Magic+ - <AUTHOR> https://getmagicnow.com/plus <comment><USER2> A lot of skepticism here, which is understandable given the somewhat unbelievable scope of what they are promising.

I'm a very active user of Magic+, so I'll give my perspective. (and of course I've been working with them from the beginning at YC, so you're also free to discard my opinion as biased)

For me, Magic+ is basically the impossibly good personal assistant, kind of like Jarvis in Iron Man, or Emily in The Devil Wears Prada. Unlike a conventional assistant, it's available 24/7, always happy to take on more work, and capable of accomplishing just about anything.

Obviously the $100/hr price point puts it out of reach for most people, but my expectation (as an investor) is that as the tech improves, they will be able to bring down the price while maintaining or even improving the quality of the service (I call this the Tesla strategy).

For me however, $100/hr is totally worth it since it effectively increases my leverage and enables me to get more done in less time. I've used it to plan events for YC founders, answer questions that are hard to Google (they will find the right experts and ask them), and provide unique and memorable gifts to friends, family, and business partners. I'm used to paying a high price for quality professional services such as accountants or lawyers, so $100/hr for the best possible assistant feels completely reasonable and rational.

<comment><USER3> >but my expectation (as an investor) is that as the tech improves they will be able to bring down the price while maintaining or even improving the quality of the service

Call me skeptical, but where exactly is the tech involved? Currently this is just text messages going to people + people doing the things.

One possibility would be through AI (a bit of a weasel word most of the time, honestly), but Google and Apple are both miles ahead on NLP, so by the time you can parse "get me a peperonni pizza", Google will have been doing it for free for the past year , and include a 10% off coupon for the pizza!

Considering your value is based almost entirely on getting things done through an assistant that understands English, it looks like costs are basically how much you pay the assistant themselves... Maybe you can get away with paying them $20/hour (and equipping them with good tools to do the common stuff fast).

The Tesla strategy works (well, in theory) because so much of the cost of the good is based in things that are continuously getting cheaper (batteries).

But here... What's driving down the cost of the assistants? Seems like the solutions are much more about HR-style "innovations" , business partnerships, and the like than anything coming out of MIT.

I sincerely hope the strategy isn't "find the cheapest human labor possible"

<comment><USER4> There's a decent amount of innovation that can make the assistants more efficient, so you can improve profitability without driving down wages. But there's also something else:

Since a high percentage of services will likely end in a transaction, there's a huge opportunity to become the Amazon-scale retailer of services. I find I don't even google products I want to buy anymore, I just immediately search Amazon. Amazon is my retail UI. If Magic can do the same thing in this space—become the service UI—I'd imagine it won't be long before more revenue comes form partnerships than directly from consumers.

<comment><USER5> Personally, Amazon's UI has a long way to go and doesn't look like it's going to get better anytime soon.

If you know what you're looking for, it's fine, but as soon as you try to comparison shop it falls apart fairly quickly.

I've gotten into the habit of looking for experts on other sites that do hands-on comparisons for the thing I want to buy (some recent examples: rain jackets and fitness meters). Amazon is honestly a terrible UI for this sort of thing.

I know that they're trying, but at this point they've lost my trust that what they show in search results is relevant unless I'm being extremely precise.

<comment><USER6> > Personally, Amazon's UI has a long way to go and doesn't look like it's > going to get better anytime soon.

Haven't people been dismissing them over their UI since the beginning of time? And yet it works and is successful?

<comment><USER7> The sad thing is - UIs generally don't matter if there's anything else making your product special. You can make your users as miserable as you want, and they will still use your service. Companies know it and prioritize effort accordingly.

<comment><USER8> Agreed. See Craigslist.

<comment><USER9> Craigslist's UI is great! High contrast text. All links are obvious (no iOS style "is that colored text or a button"). It loads quickly. I can find the information I need without hunting around a bunch of ads masquerading as useful content.

As an added bonus, I don't have to relearn how to use it every 6 months when the design team gets bored and decides to redo the whole thing for no good reason.

There are a few additions I'd like to see (PadMapper style apartment search being the big one), but all things considered I like Craigslist a lot more than most websites.

Compare it to Amazon where half of the items are miscategorized, sort by price doesn't actually sort by price, and sort by average customer rating is way too literal. In what world do I want to see something with a single 5 star review over the one with 191 reviews, 94% of which are 5 star, and another 4% are 4 star? But that's tucked away on page 7 of the results after all the items with nothing but a single good review. Amazon's got issues to work out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Looks like the reception isn't doing too well. I remember when Magic launched here on HN and it BLEW up. I was one of the people who tried it out. I live in NYC and actually had a poor experience.

The first two times, I said "hey I want a sandwich with [x]" and I got it but it took a lot longer than if I just clicked the necessary buttons on Seamless. Then I kept getting random calls from time to time from pizza delivery men saying they were downstairs.

They were very apologetic and nice about it, but really it just wasn't worth it for me. The CTO (I think) reached out to me some months later asking why I stopped and well it's the same answer: very little utility for someone like myself. If I were rich, hey sure why not boss someone around for random things (though I don't know why I wouldn't just hire someone I can trust). However, if you're middle income or even a little higher, what's the point really? Everything else is basically on-demand in this new uber-fied world.

<comment><USER11> I had a very similar outcome with Magic after trying really hard to rely on it. One of their suggested usages is to order flowers for someone, so I tried that on two different occasions.

The first time around, I asked for flowers, and got a picture of some flowers that they could send to my recipient. I didn't like the flowers in the picture, and so they picked another set of flowers per some feedback from me. The flowers arrived, and the recipient was touched, but my lingering feeling was that I would have spent the same amount of time ordering online, and it would have been easier to find the right kind of flowers if I had done so.

The second time I tried to order flowers was a complete disaster. I was ordering them for a special occasion, and Magic had told me they would be delivered within an acceptable time frame. However, the flowers never showed up. I was not notified that they had not showed up - instead I learned that they had not showed up after one of the more embarasing birthday calls of my life. Magic was very nice about it, refunded me and delivered the flowers late for free. The error may not even have been their fault. However, the extra layer of abstraction between me and the flower delivery person in this case seemed to make the whole situation worse.

I use a lot of different do-things-for-you services these days. In theory Magic is a service I should be totally hooked on, but these bad experiences killed it for me. What's the point of a service that does everything for you if it makes things more complicated or harder to get done?

<comment><USER12> If it's any consolation, I once had a flower company deliver an empty box to someone's office. That was pretty embarrassing!

<comment><USER7> That's the problem with depending on companies like that. There's zero accountability, you can do absolutely NIL to hurt them, but if they fuck up, it can do big damage to your affairs.

I had a flower shop almost fail on the delivery - we agreed on the flowers, date and place, and then... they _forgot_. They simply forgot about the delivery. Luckily I called them in time and they managed to get their shit together and deliver the bouquet literally minutes before I was about to suffer a big embarrassment if the flowers were not there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Ok. I must seriously be missing something here. I'm usually the last person to complain about shilling, because even on the very rare occasions that I am confident that some sort of "astroturf" operation is going on I usually find it to be a somewhat valid or at least entertaining form of promotion and don't care that it is clearly just advertising.

But seriously, this thread is absurd. I truly do not understand how a significant portion of this site (even knowing that it is probably largely made up of affluent, educated people) consider this to be even a reasonable value proposition. I'm not incredibly affluent or anything, but by any standard short of the true "1%" I am extremely well off. However the level of wealth required that a blind commitment of $100/hr for trivial delagatable tasks is way beyond anything I would consider using, especially considering the significant upfront purchase that seems to be required. What ten hours of random bullshit that I not just need done, but would entrust to a stranger without known qualifications is worth $1k? Not much...

But this comment section is filled with well crafted top level praise of the service with a staggering amount of popularity for what seems to be an extreme luxury service. Compounded by very "reasonable" objections with immediate and solicitous responses by accounts claiming to be representatives humbly begging for an opportunity to right their wrongs and improve the service.

This whole thing looks like a finely tuned campaign to leverage highly- regarded social media in a wide scale blitz to make the absurd product seem reasonable. Seriously, I'm staggered at this comment section and the popularity here.

And this "target market" excuse seems like crap. If the "target market" is extremely rich folk who would consider dropping $100/hr on miscellaneous unskilled labor with almost no real guarantee of reliability or quality, then they wouldn't be blitzing a random social media site to improve their image (which they explicitly are doing with mr. cmikec running around). They'd focus their efforts on true premium clients and demonstrate some sort of solid guarantee of their reliability that a suspicious rich person might actually accept. This whole thing looks like an attempt to make random $100/hr requests somehow seem reasonable to people who can technically afford it but typically wouldn't even consider it if they didn't see it as a "normalish" thing to do.

