Sean Parker's Airtime deflates | Hacker News Reader

Sean Parker's Airtime deflates

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

49 pointsSFnoob52 comments

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."

Ha!

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

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!!!

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)

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.

The other problem is that it takes your time. The service may be free monetarily but it is extremely expensive to use.

"Fact is, meeting new people is hard."

Meeting a limited amount of new people is fine. I definitely like some of the people that I've met on HN but have never seen them either visually in real time or in person. And I have no desire to do so. I think that's a disadvantage.

Now you might say it would be cool if the person you met was a pretty girl (or guy) but would it really be? Or just another reason to waste time gawking at someone located in another time zone and waste time dreaming of something that would never happen.

Hmm, now that you mention these two points, random chat with my facebook network actually sounds pretty fun.

"Oh, hi, Mom."

Next idea...

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.

Their whole goal was to rasie 33MM of (NOT THEIR OWN) money and build a chatroulette that had some level of social credibility such that they could be acquired by FB so as to be the user vid/chat/call infrastructure for FB...

Not looking too good.

"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?

Elon Musk comes to mind, as does Tony Hsieh.

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".

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.

Most consumer web products don't have multimillion dollar launches with celebrities and tons of press or six figures to spend on a viral video. If these guys paid for all that attention and still lose users it's a story worth telling

Raising massive amounts of money does not necessarily mean that is going to be a good product. Contrarily, all this money seems kind of down the drain at this point.

The author is trying to make a point that the product is not living upto its 'supposed' reputation - the money, the investors, the creators etc. For products like these I think that the first few weeks are all the more crucial.

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.

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.

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?

In other words, they are too big to fail, eh!

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.

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.

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.

Its not that i dislike Sean Parker quite the contrary he has been at the right place many times before. To name two Napster and Facebook.

But the video does not get me excited at all. I cant connect with the theme inside and they dont tell me a compelling or fun reason to jump over the FB Wall.

Maybe something like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIWpbfZHHzc would be better for the range of 15-25 year old people who have to jump start this. Because no one else will.

Pique your interest, just as an aside.

Wes Anderson meets The Man Your Man Could Smell Like.

Actually this ad highlights a problem in how startups see their users: most people aren't millionaire jet-setters like Sean Parker. They don't have amazing stories to tell to strangers. Their stories aren't movie material. Most social interaction is small talk, and small talk over a webcam isn't something you'll want to do more than once or twice.

There's a disconnect between what startups think people do, and what people actually do.

The art of small talk is not easy. Maybe they should offer lessons.

Feels Reddit-esque in terms of target -- feels like a mashup up Old Spice Guy (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/isaiah-mustafa-old-spic...) with the gentleman-monocle meme (loosely: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/feel-like-a-sir).

A bit too tryhard though.

Haha, hadn't seen that. Decent concept, execution fell flat.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I stand corrected.

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

I think the story they told themselves was basically: Look at this graph! http://i.imgur.com/97fL8.png ChatRoulette was a rocketship to the stars, growing as fast as any social site could hope to... then it got filled with dicks, and people stopped using it. We just have to eliminate the dicks and it will be the best thing ever!

But that's not really what happened. ChatRoulette was (and still is) popular as a legitimate social site, but it was such a rocketship mainly because it was so shocking. I was living in a college dorm during the time ChatRoulette was going viral, and I remember guys shouting in the hallway, "You have to see all these dicks!" The idea that ChatRoulette was suddenly besieged by dicks, causing it to lose popularity, is just fantasy.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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?

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.

AppData gets their fb data from publicly available app data from the Facebook API. Based on the FB apps I've worked on, their numbers are just rounded a bit, but are pretty much the same as what a developer would see using Facebook Insights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com