money to, whose only motivation is to make a great GV-type product.
- remir 9y ago
  There's Line2: https://www.line2.com/page/google-voice-alternative https://www.line2.com/page/google-voice-alternative
  - chrishynes 9y ago
    That looks very promising! Any experiences with it?
    - remir 9y ago
      I don't, unfortunately.

EADGBE 9y ago

Apple has all this; if you play in their court. But that's who they are. Everything is set up to "synchronize" with one number. If my phone rings, my watch also does (when it's on my wrist, no cellular required), so does my iPad. I can answer on these devices. I can also make calls on them from my iPhone number. I don't have a mac at home (because, why desktop?) but If I did it would also ring and allow me to make calls from it too. iMessages and text messages work the same way, alerts and ability to reply on the watch, synchronization with my iPad and iPhone, and the Messaging app on OSX.

chrishynes 9y ago
Yep, but only if you play in their sandbox. I'm not going to jump from one walled garden to another, particularly when it's going from GV which is at least cross platform to a Apple only solution. I'd be tempted if they ever had a Windows app that actually worked and was supported, but they've killed off everything. Or if they had an API for iMessages so third parties could access it.
- EADGBE 9y ago
  > Yep, but only if you play in their sandbox. So true. Why is this becoming more and more common? The internet, and all its byproducts, used to be open.

scrdhrt 9y ago

I might be misunderstanding something, but doesn't Skype fill your needs? It's been a couple of years since I used it outside of just personal chat and the occasional skype meeting, but I think Skype might be something to look into.

chrishynes 9y ago
The point is to have a VOIP number that is abstracted from the real world, but to everybody else looks like a normal 10 digit phone number. That way I can answer on my desktop at work, phone on the go, or log in from anywhere and still have that same one point of contact to give out to everybody. Basically what Apple/iMessages give if you play in their sandbox. AFAIK, Skype and similar services don't let you port in your number and use that for inbound and outbound calls -- you're locked in to a Skype name or whatever. Or if they do allow a number its some ungodly expensive thing like "Skype for Business": https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Transfer-phone-numbers-to-Skype-for-Business-Online-47b3af8e-4171-4dec-8333-c956f108664e https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Transfer-phone-numb...

dhd415 9y ago

I'd happily pay for an alternative to GV, too, especially since Google has shown little interest in GV and has a tendency to shut down services in which they've lost interest (RIP, Google Reader). Better support for MMS would be nice, too.

dannysu 9y ago
I would pay for this as well. Especially because GV was left for dead for so long. I'd like a company, that I can give money to, whose only motivation is to make a great GV-type product.
remir 9y ago
There's Line2: https://www.line2.com/page/google-voice-alternative https://www.line2.com/page/google-voice-alternative
- chrishynes 9y ago
  That looks very promising! Any experiences with it?
  - remir 9y ago
    I don't, unfortunately.