<comment><USER14> Perhaps someone sent a request to Magic+ along the lines of "I want Magic+ to become the number one item on HN"? It's legal, it's possible - and they're on it. It'd make a decent demo!

<comment><USER15> This is genius.

<comment><USER16> > This is genius. No it's magic+ :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm trying to figure out why I (too) am having a strong negative reaction to this. Let me think out loud:

I'm fortunate enough to have a real personal assistant. She's amazing, she knows me, she does fantastic work, and I pay her a fair and reasonable wage (including health care) that's far less than $100/hour. So let's put me in the category of "people who can afford a personal assistant" but not quite in the category of "people who demand to meet Tina Fey & Amy Poehler on demand."

I would NEVER in a million years consider replacing my assistant with a faceless nameless AI-assisted service. I have a number of friends who are also fortunate enough to have assistants. They would NEVER consider replacing their assistants with a faceless nameless AI-assisted service (at least one friend has an assistant that's been with him for years and is basically part of the family).

And with the examples they give, Magic+ is painting a picture of both a service and user that's highly specific -- wealthy enough to afford these luxuries, but not willing to make the investment of hiring a real person to build a real relationship with to perform these tasks.

So the whole thing feels....dismissive. I guess that's the best word I can come up with. Dismissive of money ("Entertain me with Tina Fey - I will pay for her presence."), dismissive of human contact ("I don't want a real assistant - I just want to text a service to do my bidding.") Dismissive of warmth. It's sort of what I imagine a caricature of a dystopian tech billionaire would want -- all of the somethings with none of the someones.

I dunno. It just feels ... off. Sorry I can't come up with something better. But as the target demographic (I think?), I'm feeling like the pitch is very off-target and off-putting.

<comment><USER18> Just curious, but what is your line of work and that of your friends with assistants?

<comment><USER17> I work in tech (but started and sold several companies previously). Of the first three friends who have assistants that come to mind: two are CEOs and one runs a hedge fund. I guess no surprises :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I just signed up to see if they could renegotiate my Comcast price for me. It turns out you have to buy either 10 hours at $100/hour or 40 hours at $75/hour to get started. That's _way_ too steep to try something out.

<comment><USER20> It will probably take those 10 hours being on old for comcast to pickup. You think i'm joking.

<comment><USER21> Why wouldn't Magic+ have a relationship with Comcast where they can bypass the queues? Seems like a natural relationship to have.

<comment><USER22> Then I, as someone who manages a remote development shop and pays Comcast in the several thousands a month for Internet access, would be pissed that -I- don't get such access.

Why on earth should Magic have a "preferred relationship" so they can make money letting their customers skip the line I'm waiting in?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I really am not a fan of the hyperminimalistic "we can do anything trust us!" landing pages that _every_ text-for-personal-assistant seems to think is brilliant marketing copy.

There are examples of Magic+ _requests_ , but no real-world examples of _outcomes_ and whether the request was filled successfully to the customer's satisfaction.

Relatedly, the $100/hr is suspicious because it's impossible to audit the time spent by the assistant. (Contrast with flat fees stated upfront from the normal service.)

<comment><USER24> Thanks for the feedback. Magic has been in an interesting position as a startup ever since our website went viral in Feb. 2015. Starting then, we've had more demand than supply for our product every single day. That's why we never iterated our original landing page -- marketing was never our biggest problem, in fact it was our smallest. That said, I completely agree with you, that there would be much more powerful ways of communicating that you can trust us. Most of our signups come from word of mouth from real users at this point though, so it's not as much of an issue.

For our $100/hr Magic+ product, we display detailed reports daily to users that show exactly how time was used down to the second. I agree that communicating this correctly is key. If you're interested in trying it, I'd love to hear your feedback on how we display this information.

<comment><USER25> Even if the time is broken down, what's the incentive to be as efficient/cost- effective as possible? I get that cost is not the primary driver here but surely it is not open-ended.

Also, invariably with a complex task, there's going to be a lot of dead time spent waiting while coordinating.

<comment><USER26> Isn't that effectively a problem for any hourly based service? What's the incentive for a lawyer, accountant, developer, anyone to be as cost effective as possible? Surely the answer to that (happy customers, repeat business, referrals) would apply here as well. Even if hypothetically it wasn't as efficient as possible yet they still managed to deliver quality results, whats the problem? You're paying for results not effort, no?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> 1) How does one become a Magic+ "Magician"?

2) Do the Magicians post a surety bond to Magic for liability-related losses? Does Magic have third party fidelity bonds to help defend against suits brought against them due to fraudulent actions by (I assume) contractor Magicians? Disclaiming all liability and hold harmless agreements can be problematic in reality, given the example market of impulse iPad Pro buyers could easily be envisioned to have enough resources to litigate Magic into oblivion.

3) Do Magicians undergo any kind of background checking?

If I'm going to trust a service with information otherwise protected by regularly rotated credentials and TFA - and I'm not beyond doing that, since the pricing for dependable and trustworthy (and bonded/insured) assistants for ad-hoc tasks doesn't seem too offensive to me - I'd want to know my risks.

I know that doesn't make for _magical_ copy on a landing page, but it's a selling point. I used the original Magic pretty early on, getting a rather esoteric accessory for some discontinued on-ear studio monitors, and I was impressed by their professionalism. If the pricing goes to the next level, the professionalism needs to follow, in my opinion.

<comment><USER28> Maybe you could use Magic+ to audit the legal practices of Magic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I use Magic and they provide incredible service. They've been able to accomplish pretty much everything I've asked, including some requests that I thought were borderline outlandish, such as having food from a restaurant across the country sent to me via chilled overnight air mail for a friend's birthday as a big flashy surprise (friend's favorite restaurant).

If you value your time more than your money, then they're an excellent service that gives you a new suite of capabilities for making that tradeoff. They have been able to arrange everything I've asked them to do. What I like about them is that I can make a request without having any idea how to go about getting it fulfilled, and Magic will figure out how - they'll do the research and find a solution. They are familiar with service providers for all sorts of unusual tasks and will set them up for you: personal chefs, car servicing pickup, garbage pickup - for everything I've asked they've had an answer.

They are primarily limited however by their staff on the ground or lack thereof. Although they've been able to organize couriers in several cities to accomplish tasks, they have occasionally been unable to find couriers on the day of a request. Magic is a generalist service: they can do virtually anything, but not necessarily within the same hour you ask. They're worse than specialist services like Postmates at tasks like basic food pickup and delivery (mostly due to lower availability of couriers). Magic is most useful when your need is unusual and a typical service won't be able to get it done - or when you want a complex problem to be solved and don't want to have to think about or manage the solution. At such a task, they excel, and they've always come through for me in the end.

The Magic staff are very friendly and personable, as well. Their customer service is a tier above any other company I've interacted with. They handle requests with unusually high intellectual and emotional intelligence, and care. (Disclaimer: I haven't used Magic+, only the original Magic which has been surprisingly cheap for the value it adds.)

<comment><USER30> > such as having food from a restaurant across the country sent to me via > chilled overnight air mail for a friend's birthday as a big flashy surprise

Maybe I'm missing something here, but this is making me seriously think about what Magic's target market is. What kind of income would a person need to fathom affording something like that? I know people who I would consider "wealthy" on a first-world scale but this seems like a service suited for millionaires only (not that there is anything wrong with that, of course).

<comment><USER31> You wouldn't need an extravagant income to do something like that. I just did a quick check and it costs less than $150 to overnight an 8lb package from NY to SF with 8am delivery. So the markup over just buying the meal at the restaurant is going to be less than $300 once you add refrigerated packaging and pay somebody to order it, pick it up, package it, and ship it. That's pricey if you're doing it every week, but for a special occasion that's not unimaginable for somebody even at the low end of middle class.

<comment><USER32> I think most middle class people would think $300+ for a meal is wildly extravagant. And would think a $300 gift for "a friend" is on high end of gifts.

<comment><USER10> As a middle class person struggling to get day by day -- yes, yes it is.

<comment><USER33> Semantics, but if you're struggling, you're not middle class. At least not in the classical sense.

It's a shame the downward pressures that have made "struggling to get by" the middle class norm. The whole point of the thriving middle class (in the US at least) was that, with a willingness to work, you could live comfortably, with a house and two cars and 2 kids.

This isn't meant to be insulting or directed at you - it's just a new definition of middle class, that the struggle builds character or your struggling is an indicator of your value or lack of hard work, that I find almost infuriating.

End rant, I suppose.

<comment><USER10> Well we all have our struggles I suppose. I hear what you're saying though. I think money has lost a lot of its value.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I haven't used the $100/hour Magic+, but I've used Magic several times. I ordered sushi when it was first announced and the HN comment about my experience got a lot of interest.

