Instead of a "CONFIDENTIAL AND SUPER FUCKING SECRET" preview why not release and start getting users? I see a lot of very rich functionality (a good thing), but are they sure users really want/need all of that at this point?
It looks good already guys, you should let everyone else start using it
Well...if I were match.com's CEO I would probably buy you guys. Strip out 90% of the features/flash. Make you build something that integs with current stuff while you vest.
What you've done shows major framework/flex talent, but tone down the features. Just my uneducated .02c.
match.com couldn't be bothered with i'm in like with you. match.com pulls in 300 million dollars in subscriptions a year from frustrated middle aged people. ilwy is clearly meant for a much much younger audience. college kids certainly won't pay a cent for it and i doubt twenty-somethings would either. it would make the whole thing too creepy.
but, i think the ilwy team has done a good job avoiding creepyness. (that is their primary focus, i think.) but, i can't imagine a great deal of young people using this (or any other web application for dating).
the web is simply not a great medium for this sort of human interaction. there is a lot of crucial physical, chemical and social data that is not communicated through pictures and fragments of text. further, what information is communicated is unreliable. clearly the picture selection will not be without bias and the text is highly premeditated, which confuses the sexual selection for verbal acuity and mental quickness. there isn't enough bandwidth if you will.
i think this is only useful for sex addicts and predatory men (and who wants to compete with craigslist?). clearly everyone involved would be better off just going outside.
although i suspect (some) girls may use this, but only for their egos. this may even skew the female participation towards the more attractive. this would of course attract men who want to 'interact' with them. but, i don't see these attractive young girls actually following through however. so i think the system would be fraudulent and unsustainable.
but that doesn't mean there isn't money to be made.
I seriously doubt that the sound will lose them half (or even 1%) of the market (I don't think the sound is required, it just makes the site nicer). If sound is a big problem for you, why not keep your computer muted?
Same thing, really. There are two times to kill a company:
1.) When it's small and not established yet.
2.) When it's big and complacent.
FaceBook is neither at the moment, so it's not really a good target to compete against. But that doesn't rule out them becoming #2 in the future. (Particularly since Zuckerberg is quite a bit more arrogant than, say, the Google founders.)
I'm not a huge believer in ____-killers, at least not via direct competition. If you're small and not established, no one even mentions you in that blank, so that's out. In the case where you're big enough that people could consider you worthwhile attempting to kill, you're well-enough entrenched that no one will beat you at your own game. The way you have to die, instead, is by some alternative that wittles away at your core business. No one will kill Windows by making a better desktop OS, and no one will kill Facebook by making a nicer student networking site.
