
Sean Parker's Airtime deflates  - SFnoob
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/after-splashy-introduction-airtime-seems-to-deflate/
======
CamperBob2
One of the comments on the site, from user Ronmovies, says it all:

    
    
      I generally use iChat and Skype for chatting, but I was 
      curious and checked out Airtime. The first thing that 
      greeted me was a Log In with Facebook form that warned that 
      this app would have access to: "Your profile info: 
      description, activities, birthday, education history,
      hometown, interests, likes, location, religious and 
      political views and work history." In addition, "This app 
      may post on your behalf, including videos you watched, 
      videos you posted and more." Why on earth would I want to 
      give them all that power, including the unspecified "and 
      more" when chat platforms like Skype aren't nearly as 
      freakishly invasive?
    

Chatroulette succeeded _because_ of its subversive texture and flavor, not in
spite of it. Airtime, meanwhile, sounds about as subversive as the John Birch
Society. If someone like Fanning doesn't understand that, then I don't think
we'll see any genuinely interesting startups from the "Facebook mafia."

~~~
samstave
Ha!

ANY app that has "login with Facebook" as their primary Auth is a complete
show stopper for me.

~~~
alttab
Agreed. There is no reason I would give any service on the Internet the
information I have regretfully given Facebook over the years. Programmers are
you listening? Stop using Facebook connect!!!

~~~
samstave
Plus, I have never had an FB account. Never will. (And while I have a gmail/G+
account - I would refuse to use those either)

------
therealarmen
Fact is, meeting new people is _hard_. Airtime forces you to connect with
Facebook, so anyone you meet knows exactly who you are. Which makes using
Airtime _hard_. At least Chatroulette introduced a fun element by letting
users stay anonymous.

In order to use Airtime you have to willingly introduce yourself and strike up
conversation multiple times per hour. For many people, this is their worst
nightmare. Quite frankly I'm happy interacting with my existing friend group
(via real life or virtual means) as well as meeting a new acquaintance every
now and then. I don't need to meet hundreds of new people every week to
satisfy my social needs.

~~~
hkmurakami
Hmm, now that you mention these two points, _random chat with my facebook
network_ actually sounds pretty fun.

~~~
CamperBob2
"Oh, hi, Mom."

Next idea...

------
tibbon
I didn't, and still don't understand what they are trying to do with Airtime,
how it is worth any multiplier of what they've raised around it, or why it was
so hyped up. Parker was able to raise money around it mainly because of who he
is, not because of what he was building.

It didn't fill any market need. There are hundreds of video chat solutions out
there. "Randomly meeting people non-anonymously via videochat" didn't sound
like a market that really needed met. My old boss seemed to think that it was
the next big thing, because "The investors on it know more than you do about
the market", but I didn't and still don't buy it.

Chatroulette was interesting (and got huge) because of the anonymity. It was
funny, random, and dangerous feeling. You never knew when you'd be bombed with
a penis (about every 2-3 refreshes generally) and everyone was looking for
something different. It didn't make sense commercially, which is exactly why
people liked it. It spoke to the wild-west feeling of the internet that we're
quickly losing, or have already lost and just fall in love with small shadows
of it.

Airtime does none of this. Instead it requires my Facebook information, which
I dislike the fact that it exists even and dislike giving it out to additional
companies even more. And then provides a very sterile experience.

If I remember right when I tried it on launch day, they tried to build in
light gamification things (awards/points), and pulled in everything you
"liked" on Facebook to try to match you up with people. Neither of which made
it a better product. What I "like" on Facebook has very little to do with what
I actually enjoy, or want to talk with random strangers about online.

Here's a market for actual video chat: I want something that gives me 1080p,
crystal clear, multiparty video chat with great audio quality. Unfortunately,
this requires bigger broadband (especially upload) connection than americans
have, and higher quality cameras and microphones than the majority have. Make
it look like what you imagine video chat should look like. Then maybe we'll
have something interesting. Oh yea, and make it work across any devices. No
faux-open stuff like Facetime.

