3 ms·
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
by tibbon 14y ago
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.
- samstave 14y agoTheir 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.
- andrewhillman 14y ago"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?
- tg3 14y agoElon Musk comes to mind, as does Tony Hsieh.
- malandrew 14y agoAs 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".