It's not about it being far behind. Audio isn't a feature; it's something you have to intentionally take away. It seems like an odd choice.

You keep saying that in this thread, but I can't for the life of me imagine why you would launch a live-video product without audio. It just doesn't make any sense, is likely to be taken as the site "being broken", and finally result in a "um..that's dumb" when the fact that audio is intentionally excluded is revealed to the user.

To be blunt, for a video-broadcasting site, frickin' AUDIO isn't a "fringe" feature.

pork, it's not allowing me to reply to your comments so I'll just reply here.

I'm not disagreeing with you that audio is necessary and if it's part of the development plan, it should have been a major priority and I probably wouldn't have launched without it.

With that said, it's an assumption on our part that audio is necessary, even for for short 30-sec videos and they are putting that assumption to the test. Without audio, I don't think it'll work... but who knows. Until you test, you can't tell for sure.