~~~
andrewhillman
"Parker was able to raise money around it mainly because of who he is, not
because of what he was building."

VC's invest in people, not ideas, especially when the founder has a track
record. You could be a no-name (first timer) executing on a great idea, but
the founder with a track record and bad idea will be able to raise funding a
lot quicker than the no-name founder.

I wonder how often founders hit it out of the park twice... anyone?

~~~
malandrew
As much as we hate to admit it, it's a bit different than "VCs invest in
people".

VCs (who also happen to be people) invest in friends (also people).

Many investors in the valley are friends and a lot of investment is nothing
more than "I'll invest in your startup if you invest in mine".

------
staunch
What a lame post. Anyone who judges a consumer web product within just weeks
of its release doesn't have half a clue. 99.9% of new product releases are not
like the iPhone.

Airtime may very well not become hugely popular (I wouldn't bet on it
personally) but they raised $33,000,000(!) That's enough to last quite a few
product iterations.

~~~
untog
_but they raised $33,000,000(!) That's enough to last quite a few product
iterations._

Right, well I guess the question here is are we talking abour Airtime the
product, or Airtime the company? Because the product can flop even with $33m
behind it. Very easily.

~~~
staunch
Of course it can flop. The whole company can too. The point is that judging a
company that launched so recently doesn't make any sense.

This post just feels like someone who wants to point at laugh at someone for
not winning a race that they've only just begun.

~~~
alttab
I think many have a taste in their mouths Parker and crew wanted to be the
hangout instagram purchase by Facebook. That simply won't happen. What exit
strategy is there now?

------
spdy
This totally blew me off <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYMRpiRSSaw>

What is their target group? Billionaires? Tell me what this app can do not how
awesome you are.

Funny thing is they do the same mistake on their homepage. I have no f __*
clue what they do only that i have to login with my facebook account to see
anything.

~~~
_sentient
I actually liked the ad. It was clearly a parody of excessive wealth, and
seemed somewhat in the same vein as the famed Old Spice commercials.

Of course, it tells me almost nothing about the product, but it does certainly
peak your interest. Not necessarily enough to get over the FB integration, but
it's something.

Sometimes I wonder if people dislike the service itself, or just the founder
behind it. Given Sean Parker's famed brazen personality, I'm sure there will
be more than a little schadenfreude in SV if this venture goes belly up.

~~~
larrys
I liked the ad as well.

Reminded me a little of <http://www.dollarshaveclub.com/> video.

"Of course, it tells me almost nothing about the product"

I think it piques your interest and gives you a broad overview. But while it's
funny it takes to long and tries to hard to be slick and funny.

With the dollarshaveclub.com video you felt like you were being played but
time passed much easier.

------
grandalf
I like the concept of airtime, but it's one of those things I'm unlikely to
use b/c I'd feel obligated to get dressed nicely and create a nice looking set
for my video chat companions to observe me in.

Services like turntable.fm are a _lot_ lower friction, but of course lack the
getting to know someone component.

Oddly, Airtime combines the prejudice of a visual first impression with the
idea that two people can spark an interesting discussion. I think the magic of
text chat is that you can actually have a worthwhile conversation and not care
at all what the person looks like.

------
rokhayakebe
I think one day we will come to terms with the fact that there are only 24
hours in the life of each one of us per day. How many different pass-times can
we have?

~~~
mertd
I think one day we will come to terms with the fact that there are only 3
meals in the life of each one of us per day. How many different restaurants
can we have?

~~~
rokhayakebe
Sites like Airtime are similar to FB, Google +, Twitter etc... They are not
different restaurants, they are different dishes serving the same need
(satiation), and the point is how many different meals can you have per day
before you are full?