Once I used it to order fried chicken from a deli that isn't available via any delivery service. That was nice.

The coolest thing by far was using it to buy a gift. I follow an embroidery artist on Instagram, and noticed she was doing a pop-up shop in Chicago (I live in Seattle). I directly inquired about commissioning pieces or buying her existing pieces, but it just wasn't possible – this pop-up shop was the only way. I showed Magic a few of the pieces I liked best on Instagram, gave them a price limit (no idea even how much they were selling for), and described how there were only a few of these things available and they'd probably be gone fast. They sent someone there and managed to get one for me and mail it!

</comment><comment><USER35> Another service for the 1%. This one will go the way of homejoy. These kids don't understand how tight the household budget is for nearly all Americans.

You can smell the elitism dripping in their examples on the site. Private helicoptors, $31 grocery delivery... most people will pay a little extra for convenience, but this is ridiculous.

<comment><USER36> The problem with Homejoy, in my opinion, was not price. It was the fact that it made little sense to keep using them after you found a cleaner you liked. As a middle man, they simply did not provide much value.

Magic feels more like Uber to me. You don't use Uber once, then establish personal contact with that one driver, never using Uber again. The value of Uber is that you can get a driver on-demand, at any time, wherever you are; this is not possible if you just have one driver's cell phone number. Similarly, asking Magic to send some flowers to your girlfriend doesn't mean that you'll never have a use for Magic again. It's a middle man that can provide value repeatedly.

Magic's generality is why it might actually stand a chance. For instance, you could probably use it as a makeshift Homejoy, asking for them to find you a cleaner who will come to your place once every two weeks. Once they find you a cleaner, you won't need them for that particular service again, as you'll have personal contact with the cleaner. But because of their generality you'll be able to find many other uses for Magic most likely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I predict a few things for the future of this service (and this kind of service):

1\. A lot of frustration from customers and a lot of churn. An effective personal assistant, or office manager, or whatever, effectively begins to read the mind of their employer. Lack of face-to-face, and what I imagine will be a lot of assistant churn, will result in very poor "mind reading" abilities. Cost of training a new assistant is much higher than actually having one, at least for folks who utilize their services a lot.

2\. A race to the bottom on price, exacerbating the problem of assistant churn. $100/hr leaves a lot of room at the bottom, but it'll drop to the point where people in the US aren't willing to do the job of magic assistant.

3\. $0 is the cost of Siri, Google Now, and Alexa. They truly suck right now, for almost everything except taking the place of a keyboard, but will get better. There's a limit to what "virtual" assistants can do for you; at some point you need a meat robot to go physically do stuff for you, if you want assistance beyond what technology can do.

Not to trash talk the idea or the company, at all. I haven't tried it. I can't think of anything it could do for me that I wouldn't rather hire an actual assistant for. At $100, you can get several hours of real human time, in your local market. Someone you can meet, and develop a rapport with. I'm ordinarily not on the side of the fence that insists that the personal touch is important (I don't like car dealers and want them to disappear, I don't like sales people at any store and generally want them to disappear, etc. because in general, they know less than me about what I'm shopping for and just serve to annoy me and occasionally lie to me to try to manipulate my decision). But, in this case, there is real value in a real live human having access to your daily life or work so they can be most productive about helping you get shit done.

</comment><comment><USER38> This sounds a bit like Uber for personal assistants. So for people in the top 1% they can now have 24/7 personal assistants at probably about the same cost as they previously paid for a 9 to 5-er.

Then a middle man skims most of the profits while all of the personal assistants of the world lose job stability and end up having to work 80 hours a week as "personal contractors" to try and break even with what they previously made in a 40 hour work week.

Yeah; I'm a bit skeptical.

</comment><comment><USER39> "Find someone to train me like Jason Bourne." "Get me a mobile dentist to my office ASAP." "I want to meet Tina Fey and Amy Poehler." "I need to rent out the Exploratorium this weekend." "I need 6 convertibles tomorrow for rent." "Organize my team for a town hall tomorrow." "My 1 pm ran over. Bump my meetings back 1 hour." "I'm out of the office today. Check my email and let me know if there's anything urgent."

They're going way over the top here to market it to busy douchebags. I thought about using it until I saw who they think I might be.

<comment><USER24> These are all real requests that our users have actually used Magic+ for. We obviously cant divulge their identities, or show photographs, etc. (since these are personal things), but it's important to convey how people really use the service. I'd love ideas on how we can communicate this point better. Part of what our users love about Magic+ is that you truly can do some pretty amazing things with it.

<comment><USER40> If there's a way to anonymize data (or even just flag requests as anonymous in content), it'd be nice to have a bit more of a randomly picked live feed.

I think some of the incredulity is that there's... an authenticity skepticism as to how much these represent average requests (and therefore responses). But like you said -- if you don't have a marketing problem, who cares what the HN peanut gallery says. ;)

<comment><USER41> These aren't supposed to be average requests, they are there to demonstrate how Magic+ can handle even really difficult tasks without easy solutions (order me a pizza).

<comment><USER40> As other people stated, if there isn't some kind of detail on the fulfillment then it's not demonstrating anything. Forgive my skepticism, but a chat log doesnt count for much in an age where CGI'ing uncompleted UIs on device screens in startup project videos is "acceptable".

So the choice is between exorbitant claims + no detail or some exorbitant claims + some average claims + no detail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This is like Tesla entering the market with a high end sports car, or Uber entering the market with only black cars. They're targeting a smaller niche of wealthy early adopters to tweak the service and revenue model and will eventually move downmarket to address a broader customer base (if they're successful with this initial niche). This is an ideal niche to start with because a) they have the money for it b) they're more tech savvy and generally forgiving of product shortfalls for bleeding edge services and c) they have lots of connections and can spread word-of-mouth more effectively (think Chris Dixon). It will be interesting to see if this becomes more of an API for other on-demand platforms such as Seamless or if it will be standalone. Also curious to see how this will stack up to Facebook's M and if they've built something defensible enough to pose a real threat.

<comment><USER43> The metaphor is faulty. Uber hasn't brought down the cost of limousine service, and it didn't make cars cheaper or more efficient to create UberX -- it just tapped into a larger market of drivers who were willing to do commodity work for less money.

You don't pay people $100 an hour for commodity work. Unless you're so rich that price doesn't matter, I guess.

<comment><USER42> Perhaps I should have extended it a bit more--as someone else commented, they will likely drive the price point down as the tech improves and they're able to do things algorithmically which will reduce overhead. The Tesla strategy is probably a better fit here than Uber, though.

<comment><USER43> Yeah, I understood what you were getting at. That's why I was emphasizing the difference between _commodity_ services (like driving a cab) and services that require specialized skill (like being a concierge that can get you into _the_ restaurant, tonight, or a meeting with a celebrity). The former you can "scale" by throwing relatively unskilled people at it. The latter takes training, connections and experience.

Even Tesla isn't a good comparison. Tesla is making cars, the task that _invented_ the assembly line. This more like applying "the Tesla strategy" to the job of a butler.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Good morning, I read all your email while you slept. Your wife is very pretty. I wrote a message to your son telling him you loved him. He responded "you're not my real dad". I also hired that Visual Basic expert who emailed you yesterday. Don't worry, I already charged your AMEX $230 for the trouble.

<comment><USER24> This would be a real risk if you hired an ordinary personal assistant. This is actually exactly the sort of challenge that traditional assistants pose and that Magic+ is designed to fix.

Magic+ is actually not just one person, but it's a software-driven service with a highly trained team of professional assistants that are held to a very high bar. They are managed, supervised, and trained by us so that you don't have to worry about it.

And, on top of that, every task and request is managed from beginning to end using custom software that is designed specifically to monitor the execution strategy and enhance both the quality and the reliability of the output. It's difficult for me to say more right now about how this works without disclosing IP that we cannot disclose at this time, but I hope to be able to say more about how this works in the future.

A good way to think about Magic+ is that it's a natural-language command-line interface for complex tasks that require some human interaction. A component of how we handle your email is more like a ~/.procmailrc file that can pipe things to a highly-supervised human assistant than it is like having a random person somewhere in the US logged in to your Gmail. You tell us how you need things done, using natural language, and it gets done, assuming it's possible.

Again, I recognize that this explanation is not as detailed as it could be, but I hope that it helps. I will think about how we can explain this better before we are able to disclose the inner-workings of our software.

<comment><USER44> I have a real assistant. I've known her for years and trust her. I don't know who you guys are hiring, who will see my info, whether your internal systems are secure, etc. I've used magic before and liked it but clearly there is a signicant loss of privacy cost that is paid in addition to the hourly rate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I thought this was satire. Came here to see the jokes. None of you seem to be treating it like satire though.

