For a while, it was a place where I could interact with an invite-only subset of humans with real names on the internet. I really loved that aspect of it. As it opened up, I saw people using fewer real names, fewer links to real name social media accounts, just felt less exclusive and more just like Twitter. At that point, I think Twitter Spaces started taking off.
The question I ask is how to build an online space that is exclusive, without the draw to make it for the masses?
The sheer number of introductions I had to sit and listen to any time I joined one…it was absolutely baffling. We’re talking sometimes 15 minutes of just sitting there as every person introduced themselves, every project they are working on, their experience, their favorite shows, their workout routine, etc.
The one time I actually found a conversation about gear talk (film/video) it was just a couple of folks who were new to the industry all trying to power network with each other. It was weird. Podcast ones were just people treating it like their podcast.
When did you join?
Google+ kind of accomplished this with Circles; a way to create invite-only communities within the larger platform. A few of the social media sites have bolted on something similar, but none have really designed around it like Google+ did.
I'm curious about the brand that says, "Nope, we're an online platform just for 10,000 people" or "who make this much money" or "who are in these communities."
I wonder what examples already exist, if any, that tie the whole brand to a specific online exclusivity.
Otherwise I think you just end up with niche forums like this one or discord channels and whatnot.
That s why no one can do it: if you want to speak to Warren Buffet you ll be more successful having something that interests him to say, and no amount of trying to cheat reality can hide for long that asymetry: there was nothing in it for the VIP but milking you.
I'm not saying I should necessarily be in the room lol. Just that maybe there is a way to limit it where there is a level of assumed parity among participants. For example, maybe Warren Buffett would like to talk with the guy behind moneyball from The Oakland A's about the influence of statistics on sports. I think yes it could dilute too much, I just don't think it necessarily has to.
I'd appreciate it if people with more experience than me weighed in on if the acquisition could have been aborted, if it could technically have been aborted but probably would have gone through, or if it would have gone through cause a contract is a contract.
Or rather, I could see how a VC might want to ensure that the offer is a sufficent ROI, either by preapproving a minimum or requiring signoff. But why wouldn't a16z want to take their huge returns? Did their partners see a better ROI anytime soon?
I assumed they went in at an earlier round at a eight or nine figure valuation, so I was thinking it was a 10-100x on their money in a year or so.
Now the last private valuation will probably be impossible to hit.
But I never found any groups I could participate in. There were vast deserts of interests - either because search was bad, or people simply weren't discussing those topics. I'd try to create my own rooms, but no one would ever join.
Then for the randoms talking to randoms type groups, voice chat is a big increase in commitment over Reddit/HN/whatever. You could argue that encourages better contributions, but it also discourages frequent contributions, which in turn helped the "fizzling out" effect
I got the impression that the VCs using Clubhouse were just diverting some of their Twitter time.
And now here we are.
Knowledge is memetic. The good shit spreads.
Source: I was an early Clubhouse employee and left a few months ago.
My comment then - "I am a strong sell on ClubHouse at a $2b valuation. Just like Medium and Quora, once the masses are allowed on, the noise will get too high and the signal will get lost." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26144326).
One of the points from the article is the following:
> Lesson #4 — Beware of complexity creep
> Anticipate this, then build in early checkpoints. Define success and failure before a launch. Build a solid process and track the right metrics to help make objective, decisive decisions — and don’t forget to create a framework to sunset things!
And since the author is writing the blogpost from the perspective of "Here is how you can build something as successful as Clubhouse" instead of "Here is how you can avoid what we failed to avoid", I'm guessing whatever their definition of success/failure is, they seem to have hit it.
Worth keeping in mind if you actually want to build something that turned out like Clubhouse at all, if you're reading this article.
"hey zoom cool! We can do online meetings...and it works."
But then quickly it became a drag.
I recall being in a Clubhouse session with Paris Hilton and another with Anthony Scaramucci and thought "wow, there are some interesting people on this platform" Yet, being on a call regularly would likely reduce this initial novelty factor real quick.
Funny, that would give me the exact opposite response.
Nothing new was brought to the table that could not be copied. This is why the Clubhouse had nothing interesting inside it and my mind remains unchanged on this since [0].
One VC: Andreessen Horowitz. Who are now knee-deep in the crypto rug-pull scam.
Clubhouse should have tried to sell itself to Twitter as soon as possible, though I'm not sure it could have worked out regardless. It's just too easy to copy the idea, and they're unlucky because of that.
If something is lead by the main person/people, then it won’t be a natural sort of discussion right?
I don’t know how to get to Twitter Spaces, but did use Clubhouse a bit.
That form may be perfect for the subject - the genius of Twitter Spaces is its flexibility: it can be indistinguishable from a podcast (with 1 person speaking), or a town hall where anyone/everyone can get to speak, and anything in between. I've been in some amazingly great/funny/informative Spaces - and it hinged on the quality of moderation.
FWIW, "a podcast with a Q&A" is valuable: it can draw out amazing insights from listeners in realtime - unlike regular podcasts that get discussed on Twitter after the fact, and without canonical answers.
Its success was essentially luck, with VCs attempting to extrapolate its success to other entrepreneurial endeavors annoyingly.
Clubhouse is in a rare position - they exploded, were definitely in hyper growth, and then disintegrated. Clubhouse seemed like it hit an effect where the network stopped being a positive. When they were small and used by elite people, they were super popular and exclusive. When everyone got in there it was basically clubs for... I don't even know how to name the people, but not really that valuable. Basically like a nightclub - cool if it's exclusive and lame if everyone can go in. I'd much rather read an insider's take on this unique perspective.