▲ 65 points
back
47 comments
For a website created to get people into the service, its terrible that I have to click the tiny-ass 'About' link at the bottom to learn anything about the service.
"Create shared experiences with people you know, and people you want to know" sounds like social web buzz-word bullshit.
My advice to the web designer - put some real info on the front page, and don't require me to watch a video. If you can't explain it with text, then you probably don't have a product.
I understand (and agree) but you really should watch the video [1]. I'd have a hard time putting most of that into words.
Here's an attempt [2] "Airtime is a Web-based application designed to foster spontaneous sharing and interaction with video. There's no download or registration required"
[2] http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57447417-93/sean-parkers-ai...
>Airtime is a Web-based application designed to foster spontaneous sharing and interaction with video. There's no download or registration required
How about this instead:
"Airtime is Chatroulette limited to your Facebook social graph. Eg, no more random strangers' private parts, but instead chat with your friends, and meet their friends, via video."
It's basically curated Chatroulette, automating the curation with your FB social graph.
It's also pretty cool in that it's using Flash multicast to stream video P2P instead of via central server.
It's pretty much made for a Facebook aquisition. Completely dependent on FB's social API, co-founded by Sean Parker, adds social video to FB, and released right after FB's IPO.
I can't help but wonder a few things - could a FB acquisition of Airtime actually help FB's stock price? It's a rather brilliant addition to FB.
Also, could FB buy Spotify too? There are several parallels - It's also a P2P service that integrates the FB API (not quite so dependent on it as Airtime is though), Sean Parker is a board member.
Facebook + Spotify + Airtime (+ Instagram) covers almost all the social media bases. Only thing missing is movies and TV, but that's not as social as music or user-generated pictures and videos. That would be a hell of a social web company.
"... could a FB acquisition of Airtime actually help FB's stock price?"
I don't see how. Adding more 'products' to FB's portfolio isn't going to help if the questions people have are about the underlying platform itself.
Facebook do have access to Skype via Microsoft.
I do not know so much about Flash Multicast but this is not IP multicast, right? it is more like: Application Layer Multicast which is peer-to-peer but like a star or mesh or tree type of topology.
If Airtime is one person talking to another it does not really need multicast but just be peer to peer. However, if it is similar to hangouts then at some point (or at some degree of users in a chat room) you'll need to introduce a central server or need a tree type of topology to distribute video (especially when users have asymmetric uplink and downlink throughputs).
"Airtime lets you find and make new friends face-to-face, using common interests broadcast over video chat. Mix, flirt, mingle. Get some Airtime."
interesting point. did sean parker see the missing link in facebooks product? aka the google hangout for facebook?
Probably. I think Airtime originally came about just from seeing Chatroulette's initial wild success and traction. He and Fanning saw an opportunity to do it better. Then that idea got some validation as Chatroulette filled up with pervs and imploded. Which is the big problem Airtime solves.
But beside that, it's a pretty obvious next step for the world's largest social network and I'm sure he saw that early on. As did Google with hangouts.
If I have to login with Facebook how is that 'no registration'? They will know more about me than if I had registered with a throw away email address.
True, but for most folks logging in with another service (FB, Twitter etc) is the same as 'no registration'. Clearly, it's also where they get the data about you to use the service at all. Seems they need FB connect and 'additional permissions' [1].
It'll be interesting to see if they decide to add further methods of logging in (twitter/linkedin) but I wouldn't be surprised if this remains FB-only (I've decided I won't be trying it out since it's FB only).
If their target audience is teens then I could see it not being a barrier. But I am getting more and more concerned with whom I share my data. Especially if I am not certain I will receive any corresponding value.
It's still a sign-in, but it's not a registration. Agreed that they will know more information about you, beyond that which you tell them within their app.
>"Create shared experiences with people you know, and people you want to know" sounds like social web buzz-word bullshit.
Thats because it is?
Looks cool and well designed, but I think Sean has overestimated the demand for video chat and talking to strangers with webcams.
that's the thing with video chat - it seems horrendously cool, looking at the video on vimeo ( http://vimeo.com/43359572 ). however most of the people in the video have some very visual talent they can show off. I would certainly like to try out such a service (I really liked chatroulette at the time it was big), however I don't have anything to show off. the thing with those video chats is that they need a certain amount of anonymity otherwise those meetings might turn awkward. being quickly introduced to numerous people at a party can be strenuous, doing the same to up to 20 people might get you exhausted pretty quickly, if you always try to be at your best in terms of behaviour. chatroulette had this veil of anonymity because every jerk could join and you knew anything that happened there wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. airtime tries to take this to the next level, but I don't think I'll be up for it.