<comment><USER46> Why did you think it was satire? They're just trying to offer a personal assistant service over the air, nothing that beyond imagination. Likely costs less than actually employing someone.

<comment><USER47> I too thought it was satire. Two of their examples are "I need to buy $2500 worth of electronics tonight like it's nothing" and "get me a private helicopter tonight for $3500", all the while paying $100/hour for the privilege.

I understand some people spend money like that, but it seemed more likely that someone was making a joke about absurd wealth and the startup scene than a real business. If the Onion wrote an article about it, I wouldn't bat an eye.

Best of luck to the Magic+ team (honestly), but this product clearly isn't for people like me.

<comment><USER48> It's funny seeing half the commenters here saying "surely no one could afford that" and the other half saying "surely any middle class person could use this to splurge on a $200+ gift for a friend on occasion". It's as if people aren't aware of the wealth gap.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I'd love to try this, as there is an out-of-production bag that is probably out there but I could not find this holiday season.

People aren't mentioning this here, but the real sticker shock is not $100 / hour but rather that to get that price you have to be ready to pay $1000 now or sign up for a $3000 a month subscription (that also begins now)

The low-key information page doesn't really set you up for that level of commitment to check things out.

<comment><USER50> I think it makes sense that they only want people who are serious about it. If they didn't have a high up-front entry cost, they'd inevitably end up with lots of pranksters 'trying out' the service with ludicrous/dumb requests ("make my wife love me again"; "buy twenty pizzas, then hurl them into the ocean at this exact point") and bogging things down.

<comment><USER49> Sure, but can't this reasonably be handled with a $100 or even $150 option? I've never dumped a grand into trying out a 'crazy internet thing.' i.e. uber or airbnb.

Since it is $1000, it is hard to not see this as anything but something for the very wealthy. Which may be fine, but the info page doesn't make it sound like it is for that sort of folk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> The examples are puzzling to me. Take this one: "I'm out of the office today. Check my email and let me know if there's anything urgent."

Are they proposing we should be ok with giving them our credentials?

<comment><USER24> Many of our users give us access to various aspects of their personal and work lives in order to gain the benefit of efficiency and saved time. We also set up users who don't want to share their primary email with email addresses at our domain.

<comment><USER52> Yea, I gave Magic access to setup recurring donations to two charities I support.

Unfortunately they closed my account and stopped the donations. They provided no information on when the last donations went out so I could resume them.

They went completely dark.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> It says it works from anywhere, but then only gives a number that works from within the US. How are you supposed to use this service while in another country and not having access to a US sim card?

<comment><USER54> If you are in the target group that is willing to pay $100/hour for a virtual assistant at the beck and call of an SMS, then the $0.20 or so for the SMS roaming charges seems like small change...

<comment><USER55> Assuming they have a +1 ... internationally available SMS number. 5 digit shortcodes aren't guaranteed to work globally.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Episode 5 of Rick and Morty's first season is relevant (the Mister Meeseeks episode).

<comment><USER57> So, don't ask them to take two strokes off my golf game?

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> $100 an hour? Fuck that.

I'm currently living abroad and don't speak the language very well. So I hired a virtual assistant who speaks the language and English. He charges $7.50 USD an hour. I only pay him for time it takes to complete my tasks. I rarely even pay $100 for the whole month.

<comment><USER59> From where did you hire?

<comment><USER58> From upwork.com.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I'm deeply skeptical of this. It would be worth $100/hr to hand off highly complex task like planning a wedding (from their copy), but it's impossible-- there is way too much interaction and iteration necessary on tasks like that.

For things you can realistically text to have done, the task has be crystal clear, and basically atomic. If I've already done the work of making it crystal clear and atomic, then it's not worth $100/hr anymore, because it's just rote busy work at that point.

</comment><comment><USER61> I would love to see more comments that provided value to other readers. There is so much expertise and intelligence in this forum, but so many discussions contain only what is easiest: obvious cyncism. It's kind of fun banter once in a while, but gets old and isn't worth spending the time reading.

<comment><USER62> This is Hacker News; it's a better, more informed, hand-crafted artisinal cynicism that we come here for.

<comment><USER63> Although, if you don't have time to be cynical, you can always use magic+ to obtain the ultimate super-human cynicism!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> I said to myself that I'd start less HN comments this year with "I'm in a wheelchair and..." but:

I'm in a wheelchair and access to a personal assistant ( _especially_ for travel arrangements) would be excellent.

Access to a personal assistant in the departure country and the arrival location (to check just how wheelchair accessible that Days Inn wheelchair- accessible suite really is) would be phenomenal.

There's a business idea there, just that the market is small and difficult to cater for (lots and lots of different needs)

I'm one of the lucky ones and I'm relatively well off, but 100/hour (~$140AUD/hour) is way, way out of my price range.

</comment><comment><USER65> So this is just Amex Plat/Centurion concierge for people who prefer to text than call?

<comment><USER66> Have you tried Amex Platinum concierge? If they can deliver, this looks better in practice.

<comment><USER67> FWIW I've been very impressed by what the Amex Plat concierge can do

<comment><USER68> Do you have any fun examples?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> If you can establish a business around this, that would be great. But personal assistants are more than just money and skills. There's lots of trust involved created over the years. I think people would be more comfortable if this was completely AIed (may be it can be promoted as that in a sly way) as compared to sending task requests to unknown (although trained) people. But that's just me. I really do think that this is bad example of technology. But looking at the examples, it may just be the thing nouveau riche are looking for.

</comment><comment><USER70> >SHARING OF YOUR INFORMATION

>We may share your personal information with:

>Third-party vendors and other service providers that perform services on our behalf, as needed to carry out their work for us, which _may include identifying and serving targeted advertisements_ (...)

>Other companies whose products or services may be of interest to you

...

That sounds pretty bad even if it wasn't so vague. This is a bloody premium service...

<comment><USER62> If they log in as you to a third-party website (e.g. so they can change your calendar as in one of the examples), that information could be used by the third party to serve you targeted ads.

For example, if you ask them to get your Macbook fixed, and put a reminder in your calendar for when it's ready, that may result in you being served Apple ads.

<comment><USER70> That's one way to interpret it, no doubt. But as I said, the vagueness is a part of the problem (as I see it anyway).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Sorry for the snark, but...

How about a service that answers texts like, "where can I find a warm place to stay tonight?" or "please get the welfare department to correct their mistake and reactivate my food stamps."

</comment><comment><USER72> > _Get you reservations at places that nobody else can_

How is this possible? If it were true then anyone wanting a reservation at "places that nobody else can" would go through Magic+, and then what? There are more rich people than available seats at hot restaurants...?

</comment><comment><USER73> Based on everything I learned about this space from starting, operating, and later selling a company that does exactly this in the summer of 2014 [1] [2], I'm bullish on this idea. I think it's definitely a step in the right direction and incentives are starting to line up.

The "I'll do anything for you by SMS" space (I call it the "Houdini app" space) space affords the middle-to-upper class in first world countries (where labor is much more expensive) the same power you'd get if you were in a country where labor is much cheaper.

Example: in Lebanon, where I grew up, the middle-to-upper class of the population has: a stay-at-home maid ($200/mo), a driver ($300/mo), and a concierge at the bottom of their building ($30/mo), who will take care of pretty much anything for you. This is possible because labor is so cheap. I'd say you have to be in the 0.1% in the US to be able to afford this (since labor would cost you much more), but in third world countries, it's within reach of probably the top 15% of the population (by income).

I think the most successful concierges have a "fixer" mindset - you give them a very loosely defined need, and their job is 1) coordinating and finding a solution, and 2) actually following through and executing on it. The fixer's advantage is 1) the end user trusts them, trusts their taste, and there is a pre-existing relationship with the customer, and 2) the user has a general idea of what they can and cannot do.

The real value Magic brings is that they can be the fixer for your day-to-day life. If I were Magic, I'd change the pricing to $200/hour, but only charged if the task is actually completed. That way, the incentives really line up in that 1) they're more incentivized to complete the task successfully, 2) users trust them a lot more and know that they will get their money's worth, and 3) they develop the "fixer" brand, where Magic gets you what you want, and you only have to pay if it gets done.

Lots of important technologies start off as "toys for the rich" \- I could see that happening here too. What I am curious to see, is how they plan on bringing the cost of the service down. Or if it's possible to get a big enough market share at this price point.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8094351](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8094351)

[2] [http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/08/my- disruptive-d...](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/08/my-disruptive- deputy.html)

<comment><USER74> crazy. my family also lived in lebanon(zahle), and they had two maids, a driver, and a lady to come to the house and roll grape leaves for them but they still had to get their water delivered, which did cost a lot. they were not rich by american standards at all.

good thoughts..would be great to get these services on the cheap out here. Lyft of grape leaves rolling? ha.

