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.
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.
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"
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.
>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.
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.
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).
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.
"... 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.
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.
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? ;-)
Airtime, or something like it, has great potential to shake up online dating. I've tried several online dating sites, and it's clear their basic functionality is extremely flawed. I've always felt that you can learn more about your chemistry with someone by talking to them in person in five minutes than through hours of mutual profile gazing or stilted correspondence. Turns out researchers feel the exact same way[1].
Even IM mimics natural conversation far more than long-form messages back and forth. Yet people will spend more time poring over profiles than actually talking to people, and all that filtering is of questionable effectiveness.
It ends up making women more superficial, leaving them to decide more on factors like height, looks, race and income, than they would in person. I say women, because they are the one doing the choosing, at least among younger users. Women get swarmed with attention, and the odds are stacked against individual men. But the men who do get chosen get chosen often, and they are free to conduct several concurrent relationships.
Imagine if employers decided to hire the top 10% of a pool of candidates, and there was lots of overlap in what each employer's chosen 10%. Most importantly, these candidates could hack it so that they could work for multiple employers concurrently, instead of having to choose one, the one with the best fit, salary, benefits, etc. Then the employers, especially the less than spectacular ones, find that their talented employees are always behind on their work, and will quit at a moment’s notice. Still, the employers have tasted the brilliance of this talented tenth, and are unwilling to drop their standards, despite the obvious drawbacks. They keep telling themselves that all the problems with previous hires won’t crop up again, because they’ll uh, be extwuh extwuh careful this time.
That's what online dating promotes. Girls may find themselves getting 'played,' with a man totally unwilling to have a monogamous relationship, because they've priced themselves out of the monogamy market. This whole scenario has some real life parallels. [2]
Of course, this phenomenon is nearly as ubiquitous in the real world – plenty of girls are comfortable sleeping with men who are sleeping with other men. They may not like it, they may try to badger the man into monogamy, but ultimately they chose him, and his ways, because they implicitly prefer him to the men who would agree to monogamy from the outset. They aren’t honest with themselves, so they tell themselves that Mr. Sexy will become Mr. Reliable [2], when reality says not really. If they want to spiral through chaotic relationships and periods of elation and disenchantment, the status quo is great. If they want something a little less rocky and a little more consistent, there’s room for change. Hell, a video solution would increase the ‘truth in advertising,’ so both would stand to benefit. The ‘truthier’ online dating is, the less you have to rifle through people that don’t quite live up to the billing. Lower transaction costs ? more transactions.
For something that purports to start new serious relationships, the status quo approach blows. A solution like video gives you more exposure to fewer people, reducing this phenomenon of ‘runaway selection.’ It will always be present though, due to the nature of female sexuality, just as men’s penchant for variety abounds.
It's possible looks could become even more important with video, but personality will likely become a bigger factor than it is now. Video is a great step towards getting strangers past the 'activation energy' needed to meet up in person. And there are girls who honestly desire a real relationship, and don’t get caught up in trying to meet the best man possible – these women find a suitable man quickly and easily, provided they are reasonably attractive. But they are something of an outlier on online dating sites.
The online dating industry is stagnant. There are a couple big players who achieve growth only by buying up other entrants, or plagiarizing a startup like How About We once they see a concept well executed. You have sites like JDate that have 1996-era interfaces, and the speed to match.
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.
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.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57447417-93/sean-parkers-ai...
reply