I think meebo is an entirely different service. It's basically a web-based interface that allows communication on traditional IM protocols/networks, like OSCAR/AIM, XMPP/Google Talk, etc.

So, it's different in that it doesn't really provide company-specific networks, it makes traditional public IM networks web-accessible.

It also, like IM patterns in general, is one-on-one chat first, group maybe, in the kinds of workflow it promotes. If you've used IRC much, this is team- or group- oriented first, private maybe.

We tend to think this fits the real needs of workplaces better, because the group/team approach is more like a meeting (widely communicative, don't-repeat-ourselves, no secrets, etc) vs. hallway conversations (not well disseminated to all those who could benefit from it, inefficient from a repeating answers perspective, etc).

Thanks for the input on the frontpage. We're considering a redesign.

I mention monetization in the initial post. We're planning on charging per-user per-month fees to companies. Good point about being forthright about this; we should really give this thought, b/c we don't want customers feeling like we've pulled a bait-and-switch on them.

I agree Meebo is, in truth, different. But on the surface and at the depth I think most people think about, they see browser chat and browser chat (not to be confused with ceiling cat).

Looks cool, but while we're on the subject - what makes this better than the established players like Campfire (http://campfirenow.com/)?

We looked closely at Campfire before we started, and it's certainly the offering we've found that's the closest to what we're shooting for.

I think the target audience is one of the big differences. 37S, as usual, is targeting small teams with simple needs, and doing so with a diverse set of complimentary products, including campfire. They're doing 80/20, and doing it very well.

We're focusing on chat specifically, and we'd like to add a lot more depth--background room notifications, sophisticated group/room access rules, LDAP/AD integration, marketing ourselves to medium-sized organizations (several hundred users/company) that have higher standards when it comes to integration with existing systems, management ease, etc. We're shooting for a more complete solution.

So, I think Campfire is one comparison where recognize we're competing along a difference of degree, not really a difference of kind.

I think we do see Campfire as direct competition, but we believe this market to be largely untapped. As jamwt mentioned, we do serve a slightly different audience. I think (and hope!) that as more people start recognizing how useful this type of application is to their organization, some portion of them will choose us over Campfire.