<comment><USER73> Haha, Wara2 3in-App.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> The $100/hr price point would make if and only if they are able to accomplish tasks that cannot be accomplished by a single hired assistant.

"Personally email all my 1,200 new customers today, get me feedback in 2 hours."

"Make sure this story hits top page on Reddit/HN."

These are probably weird examples. But the expectation here would be to get a superhuman, who does task a random human simply cannot do. Group work is what I expect I'm paying for. Otherwise, I can hire a freelancer online for $1000 a month.

<comment><USER52> This is exactly the same question I asked them yesterday: [https://twitter.com/davecraige/status/684429034676092928](https://twitter.com/davecraige/status/684429034676092928)

They haven't responded yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> I think it speaks to the whole PG inequality essay. This is clearly a catalyst for a more natural equilibrium. It seems to me the main service provided by Magic+ is liberating money from those who have more than they know what to do with.

<comment><USER77> Nice observation - it certainly seems like there is some correlation between the two "events"

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Show HN: I asked Magic+ to build me a Magic+ clone (getyourmagic.io)

With their promise of "Anything you want. Seriously." how long before we see that? :)

</comment><comment><USER78> $100 an hour sounds expensive. $1/minute might be a better published price. And also suggest that it's priced in minute increments.

<comment><USER24> Thanks for the feedback. You're right, you bring up a good point that isn't explained as much on the website as it could be. We actually track time down to the second and display really detailed reports to users every day about how the time was utilized. Quite often a simple request can end up being $3-$4.

<comment><USER78> To-the-second metering sounds awful.

<comment><USER22> The interview for the Magicians ensures they don't stutter - or does it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> I use Magic occasionally and it's been wonderful every time. It's definitely not something I would use everyday, but it's been great for: \- a time I needed a replacement power supply cable, and really didn't have the time to research where to get it, and needed it urgently. \- a couple times where I needed a dinner reservation for relatives or friends visiting \- quick questions about things to do or places to go

I definitely recommend the basic version!

</comment><comment><USER80> The example they're trying to use to show you that prices _aren 't_ crazy quotes a $30+ surcharge for having groceries delivered.

<comment><USER81> I really loved the $3,750 helicopter ride to the airport, like your average joe has that much money to blow so they don't have to sit in traffic. I guess I'm just not in their target demographic?

<comment><USER68> I like that copy. It signals who they expect their customers to be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> [ Hi, Magic+. I need a bunch of highly rated comments on a Hacker News story. ]

        [ No problem. ]

</comment><comment><USER83> So wait... did I miss the part about what happens if they fail to do what I ask? What happens then?

"Finish my dissertation. Thanks."

<comment><USER84> > _" Finish my dissertation. Thanks."_

There are lots of academic ghostwriting services. While not ethical, I assume they are totally legal. It would be relatively easy to hire one of them.

[https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/11/ed-dante/the-shadow- scho...](https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/11/ed-dante/the-shadow-scholar-the- man-who-writes-your-students-papers-tells-his-story/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> The landing page seems like a joke or a scam. I was honestly confused as to whether this was a legitimate service.

</comment><comment><USER86> I tweeted about this last week and was surprised no one else noticed sooner: [https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2F_...](https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2F_jacksmith%2Fstatus%2F682749923410874368&h=5AQHmARzS)

their roll out of this pivot has been a disaster:

1) Last week the homepage was saying it was free: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/6v7ctgeakcya1wi/1.png?dl=0](https://www.dropbox.com/s/6v7ctgeakcya1wi/1.png?dl=0) but when you signed up it asked you to pay $100/hr or $3000 a month

2) Then yesterday they updated the homepage to say it was a paid ONLY service: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/t01zei3j9k6e99f/2.png?dl=0](https://www.dropbox.com/s/t01zei3j9k6e99f/2.png?dl=0)

3) Now today they've updated the homepage wording to say it's free OR paid: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/5qlrt6vfzsigda0/3.png?dl=0](https://www.dropbox.com/s/5qlrt6vfzsigda0/3.png?dl=0)

Venturebeat did a post on the pivot: [http://venturebeat.com/2016/01/04/magic- to-start-charging-10...](http://venturebeat.com/2016/01/04/magic-to-start- charging-100-an-hour-for-sms-based-delivery-service-that-was-previously-free/)

<comment><USER87> Ahh, the people who can't read. It says magic+ is paid, magic is free.

Also, pretty sure a service like this doesn't give a shit what the website says. If you are reading the website, it's either not for you or you have an interest in tech news and the exact pricing structure doesn't matter to you anyway.

Pretty sure this service doesn't need to advertise.

<comment><USER88> Neither of them are free, magic+ is hourly with minimum commitments and magic is pay per request, with free consultation before you get a quote.

<comment><USER57> The screenshot says "free to chat," which Magic is.

<comment><USER88> Yeah, free to chat, not free if you want to actually use the service.

It's the same as getting a quote from any other professional service (lawyers, doctors, etc.) which is generally free.

<comment><USER57> Sure. Just saying, the screenshot isn't misleading in that respect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> If I understand correctly, all it takes is a few text messages from your client for you to incur huge bills on their behalf.

I presume you're aware that text messages are easy to fake. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_spoofing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_spoofing)) What controls do you have in place to prevent fraud?

</comment><comment><USER61> I'd love to know how they manage to scale such high quality service. They say they use "top-tier executive assistants and concierges", but it's hard to scale high-quality employees.

How does it differ from other concierge services, such as the one connected to American Express cards? What have others typically done well and poorly, and how does Magic+ overcome the limitations?

<comment><USER52> I think that is misleading.

I believe the employees are only paid $15 an hour.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> I'm wondering if this trend to pay for limited use, or "human micro-services" is good for society. Soon I'll have to bid for work as a developer and will have no idea if I'll be able to eat today or sleep under a roof. God help me if I'm sick.

Progress and efficiency is great, but I wonder if we (you and I, common devs) are digging our own graves.

</comment><comment><USER91> So I haven't used Magic in a while. I'll probably start using it again now.

Last time, I used it as follows:

1) Lunch for my cofounder and I at demo day since we had dietary restrictions. Worked perfectly.

2) went drinking with everyone after demo day, and we drove. Didn't plan out who was DD. Magic sent us a driver to drive us home in our car. Was one of the Magic founders' sister.

3) Had flowers sent to my wife, just to let her know I was thinking of her while I was away. Said they were the best flowers she had ever got, and got lots of compliments from family and friends.

Yesterday, I was just thinking about using Magic to get a bunch of things done, housekeeping wise within the company. Really timely to see this. I'll be using them for everything from fixing my glasses, to cleaning up my books, and more. I'm hoping to have them take care of the mundane things so I can focus on more important tasks like coding and such.

</comment><comment><USER92> > Q: What about the purchases that I make through Magic+?

> There is no markup on the purchases you make through Magic+. We find you the > best deals that we can on every purchase, and we negotiate strongly with > vendors. Often you will save more money using Magic+ than if you had done > things yourself.

... I see a conflict of interest there.

<comment><USER40> Granted, but they're also making $100/hr to fulfill your request. Sure, people are greedy, but I feel like you could staff some pretty honest, capable, and reliable dispatchers at $33/hr (using a standard 3x billing vs salary multiplier).

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> "Magic+! I need the schematics of this building sent to my phone. And hack a satellite with infrared imaging so I can see where the terrorists are." \- Jack Bauer

</comment><comment><USER94> Isn't this just an overpriced Zirtual?

[https://www.zirtual.com/plans-pricing](https://www.zirtual.com/plans-pricing)

<comment><USER95> Right, this is text-message-only Zirtual, at $100/hour. They also include the standard Magic physical services as well, but I don't see why you'd pay for physical at $100/hour plus the Magic surcharge, when you can use Magic alone or Zirtual alone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> > _Where is Magic+ available? Anywhere you need it. Magic+ is there to make > your every desire and need happen, wherever you are._

Can I use it from a non-US phone carrier? How do I pay? Would be really interested in testing it. Is there a direct/non-short number?

</comment><comment><USER52> A few thoughts and questions

1\. This is fascinating to watch

2\. How is Magic going to compete with Facebook M and www.GoButler.com? Butler does all the things Magic does but for free. And Facebook M is being rolled out to more and more people.

3\. Is there space for a premium concierge assistant that gives even better service than Butler or M can do? What prevents Butler or M from simply rolling out a premium $25/hour service and undercutting Magic if this segment proves valuable.

4\. Isn't the real money in massive scale. Will Magic simply be a small concierge shop for the very wealthy and will we all use Facebook M for most tasks in the future?

</comment><comment><USER96> And how can we guarantee that people behind magic+ don't get any conflict of interest ?