One could certainly have that view at first, but the site is extremely well done and the idea of leaving a "video message" to your Facebook acquaintance is a brilliant add-on feature that should make this a standard app for all FB users.
Like other commenters, I think the most likely exit for these folks is to be bought out by Facebook (for a billion dollars maybe? ;-)
Hrm, I got 'enable the camera to continue ---> ' and a blank area where the arrow was pointing.
I've not really used a webcam. Are the feeds pretty much real-time these days? If so I think it'd be pretty cool to hop online and easily find someone to jam with. I play harmonica and have always had fun playing blues with even beginner/intermediate guitarists. Other than that I can't think of anything I'd want to use it for. Maybe it'd be more fun to play backgammon or chess across from a real person rather than a game interface.
So from the About video it looks like it's intended to help you meet people based on shared interests and... showing off neat tricks. That's... nice... but who exactly was asking for this kind of service? Isn't this just a terribly shallow way to make friends - judging by some attractive feature of them instead of how they think or who they are?
My hope is one day we have a social network which contains no pictures. I know, it would never make any money, but they have had them for a while in a format called 'forums'. You would have discussions about a variety of topics and over time form friendships based on content, and not if someone looked like they were having tons of fun on a beach with other hot people, or if they could play the ukelele.
edit: rephrase
> My hope is one day we have a social network which contains no pictures.
I don't think you understand how humans work.
"... but who exactly was asking for this kind of service?"
There are many things that people don't ask for but which have big impacts when they arrive. There are plenty of anecdotes to this effect, right the way from "a faster horse" by Ford to Drew Houston's comments regarding how Dropbox spread.
Do you mean, like, HN? No pictures, no videos, no personal info. Just content.
Interesting that they decided to launch in New York instead of San Francisco given they are based in SF.
Also, I'm not sure how to feel about all the celebrities. I mean, I expect Sarah Jessica Parker to hock hair care products on TV for some giant multinational, not launch a chat system for Facebook.
Still I wish them the best of luck!
They launched on the intertubes. Why do they have to have a party in a city?
So basically a SFW Chatroulette with tight Facebook integration. I could see that work out.
Facebook log in only .... meh.
Looks like Airtime is experiencing some downtime. Here's a CNET article talking about what this service is:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57447417-93/sean-parkers-ai...
So this is a Chat Roulette clone that doesn't work? WTF?
Yes, but it's not near as 'roulette'. I get the impression it connects you with people that are a part of or near your social network, and/or people that have similarities according to your interests, likes, etc.
Edit: There's also no anonymity to it. Your identity is there for all to see, so there's an inherent level of accountability there that should deter the...exhibitionists. :p
Are you sure there's no anonymity? Check out the Airtime video [1]. The first few seconds clearly indicate that names are anonymous until you 'add' each other.
[1] https://www.airtime.com/about
Edit: Of course, I do agree that the FB link will deter exhibitionists.
Uhoh. Dan Shipper's web-based business (http://www.airtimehq.com/) has run into a serious namespace collision.
I'm not sure why I'd want to use a service to video chat with my existing facebook friends. Those are presumably people I already have connections with, and can use existing tools to chat with, or see in person. Maybe there's some use for friends-of-friends for dating, but meh.
Very surprised that this didn't launch with a native mobile offering.
Parker asked where the cool stuff on the Web went. It went mobile. People don't want to be chained to their desks to do something cool anymore. It'd be pretty neat to chat with a stranger while strolling the Louvre.
> It'd be pretty neat to chat with a stranger while strolling the Louvre.
Please tell me you meant while THEY'RE strolling the Louvre. Please. Because if you're using a web app to talk to a stranger while simultaneously strolling the Louvre (I'm not sure "strolling" is what one does to the Louvre) I believe there's something wrong with you.
My specific example was you can get more context about something you've never seen before, potentially getting a personalized tour, before you go.
Sorta like what we're doing now, but with video. Is that scary to you?
Yes, the notion of people using ChatRoulette while they're at the Louvre is scary as shit to me.
Airtime is to Chatroulette what Facebook was to MySpace.
Interesting that all of the engineering positions require BS or higher in Computer Science when both of the founders skipped college
The best thing you can do is hire people smarter than you. There's no shame in it.
Nevertheless, I think it's safe to say the accomplishments of both founders far exceeds the career expectations of a degree-toting computer engineer.
Yeah, because we all know how degrees prove how smart a person is.
a good one :)
the first live video network.
huh? what about Justin.tv, Ustream.tv, etc?
this is the only service for which I think , login with facebook makes sense .
So, is this just Google Hangouts for Facebook?
it asks for too much personal exposure for many people.
Wasn't this exactly what color.com was supposed to be?
No, color was more about app + location based browsing of photos, while this is web video chat