------
seeingfurther
I think with the drop off in usage we are seeing an initial concept that was
flawed BUT I think Fanning and Parker are definitely onto something
innovative. A few tweaks and Airtime could be a hit. The overriding concern
for most folks is clicking the button and having to talk to a complete
stranger. Airtime should refocus and offer the ability to chat with specific
people and pay them for their time. (e.g. entrepreneur wants 10 mins w/
Harjeet Taggar) This type of strategy instantly values each person's time
based on supply and demand, creates a place to earn extra income for folks
with knowledge and provides a more streamlined way for people to get advice
and start conversations that are important to them. Just my 2 cents.

------
bksenior
Meeting new people online is not a large problem, people aren't clamoring to
do it. So a solution isn't particularly appealing to the masses, no matter how
pretty or how many billionaires are behind it.

------
dlitwak
I've always said that I think the ideas/businesses of famous founders don't
undergo enough scrutiny. As a complete nobody, I can vouch for the fact that I
have been GRILLED by VCs and angels in meetings. Some of these meetings led us
to realize flaws in our go-to-market strategy, and pointed out the customer
acquisition obstacles.

I feel like famous founders often aren't asked these questions by VCs, they
will just invest because of the name, and then they go down the wrong path,
building a product that isn't completely necessary, without a true
understanding of the market. I have literally been told by investors, when I
asked why the invested in a certain product I thought was a dud, that "oh well
the founders did ___ and I just bet on them figuring it out, even though I
knew they were barking up the wrong tree."

Sometimes the scrutiny that can come with being a nobody is valuable.

------
SFnoob
The thing I don't get is why they thought Chatroulette was more than just a
fad. Anyone could see that Chatroulette was a flavor of the month kind of
thing that faded out right away.

Did they really think that taking Chatroulette and making it a super invasive
fb app to minimize the amount of penises was the next big idea?

~~~
citricsquid
Chatroulette is still _wildly_ popular, they have anywhere from 15k - 70k
users online at any time. It's not what it once was and it's not a _great_
business, but to say it's a "fad" is just plain wrong.

I just loaded the site and I can see 52,000 people online.

~~~
SFnoob
I stand corrected.

But I still don't think chatroulette or a chatroulette derivative is the next
big idea.

------
davidspinks
It wasn't the most lean approach to launching a startup. If they did some
testing up front, they should have been able to identify the user retention
issues early on. It's weird that a team with so much experience didn't
properly test the product before investing so much time and money into it.

I doubt that this is the last iteration we see from the Airtime team, but the
initial product was definitely telling.

In the end, looking in to a company from the outside, no one really knows wtf
they're talking about when they pass judgements.

------
5c4r3d
Airtime is fizzling out despite Parker's fame and connections
<http://www.wired.com/business/2012/08/airtime-stuck/>

------
austenallred
I used it once out of the pure novelty, and I actually met a pretty cool
entrepreneur, but I can't say I particularly enjoyed it; it was a little bit
stressful. It was cool, but it was a chore.

------
tempire
I'd be happy to try this service, but the Facebook requirement turns me away;
I can't help but think this hurts their acceptance in the tech community.

Though mainstream populace probably wouldn't care, social networks only get
traction after the tech folk create that traction.

~~~
alttab
Disagree. It was college laymen who made Facebook what it is.

------
notlisted
I tried it when it came out, on one of my duplicate accounts (apparently part
of the 87MM 'fakes') because it's none of Airtime's business who my friends
are. Actually met some nice people... That said, never used it again.

------
ruggeri
Random question that pops into my head: who created the throwaway to post
this?

------
dave1619
Is this based just on AppData? Can any users of Airtime confirm the drop-off?

~~~
5c4r3d
Are you questioning the accuracy of Appdata? Do you expect people to do phone
polls to find and talk to users rather than use Appdata, Quantcast, etc?

~~~
dave1619
Just wanting to hear from Airtime users to see if the dropoff in traffic has
been significant enough to downgrade the value of the service to them. I
remember there were a bunch of people who really liked Airtime when it first
came out. I just want to know if they're still using it or not.

Because sometimes the press can over-dramatize things... ie., maybe traffic
has dropped but the quality of experience is still very high and there's a
group of people who love it. Or sometimes the press gets it right... ie.,
airtime really is in trouble.