Let say, for example, that i need a cab to move me from airport to the hotel with a bike to make the thing more complicated for a lambda traveler. How can I know in advance how much I will have to pay ? that the deal is decent ? that the guy will actually come ?

I understand that they target rich people but I imagine one does not simply want to pay 200% more than usually a helicopter ride...

<comment><USER97> Presumably they make their money from repeat customers, in which case ripping off their customers is probably not an optimal strategy: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeated_game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeated_game)

</comment></comment><comment><USER98> Is this a parody?

<comment><USER99> No, Magic has already been discussed before[1]. It seems they are moving from a percentage pricing (Magic) to a per-time pricing (Magic+).

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9087819](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9087819)

<comment><USER98> Ah, the copy ("Magician", somehow they're going to conjure up Tina Fey for $100?) made me think it was a joke.

<comment><USER100> It's probably not that difficult to actually facilitate meeting Tina Fey. There are agencies that handle celebrity appearances, and many celebrities will do appearances for a fee.

It's expensive, but not particularly outlandishly difficult.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER101> Some of the comments posted here make me wonder about how broad and diverse the HN reader base is. The demographics are just unbelievable, if not surprising.

</comment><comment><USER102> We've been seeing personal concierge remote services pop up (and usually die) every year for the past 15y. What's new here?

</comment><comment><USER103> Are you guys able to read comfortably those tiny SMS screenshots? I was hoping I could click and zoom but nope...

</comment><comment><USER104> Are you going to support bitcoin for Magic+? Currently looks like you need a credit card to register.

<comment><USER24> Bitcoin was nowhere near as popular of a payment option for Magic as some people expected it to be. For simplicity's sake, we did not include it right now in the Magic+ service. If you would like to use Magic+ via Bitcoin, please text in and mention that fact, and we will certainly accommodate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER105> $100 per hour, or $800 per day or $160k/year at 200 working days after holidays and weekends. That's arguably close to what the wealthy people who this is currently targeted at should pay a great assistant anyway.

So I challenge the amount of money Magic needs to pay the very best assistants, not the price to the customers. And while the automation will increase the amount of time spent on the job by each assistant delivering outcomes, it's a very exhausting day for them to deliver this sort of level of service non stop.

Over time the automation will increase the margins, but for now the best assistants will be setting themselves up to be poached by the best clients.

</comment><comment><USER106> It seems like an interesting way to fiendishly separate foolish people from their money.

</comment><comment><USER107> There is so much on envy (masked as cynicism) in the comment section that we might as well paint the HN banner green today.

PS: Before you downvote me to death, want to clarify that the envy is that someone can use this service paying 100/hr :)

</comment><comment><USER108> What are the most significant improvements to this service since it launched on HN almost a year ago?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9087819](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9087819)

</comment><comment><USER109> I'd be interested in seeing what failed requests look like. Can't really promise to solve everything so I'd like to know what mitigation strategies etc. are used when no acceptable solution can be found.

</comment><comment><USER110> Looks to me like someone read this undergraduate econ lesson from earlier today:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10839116](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10839116)

</comment><comment><USER111> The service is $100 an hour, which is bananas, but I guess that's not too surprising when their target customer is someone who casually buys two iPad pros like a normal person buys packs of gum.

</comment><comment><USER112> Interesting discussion, but I would postulate that people on HN are typically the ones who wouldn't appreciate - or even understand - such a service. Also, if you are fixated on the details, e.g. "do I need this to reserve a flight today" then you will certainly not get it. You could alternatively think about the big picture, i.e. removing all the limitations and bottlenecks of a personal assistant, and also scaling it up.

</comment><comment><USER113> I thought this was about [http://www.imagemagick.org/Magick++/](http://www.imagemagick.org/Magick++/)

</comment><comment><USER114> What if I ask magic+ to find me a competitor as effective as magic+ but for free (or lower price) ? Or to offer me free services ? Haha, I caught you !!!

<comment><USER115> They said they'll do anything if it's "legal and _possible_ ".

</comment></comment><comment><USER116> Out of my world, but I could see why the super-rich might like something like this. But I guess they have their own personal assistants for this stuff anyway.

<comment><USER66> I'm far from super rich, but I make a small multiple of most senior dev salaries, and I could see this being useful

<comment><USER117> If you make 3x of senior dev salary in the SF then you are in the 1%. So i'd probably consider you super rich.

<comment><USER66> $400k household income puts someone in the US top 1%. I don't think that fits any common definition of super-rich in the US.

<comment><USER118> I'd say that depends what part of the US you're in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> "I need the following hash reversed: abcd...."

<comment><USER119> From the F.A.Q:

Q: What kinds of things can I use Magic+ for?

Anything you want. As long as it's not illegal. Seriously.

"I need you guys to unscramble this omelette by 5pm..."

Kidding, and violating laws of nature aside, am rooting for the Magic+ team. Good luck!

</comment></comment><comment><USER120> > Q: How quickly will I get what I want after requesting it?

> As soon as possible.

So... it's not magic.

At their price point, it's only worth using the service if you have huge amounts of disposable income or your request is near impossible to fulfill on your own. It's basically a service that answers the question, "How much are you willing to spend to do X?" Where the amount is determined by them after the fact.

</comment><comment><USER121> > Q: How much does it cost?

> It's $100/hr to use Magic+. You only get charged for the minutes you use it > for. If your request takes 12 minutes, you'll only be charged for 12 > minutes.

This could be affordable in small does depending how much time a human is allocated to do the task. I wonder if it's possible to know the estimate before you commit to buying.

<comment><USER22> Not so much. You need to either buy a block of 10 hours for $1,000, or sign up to a $3K/mo subscription, as your minimum entry point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER122> Isn't it dangerous to entrust the whole pattern of your habits and spending to anonymous organisation?

</comment><comment><USER123> Wow, these guys are desperate for a pivot after getting torpedoed by Facebook M, huh?

</comment><comment><USER124> For what it's worth, I've used the service twice and it worked out great. People tend to complain more than praise (there must be some psychological concept to explain this...), so that's my two cents.

</comment><comment><USER125> This crap makes my socialist leaning side come out. Another unnecessary service that no-one needs, yet people with too much money will probably use. Where's Karl Pilkington's Bullshit Man when you need him.

</comment><comment><USER126> What if i ask magic+ to ask magic+ for a time consuming task. Since i'm not asking magic+ myself anymore, should i pay anything apart the 2 minutes it took to ask magic+ from the inside?

</comment><comment><USER127> The examples are a little outlandish. Maybe some more realistic ones?

</comment><comment><USER128> I'm having a negative feeling about HackerNews now.

</comment><comment><USER129> I recently thought of a better way to do this with a quasi supervised ML approach... I think this pricepoint is finally a good reason to do so.

</comment><comment><USER130> This, of course, comes from Heinlein's "We Also Walk Dogs". Does Magic+ have anyone as good as Grace Cormet?

</comment><comment><USER131> Hey magic, can we get a UK version of magic?

</comment><comment><USER132> Really, really freaky. Especially all the copy about how _" you can trust us"_.

<comment><USER40> How is this that different that Google Now? Except there are actually people (at least some of the time) at the other end, rather than massive amounts of logged data and code?

<comment><USER13> ...because you are paying them? Quite a bit? If you are paying $100/hr for something, it is probably pretty important. I really don't see the comparison to Google Now at all.

<comment><USER40> My comment was in reply to the original "you can trust us" bent. Money paid is kind of immaterial to trust.

Well, other than as an inversely related quantity. I'd probably be more likely to trust someone I was paying $100/hr.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER133> Can magic get me a permit to stay in the state? a green card?

</comment><comment><USER134> Why Magic+ instead of Operator?

<comment><USER22> Because Operator is Dave Morin's "one of a kind, custom, bespoke" app he had built for his PA...

[http://jesuschristsiliconvalley.tumblr.com/post/46539276780/...](http://jesuschristsiliconvalley.tumblr.com/post/46539276780/a-cunt- and-his-iphone)

<comment><USER135> he is talking about Garrett Camp's (Expa) Operator [https://operator.com](https://operator.com)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER136> What is it with all the comments about the service being for "elitist" or the "1%"?

People are paying for a convenient service - nothing special about it. Some pay the neighbors kid $20 to mow the lawn, others pay Magic $100 to get something done that would otherwise be a hassle for them. Same shit.

</comment><comment><USER137> First, did anybody else miss that what's linked here is the "+" version, at $100/hr?

The original "pay per use" service is still offered at [https://getmagicnow.com/](https://getmagicnow.com/)

</comment><comment><USER138> This honestly looks awesome and easily worth the money.

<comment><USER138> And the proposition makes way way way more sense than the vanilla Magic.

<comment><USER138> And, might I add, that this business appears to be a net job creator... jobs funded by the 1%.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER139> magic*, exploiting labor so you don't have to!

