[Timoteo]

Shawn Fanning and Sean Parker, the Napster founders, are launching a new service. They level some criticism at Facebook (it isn't scathing, but accurate), and are trying to expand on an aspect of internet communication that is already prevalent. Take a read...

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/05...-L16&nl=el

[R Smoov]

Hmm. Any info as to how many girls are going to use it?

I'm thinking Vid Chat game here. This Airtime might be a cool tool for it

[Timoteo]

I'm a huge fan of video/voice calls. I've done it on MSN, Yahoo and Skype, and it definitely shrinks the world, as you can see and talk to anyone with an internet connection and camera. It builds that connection with chicks that just typed words don't give you. I see they addressed the issue of perverts pulling their dicks out on camera, which TOO many chicks are paranoid about. Of course, it would have been nice if they could have gotten it to work during the demo, but there are always kinks to be worked out I guess.

[Basil Ransom]

I've been following this for a year or so. If done right, and it becomes popular, it could revolutionize online dating. The short of it is that poring over profiles for hours is a retarded way to meet people; face to face conversation is much better for finding a mate. This is my observation, and academics feel the same way (Google 'online dating unscientific' and you'll find the articles). Video is a decent stand in for a tete a tete. Plus, your personality will become a bigger factor.

What I would love to see: Airtime tailored to online dating, with an algorithm that rates people's overall appeal and presorts their video dates. It would make it harder for players to slum, but easier for a guy to date a girl of equal appeal.

Then again, I wonder if all the slutty 6s would get angry that they weren't meeting the male 9s they so righteously deserve. Hypergamy in online dating could get even worse - not many cool guys use it because it's such a bore to use. If it were fun, and more cool guys and girls start using it, there's no telling how it would play out.

[Timoteo]

(06-06-2012 03:09 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

I've been following this for a year or so. If done right, and it becomes popular, it could revolutionize online dating. The short of it is that poring over profiles for hours is a retarded way to meet people; face to face conversation is much better for finding a mate. This is my observation, and academics feel the same way (Google 'online dating unscientific' and you'll find the articles). Video is a decent stand in for a tete a tete. Plus, your personality will become a bigger factor.

What I would love to see: Airtime tailored to online dating, with an algorithm that rates people's overall appeal and presorts their video dates. It would make it harder for players to slum, but easier for a guy to date a girl of equal appeal.

Then again, I wonder if all the slutty 6s would get angry that they weren't meeting the male 9s they so righteously deserve. Hypergamy in online dating could get even worse - not many cool guys use it because it's such a bore to use. If it were fun, and more cool guys and girls start using it, there's no telling how it would play out.

Good points all. At the same time, there's nothing stopping chicks from using one of the available mediums for video chat, but they're reluctant to make that step. They could do it the day they first meet you online, and if it doesn't click, just delete you and move on. I see on so many women's profiles, "no webcam, no MSN, no Yahoo, no Skype," killing any shot of guy really getting to know them instantly. Sure, some of them are only writing that because THEY want to be the one to initiate that, but chicks that are serious about meeting a guy should be all for it. They could make this move before they give up their phone number even.

I agreed with his assessment of Facebook, in that I don't and have never used it to meet strangers. It's for people you already know, or meet offline and want to maintain some form of contact with. I've never viewed it as an online dating mechanism. There are plenty of other sites built better to do that. FB also incorporated cams, but I've yet to use it there. The great thing about Airtime is that yes, anyone that signs up obviously won't be camera-shy - camming is the very reason you're signing up. Getting attractive chicks to sign up is the trick...

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I am greatly annoyed by the recent infestation of these services, social networks, communication tools and similar bullshit. These companies are not only not producing anything, they're not even innovating. The underlying tech is always the same (broadband internet) and the underlying code/programming language is always the same. The only thing that changes is - you guessed it - brand name.

[UgSlayer]

(06-06-2012 05:32 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

I am greatly annoyed by the recent infestation of these services, social networks, communication tools and similar bullshit. These companies are not only not producing anything, they're not even innovating. The underlying tech is always the same (broadband internet) and the underlying code/programming language is always the same. The only thing that changes is - you guessed it - brand name.

Branding is important, even though it's all bullshit. FB and Skype already offer video chat services, but if you brand your product well, it can revolutionize the way people use said service. As much as I hate to say it because I sound like a marxist hippie fuck, people are sheep. You have to guide them especially with social networks. Twitter is facebook status updates limited to a certain number of characters (what the fuck?). Facebook and myspace are essentially the same thing, yet one is a multi-billion dollar company and the other was bought by Justin Timberlake for relative peanuts. Google Plus failed to compete with facebook because it was all nerds inviting each other to circle jerks.