</comment><comment><USER140> Seeing this makes me feel ashamed to be a part of the tech industry. This is why people despise the 1%. Show some taste/humility/discretion. A "service" like this is so narrowly focused on the ultra rich, that it should be marketing in high end magazines/direct outreach.. not on hacker news.

<comment><USER141> I completely disagree. This service targets people who peg a higher value to their time than $100 / hour and/or are too busy to take on other tasks. This is valuable for anyone that runs their own business or who has an actual dollar amount pegged to their time (a large portion of HN readership), not just members of the 1%.

E.g., cancelling a doctor's appointment takes 10 minutes. Even if you bill your time out at $50 / hour, you've now saved yourself the trouble of making a random phone call for 16 bucks and remain focused on what you're actually good at.

<comment><USER47> Someone who values their time at $100/hour, working 40 hours/week, is making over $200,000 a year. I'm not sure if that technically qualifies as the 1%, but I think it's close enough to the GP's point.

<comment><USER141> I don't know if you've ever been self-employed, but billing out 40 hours per week is _very_ hard. $100 / hour can afford you a middle-class lifestyle (assuming 25-30 hours per week AND fully employed, more realistically you can fill 70-80% of your time).

$100 * 26 * 40 ⇒ $104k ⇒ and then slice off the employer portion for FICA and SS and you're looking at a pretty modest figure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER142> It reminds me of the old Heinlein story "We also walk dogs."

The $100/hr rate bugs me a little. Some people's time is worth more than that and other is less.

</comment><comment><USER143> This was what I had in my head 10 hrs ago.

</comment><comment><USER144> Magic+ isn't going to be able to satisfy _all_ of the copycat requests to meet Tina Fey and Amy Poehler...

</comment><comment><USER145> The fact that "tech" behind this is totally transparent is its strength and not a weakness.

</comment><comment><USER146> Based on their web design I doubt their ability to complete any simple task.

<comment><USER124> I'm a fairly highly-paid web dev and I don't have a curated personal website. Shocking, I know. I'd just rather spend time on other things, like paying work

<comment><USER146> Your personal site is irrelevant. A business that is public facing should have a good website, and theirs simply is not designed well. If you can spend $x building this service you can spend .01x on your website.

<comment><USER147> I'm genuinely curious: what's wrong with their website?

There's a logo, one-sentence explanation (with further details beneath), examples, FAQ, and footer. So the _content_ is all there. Furthermore, it's minimal-looking, and minimally coded, and all on a single responsive page.

Isn't this the ideal for a modern website that's also expected to work on mobile devices?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER148> "Magic, here is a list of social security numbers for people I do not like. Can you share them with scam artists?"

"Magic, can you get me HIV test results for my wife?"

"Magic, what is my boss's salary?"

Yeah, no issues coming up with this...

<comment><USER149> First one sounds vaguely illegal. Second one sounds illegal without wife's permission, otherwise I'm sure they would do it. Last one I'm sure someone could figure out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER150> > Our unique combination of humans and software

Oh god, I can't stop laughing.

</comment><comment><USER151> FUCK CAPITALISM GODDAMN

</comment><comment><USER152> Sounds interesting.

</comment><comment><USER153> This sounds utterly insane, yet so amazing.

"Find someone to train me like Jason Bourne." Hahaha.

</comment><comment><USER154> Really tempted to make an account just to request some inane stuff.</comment>


String Algorithms in Lisp - <AUTHOR> http://lisp-univ-etc.blogspot.com/2019/11/programming-algorithms-strings.html <comment><USER2> It's truly wonderful that there are so many resources like this available these days.

Overviews like this with lots of links to other topics, with the relationships to the main topic made clear, and with little insights scattered throughout were particularly useful to me as a learner.

In the 90s, before the web really took off, stuff like this was hen's teeth. Anything you found, via BBS, Usenet, or the nascent web, you'd pore over in detail and make sure to fastidiously back up in case you never found it again.

<comment><USER3> > In the 90s, before the web really took off, stuff like this was hen's teeth. > Anything you found, via BBS, Usenet, or the nascent web, you'd pore over in > detail and make sure to fastidiously back up in case you never found it > again.

To be honest, backing up stuff makes sense even today. Websites do disappear. You never know when your favorite blog may disappear. There is the internet archive machine that fights link rot quite well. But it wouldn't hurt to take back ups of your favorite online articles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I liked his Hash Table chapter more: [http://lisp-univ- etc.blogspot.com/2019/09/programming-algori...](http://lisp-univ- etc.blogspot.com/2019/09/programming-algorithms-hash-tables.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> Can't help but notice that most algorithms are implemented imperatively.

Any chance for efficient pure functional string search algorithm?

</comment><comment><USER6> An unrelated question. For those using Vim, what plugins do you use to get a SLIME-like development environment?

I have read great things about SLIME and how it helps in hot-reloading code into a Lisp REPL using Emacs. But is it necessary to learn Emacs to do Lisp? Are the plugins for Vim good enough?

<comment><USER7> I don't use vim, but supposedly Paul Graham, the creator of this site uses vim for lisp. You really don't need that many fancy tools. Vim already has a visual hint for matching parens. It's nice to load stuff into the lisp image while you are typing but a quick keybind to switch to an external REPL and reload a file gets the job done.

Linux was crafted with just a basic editor, no IDE features. Unix was crafted without even a display to see the code being typed. Fancy tools are nice but not required.

But that said, SLIME in Emacs is the best. It's macro expansion buffer with really helps to understand what a macro does, or make things clear while crafting your own macros. Auto completion is great, although it only works for what is loaded int he live image, it doesn't scan source files for completion like a traditional IDE. Just load everything and completion is great.</comment></comment>


North Carolina governor refuses to block anti-muni broadband law - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/#!/tech-policy/news/2011/05/north-carolina-governor-refuses-to-block-anti-muni-broadband-law.ars <comment><USER2> Welp, this kinda screws over a couple family members. I know someone living in Cary (not even 20 minutes drive from Research Triangle Park) that pays something like $60/mo for a measly 6mbps home connection.

For another business they were working with, they used to get DSL through a local computer shop (Intrex). Intrex stopped their DSL service. AT&T refused to service that location at the speeds Intrex would. And the local cable monopoly refuses to run lines to the business.

The only saving grace would have been a municipal ISP, but this just screwed that over.

Good luck being relevant to technology in ten years, North Carolina....

<comment><USER3> Yep, I'm in Cary (not that Cary would ever install its own broadband, but I wonder how this will impact Wilson).

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2328544>

<comment><USER2> Very true - I've been following the Wilson situation fairly closely. I've urged the people I know down there to contact their elected officials about it, but got mainly apathy in response.

And yeah, I can't see Cary ever installing its own broadband. Though, the layout of the main roads (cary pkway, maynard) could make for a fairly easy rollout.

Except, well, all those twisty windy mcmansion subdivisions with their eighty page home owners agreements.. :/

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Our lawmakers love keeping us technologically irrelevant. Now if this bill had something to do with College Basketball it would have turned out different. -_-

</comment><comment><USER5> Notice how Republicans are all for "individual rights", until these rights start to cut into Corporations' profits?

<comment><USER6> Notice how politicians, regardless of political party, are liars?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> So, her answer is to boldly...do nothing? Does she view her inaction as heroic in some way?

<comment><USER8> There isn't really much that she could do here. The bill has already passed with the 2/3rds necessary to make her veto useless.

She took the most politically savvy position possible. It wouldn't have made any sense to lose political capital on a battle that was already lost.

<comment><USER9> There's nothing savvy about her position. She's not going to be the broadband provider's favorite in 2012 against any generic republican (let alone Pat McRory). And I doubt the legislature gives her any concession at all for the convenience of avoiding another vote.

It's cowardice to let the bill pass while talking about how bad it is. Veto the damn thing. Sure, the legislature would override a veto, but let them. Let them own this bill instead of being complicit in it.

Personally, I'd frame this as an anti-internet-startup bill. Internet startups need the internet, much of the state doesn't have any, and the rest of the state has terrible monopolistic providers.

<comment><USER8> "There's nothing savvy about her position."

She's a political animal. In the calculus of politics, what doesn't help you hurts you.

Picking a fight over this would make her a hero to hacker types, but it could possibly burn bridges elsewhere. Unfortunately, media companies punch above their weight in this country.

From a purely self-interested perspective, she made the savvy choice. Stating her disapproval without being too belligerent.

Call it cynicism or call it realism - this is the way these things tend to happen.

"It's cowardice to let the bill pass while talking about how bad it is. Veto the damn thing."

I'm curious to know, since when, in recent times, has bravery been the hallmark of a politician? Almost by definition, the political class tends to be remarkably risk-averse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The bill doesn't actually seem to be all that anti-muni broadband. Here are the major requirements it imposes on municipal broadband:

* Must comply with the same state, local, and federal laws that a private provider would have to comply with.

* Cannot use zoning or land use regulations to force people to force people to subscribe, or make use of monopoly city services (like electricity or gas) conditional on subscribing to municipal broadband.

* Must provide non-discriminatory access to poles, conduits, right-of-ways and such unless there is not enough capacity and it cannot reasonably be added.

* Cannot use funds from other services, such as electricity, gas, or garbage collection, to subsidize their broadband offering.

* Cannot provide the service at below cost.

* Must pay to the city general fund the equivalent of the fees and taxes that a private provider would have to pay in that city. There are similar provisions covering county and state taxes.

* These requirements do __NOT __apply to municipal broadband in "unserved areas". An unserved area is an area where only 10% or less have broadband (and satellite does not count as broadband).

* Two public hearings, at least 30 days apart, have to be held before setting up municipal broadband. Any feasibility studies, plans, and such associated with the proposal have to be made available to the public before the meeting.

* The city can't give itself certain tax breaks on equipment and service purchases unless those tax breaks apply to private providers too. E.g., it could not exempt the purchase of routers from city sales tax if private providers have to pay city sales tax on routers.

This doesn't seem all that bad. If the phone company and cable company are being unreasonable this should leave plenty of room for a city to offer a competitive service and undercut them. Conversely, if the city can only compete by subsidizing from other services, forcing people to subscribe, and so on, then that indicates that the incumbent providers are doing fine.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's not clear to me what problem taxpayer-subsidized broadband is intended to solve.

<comment><USER4> In eastern North Carolina especially, there are often times only one ISP in an area. Also, since it is often times rural in nature, said ISPs may not get you service because there aren't enough subscribers on your street. So there is that problem. The other is this: pricing. In my city there is only 2 broadband ISPs, both have settled on pretty high prices for pretty slow speeds but since they have absolutely no incentive to add value for their customers, it has stayed that way for the past 4 years. Those two issues essentially lead down the road to where if you are a business and you want decent broadband, you must pay out the nose, and even then you may not be able to get it due to the company not wanting to run the lines.

If there was a municipal provider broadband could be more affordable, and more easily accessible. Ultimately helping to create an environment suitable to the education/tech industry.

<comment><USER12> My parents live in western NC and have the same problem.

They're in a very rural area. Time Warner provides service down their road but stops about a half mile or mile from their home. Why? Because my parents are in a different county and their county has some sort of exclusivity thing with Northland Cable.

Northland Cable has no desire to run service to my parents' street as I believe my parents are the only ones on their street that would use it.

BellSouth/AT&T Does not provide DSL access to their area, either.

Their only option is a private company providing wireless internet. They pay about $50/mo for 1mbit down/1mbit up. Quite often with 20-30% packet loss. More if it's raining.</comment></comment></comment>


The iPhone is Going to Bomb  - <AUTHOR> http://www.markevanstech.com/2008/07/03/the-iphone-is-going-to-bomb/ <comment><USER2> misleading title. should be "The iPhone is Going to Bomb in Canada"</comment>


HTML Hand Coder with Issues - <AUTHOR>

I am hand-coding the HTML for all of the pages for a stealth startup and and having issues with other people altering my code.
Pretty much when I complete a new HTML page it is sent to developers in India who eventually put the webpage live.  Once in awhile these India developers will make changes to the code or they will tweak existing pages upon the request of my boss. My boss makes it mandatory that these Indian guys make changes from time to time so I have no control over these guys.
The problem lies in the fact that they are using Dreamweaver to make changes on the startup's webpages, which as a result, screws up all of hand coded HTML and more specifically the layout of the entire page.  The layout is really what is causing most of the problems.  The Indian guys, by using Dreamweaver, change the layout of the page every time they do any minor adjustment in Dreamweaver.  The layout may not change the look of the webpage in the browser, but it does change the CSS.  This in turn screws up the layout of any of my newly added sections that I add from time to time.
So my solution, and hopefully some of you can help, is to make a template for every page on the site; a template that can not be altered by these Indian developers.   This way even if these Dreamweaver guys change some code around the template is intact and so is the general layout of the page.
Now here is where some of you (I hope) can help.  How do you lock an HTML template, so no one can alter it.  Second, any suggestions are welcome.  Thanks in advance. <comment><USER2> I had a similar experience with my hand-coded pages being nuked by Frontpage users at work some years ago. I just kept my own copies, and made all my changes to those. Anything that had been touched by Frontpage wouldn't get updated, it became a dead branch.

I would bring in changes that had happened in Frontpage, but from scratch by hand, not by importing any of Frontpage's code.

I also worked on my boss by setting up an internal A/B comparison site, where internal users could choose which page they liked better. They voted on whichever they liked, with no indication to them of which page has hand-coded and which was worked over by automated tools. When I had over 800 votes in less than a week, with 95% voting for the hand-coded pages and _all_ the user comments saying why they preferred them, I was able to get my boss to agree to keep the tools off my hand-written code for all but a couple of pages in the site.

I also wrote some scripts to generate new pages that were maintainable where there was a need to create new content on the fly, eliminating one of the big excuses for the Frontpage nukes ("You were out of the office, we had to post, and all they know is Frontpage!")

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER3> Generate the whole page using Javascript.

Is there no way you can convince the boss to make it mandatory that your Indian developers don't use Dreamweaver?

<comment><USER4> Up vote on not using dreamweaver. It's an amazing tool and I respect that, but it's not to be used with hand crafted files.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> _"How do you lock an HTML template"_

Does Subversion give you an help? I don't know the ins and outs so maybe someone here could offer help. What if you checked the template out indefinitely (or for whatever time you need)? Then they couldn't check it out...

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> There is no way that my boss will tell the guys in India to stop using Dreamweaver. First those developers would be clueless without it. Second, for some reason my boss seems to favor using dreamweaver.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> There is no way that my boss will tell the guys in India to stop using Dreamweaver. First those developers would be clueless without it. Second, for some reason my boss seems to favor using dreamweaver.

</comment><comment><USER6> And this is why I don't worry about my job being outsourced: The vast, vast majority of these overseas firms do unbelievably shoddy work.</comment>


Google Fiber's broadband dreams aren't making cable TV any better - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/5/7339205/google-fiber-cant-fix-cable-tv

<comment><USER2> I don't know if Google really wants to get into the cable TV business, however, the benefit of offering the triple play is you get to sell more services to support the infrastructure.

The real problems with TV however, aren't technological (easy to use set top box) they are business problems; i.e. negotiating for the content rights with the providers. For instance, since cable channels are bought and sold in large bundles, there is no way I can say I want these channels but I don't want to pay for ESPN ((1) I'm indifferent to sports, and (2) I hate ESPN SportCenter which seems to be on much more often than actual sports) or Fox news, the "Weather" Channel.

I think Google wanted to improve their economics by offering a triple play and they didn't want to endanger the deal by doing anything radical.</comment>


Does Google Care About Page Titles? A Response to Gruber's "Title Junk" Piece. - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciten.com/post/2405190049/does-google-care-about-page-titles

<comment><USER2> John Gruber speculates that SEO-style titles don't work for SEO, and goes on to state that they're useless. This author reads a Google starter guide that says search engines read titles and that you should come up with good ones, and states "I think it's safe to say" that SEO-style titles actually do work.

There's little to no science happening here. It's amazing that despite search engines being such an important part of our lives, we still aren't sure about this basic question.

In a more ideal version of the world (that is, better for all of us except black-hat SEOs), Google's relevance and anti-gaming algorithms would be strong enough to withstand being opened up. But in reality, Google warns [1] that full knowledge would open the floodgates to search-engine spam, while the black-hat SEO industry already thrives on the meager number of flaws they stumble upon themselves.

So barring openness from the inside, the next best thing would be for scientific experiments to figure out what matters, attacking the problem from the outside. Though some SEO experts try to do this, many of their articles just retell folklore, or micro-analyze offhand gospel from Google employees, or run worthless experiments that end with the author reasserting a hunch. (To be fair, setting up a valid experiment is difficult. Algorithms change without notice, different data centers return different results, the rest of the Internet changes constantly, and there's no control Google. Physics, at least, runs the same from different locations.)

The best, most rigorous way I can think of to test hypotheses would be a set of carefully controlled pages with no outside competition (Googlewhacks). Something like this must have been tried before. If it has, can anyone point to it?

[1] <http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> Google cares, I'm not sure how much, so I Googled it.

Not sure what this blog post actually says.

</comment><comment><USER4> Summary: Yes, Google does care about the page titles, so tune it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was more going for something like: 'It's clear Google cares to some degree, but how much and in what way isn't clear'</comment></comment>