This videochat, if branded the right way, could revolutionize online dating. If it's marketed as cool and shiny and sparkly, chicks will flock to it like they did to the iphone, facebook, ipad, and other chick crack. That's all you really need nowadays to be successful when it comes to social networking.

[Basil Ransom]

(06-06-2012 04:10 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

I agreed with his assessment of Facebook, in that I don't and have never used it to meet strangers. It's for people you already know, or meet offline and want to maintain some form of contact with. I've never viewed it as an online dating mechanism. There are plenty of other sites built better to do that. FB also incorporated cams, but I've yet to use it there. The great thing about Airtime is that yes, anyone that signs up obviously won't be camera-shy - camming is the very reason you're signing up. Getting attractive chicks to sign up is the trick...

Agreed. Facebook a venue. And there are all kinds of venues - some that promote mingling with strangers, and some that don't. When you do try and mingle with strangers in a venue not situated for it, it may feel weird, awkward or forced - even if *the same two strangers* would have no problem meeting in a more sociable spot. Facebook is like a restaurant with separate tables, while Airtime vies to be like a bustling hip bar. Some might look at how people behave on Facebook and decide that people don't really want to meet strangers, but that's far from the truth. They're just not going to overcome all the obstacles and unwritten rules to do it.

Myspace was way more social in that regard, it seems. By comparison, Facebook is tribal, not social. If you want a genuinely social space, you have to build something else, where talking to strangers is par for the course. If you owned a traditional restaurant and wanted to make people socialize like they do at a bar, fiddling with the appetizers and the tablecloths isn't going to get you there. You'd have to redesign the entire restaurant, or it would just be good for nothing and mediocre at everything. Get some huge buzz and advertising behind Airtime, make sure it's fun for users, and you'll have something interesting. Online dating, as it stands, is not fun. Fucking and dating is fun, but the actual online part is painful.

(06-06-2012 04:10 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

Good points all. At the same time, there's nothing stopping chicks from using one of the available mediums for video chat, but they're reluctant to make that step. They could do it the day they first meet you online, and if it doesn't click, just delete you and move on. I see on so many women's profiles, "no webcam, no MSN, no Yahoo, no Skype," killing any shot of guy really getting to know them instantly. Sure, some of them are only writing that because THEY want to be the one to initiate that, but chicks that are serious about meeting a guy should be all for it. They could make this move before they give up their phone number even.

I just found out that Lavalife is introducing the ability to turn off your IM for 10 minute intervals - I'm pissed that I didn't know they had mandatory IM before this! I've used IM extensively, almost exclusively, on OKCupid, and the whole experience is vastly superior to long form messages. But the OKC team has never really tried to make the IM more desirable to women, so few of them use it.

Women do want that element of control, but it's annoying if only because it makes the process less efficient without improving outcomes. Unless... online dating is like shopping for women, and they enjoy the search more than the catch... Settling down with one guy means not attention whoring with all the other guys. Or at least having less time to. Plus plenty of guys are boring herbs.

I'm looking for a place to rent right now, and I see these ads with a picture or two, and a brief description. If I were doing what these girls do, I'd be scrutinizing ads for hours, and visiting maybe one or two houses a week, even if dozens of ads met my basic criteria. Of course, if you've ever rented, you know the ads are just a starting point - you have to *see* it in real life, preferably several, before you can make any commitment.

I think it's just going to be a matter of time until people become comfortable with video-chatting, and it will lose its creepy edge. Hell, Chatroulette came out two or three years ago and it was wildly popular. Interestingly though, communications media that we used to see as normal are now seen as weird and awkward - chatrooms, instant messaging, and even voice calls. I'm still a little surprised that chatrooms and IM with strangers are so unpopular.

Speaking of Airtime, we might really want to be focusing on Flikdate.

[Timoteo]

Tagged recently converted from long-form, standard messages to a chat/conversation based messaging system. You click on a message, and a separate window comes up with every message in the string available, with the date each was sent. On the left are all of the people you had previous conversations with, and a green light showing who's online. You can minimize the window, and get a "ping" noise when a new message comes in. It's definitely more conducive to the kind of communication I like. It can be difficult to engage strangers, so this helps. Before, a chick might take days to respond to your message because she may have so many more to go through. This way, she's more inclined to respond immediately and have a conversation.

That Lavalife feature is very smart. It cuts down on the frustration of someone not responding to a communication attempt. I'm all for any way of normalizing IM right off the bat, and getting chicks to dust off those webcams and get it so that it's normal to immediately cam. Most people that are online have cams - for many chicks, I see that ALL of their pics are taken with their webcam. You know they use them, you just have to get them to use it with YOU. I actually had a chick in Frankfurt, Germany write recently that she wanted to hear my voice. I already had her on Whatsapp, so we chatted that way. She sent me an invite for Viber, so that we could actually talk on the phone for free, but when I went to the site it said they don't offer voice calling YET (she uses it in Germany, but didn't realize you couldn't call on it yet). I told her we could do voice on Yahoo Messenger, where I already had her added also. So we had a nice conversation over that, but couldn't cam because she is one of the few people in the world that doesn't have one...HA HA!

Video chat and video conferencing in the corporate world has been with us long enough that women should be comfortable with it. The worries about guys doing something weird on it are kind of unfounded. So what if a guy pulls his dick out? You HAVE seen one before. Just click off. It can't be that traumatic. If you've communicated with a guy for a little while and have a good read on him, the risk of that kind of thing is minimal.

I used to fool around on MSN's chatrooms in the late 90s or so, but then at some point they started charging for access, so I stopped. I actually met a married chick in Cali that I had a long-term affair with (and we're still in touch. We took a break because she had to sort some things out, but recently said she wanted to see me again) in one of those chat rooms, and a long-time friend down in Melbourne, Australia that's coming through NYC this summer. I always had a good time in chat rooms, and moved to free dating sites from there. Then networking sites grew from that. I've always utilized online to meet chicks with decent success, but as mentioned in the article, it's time for the next innovation because the current formats are, while still effective, getting stale. We need something for people that want to jump right in - that are serious about hooking up and skipping all of the nonsense in between.

[Timoteo]

Flikdate certainly has great potential. Part of the problem with cam is that on most sites, for a chick to do it with you, you have to take it "off site" to one of the chat/cam programs. That means she has to give you her email to add her and she may not be ready to do that. Being able to cam "in house" per se greatly increases your chances of getting face time. You can sign on using your Facebook login, and it's policed so to speak. The problem is initially it's only available for iphone. When someone comes up with an app that allows webcam across ALL tablets, we'll be golden. I know ipad users can facetime with each other, and Blackberry Playbook has something similar where you can cam with other Playbookers. But there are several kinds of tablets out there now. I'm sure they'll keep working on this...

[Basil Ransom]

(06-06-2012 10:01 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

Flikdate certainly has great potential. Part of the problem with cam is that on most sites, for a chick to do it with you, you have to take it "off site" to one of the chat/cam programs. That means she has to give you her email to add her and she may not be ready to do that. Being able to cam "in house" per se greatly increases your chances of getting face time. You can sign on using your Facebook login, and it's policed so to speak.

The problem, as you say, is the transition, the leap, from one medium to another. In any seduction, bold leaps are fraught with risk. And, asking a girl to webcam is a much bigger leap than going for a kiss!

But there's another part - the centrality of video. That's the core of the program. There is nothing else to draw people in. So they will make it work, or die trying. It won't suffer the fate of IM in OKCupid, where it exists but goes unused, while OKCupid is otherwise successful. OKCupid doesn't need to make the IM be successful, and even if they did make it work, it might not benefit them much. With Airtime, you can't be on it and simultaneously think it's weird to webcam. You wouldn't go to a bar and complain about how they serve alcohol.

I think Airtime will *not* give too much attention to online dating specifically, because online dating is still seen as lame and un-hip, and would attract too many weird dudes and fat single moms. With tens of millions of dollars in backing, I'm a little optimistic.

(06-06-2012 10:01 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

The problem is initially it's only available for iphone.  

I think that'll be fixed soon enough. I don't understand mobile programming well enough to speak definitively, but I don't think there's any strong barrier preventing people on different platforms from interacting with each other. But yeah, if you couldn't hit up all the cute girls on iPhones, that would be a big flaw.

Flikdate will be interesting to watch. I'm a little bothered by the fact that it costs 5 times as much to continue a convo than it does to 'flick' to the next one. It's still pretty cheap overall, at $1 for 25 90 second dates, or 4 extended video dates. It's also got women running it, which is a good thing when the alternative is socially retarded white knight tech nerds. Actually, one of the founders is a random hot Polish-American actress... lol, not sure what's going on there. If I was in charge, I'd consider making it invitation only at first, so it catches on among cool people first, and not the ghetto fabolous and white trash child molesters, or just tech nerds. Airtime is a safer but slower bet. Flikdate could die off quickly under the weight of creepers and fatties like many other attempts at online/mobile dating, or it could tap into some unserved hipster lust and be successful.