4 ms·

Maybe this will come off as uncharitable but Clubhouse feels like a weird VC version of a pump and dump scheme to me. Clubhouse doesn’t do anything all that in

Maybe this will come off as uncharitable but Clubhouse feels like a weird VC version of a pump and dump scheme to me. Clubhouse doesn’t do anything all that innovative (what can it do that Discord can’t?) and the pitch isn’t even that unique. The key to success was that they got the right VCs. Those VCs use it, get their friends to use it, pull some strings to get celebrities to pop in. It becomes successful but in this really weird way where once you scratch beneath the surface there’s not actually anything there. I think that’s why there’s so much weird grifty content on there. But hey, it’ll do more than well enough I’m sure. Probably not well enough to go public but it’ll get bought out by [insert name of FAANG here] and everyone will walk away with a tidy profit. (Purely anecodotal of course, but none of my "normie" friends have mentioned Clubhouse to me once. During the pandemic a lot of the having been using Houseparty. It's a lot of fun. But I rarely see it mentioned on HN. I suspect part of the reason is that it was already sold in 2019 to Epic Games, so no-one is trying to aggressively hype it up any more)

ryanSrich 6y ago
See I’ve heard the opposite. Just yesterday[1], Ben Thompson posted about how clubhouse is reaching those normie users. I disagree, but often these things have a way of being self fulfilling prophecies. I don’t think Clubhouse is for sure a pump and dump just yet. If they get bought by Facebook or Twitter for billions then that’ll confirm it for me. However, it is very strange how infatuated a16z seems to be with Clubhouse. I see rooms posted on the app all the time with a16z VCs and sometimes the founders of Clubhouse. I’ve joined a few. It’s just naval gazing about what the “vision” for clubhouse is. This isn’t necessarily bad. It’s just radically boring content. Subjective of course, but there’s no substance to these conversations. Anyway, I honestly don’t hate clubhouse the app. I hate a lot of the bullshit content it shows me, but hey, maybe they’ll figure it out. I will say, there is something artificial about the user base of CH. it doesn’t feel organic. I think this gets to your point about getting the right people with the right network on the app. There aren’t any actually _new_ interesting people. It’s people you already know about. People you’ve been reading about (if you’re in startup culture) for years. 1. https://stratechery.com/2021/clubhouses-inevitability/ https://stratechery.com/2021/clubhouses-inevitability/
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  > It’s just naval gazing about what the “vision” for clubhouse is. Did you mean navel-gazing or are you referring to Naval Ravikant? This is a sincere question, since I gather he's pretty active on CH.
  - ryanSrich 6y ago
    Ha...I guess it works both ways
- tchalla 6y ago
  > If they get bought by Facebook or Twitter for billions then that’ll confirm it for me. Facebook is apparently building a ClubHouse competitor https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/10/technology/facebook-building-product-clubhouse.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/10/technology/facebook-build...
  - spullara 6y ago
    Twitter is already testing one. https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/17/22187490/twitter-spaces-test-voice-chat-rooms https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/17/22187490/twitter-spaces-...
Rastonbury 6y ago
Agreed it seems faddish and I don't see how it can have staying power. How will they monetize or put ads in what is essentially audio-only conference calls? That said, social media doesn't have to be innovative to be a good business, it just has to be slightly different, attract a core base who in turn attract their network who build loyalty. Like snapchat > instagram stories > tiktok
wutbrodo 6y ago
> Clubhouse doesn’t do anything all that innovative (what can it do that Discord can’t?) and the pitch isn’t even that unique. The key to success was that they got the right VCs. Those VCs use it, get their friends to use it, pull some strings to get celebrities to pop in. It becomes successful but in this really weird way where once you scratch beneath the surface there’s not actually anything there. I think that’s why there’s so much weird grifty content on there. I used to feel this way about Twitter, Instagram, etc: basically every post-Facebook social network that fundamentally implemented a subset of Facebook functionality. I eventually came around to the notion that the initial conditions of a social network are incredibly important for establishing the community and its norms, which is where most of the value resides. The norms[1] governing what one posts about, the type of people you expect to find, even the Overton Window of what's expressible on a network without getting downvoted/harassed/suspended all depend on these conditions. "This functionality already exists in product Y" becomes more or less irrelevant to the future success of a social media service, and more importantly, only narrowly relevant to its utility. [1] these may differ from subculture to subculture but exist at least locally
- josephg 6y ago
  I totally agree. People don't really care about the technology; we care about the community that technology connects us to. Its not about the features. Its about who you find when you open the app. Us technologists tend to think the best product is the one which everyone uses. Thats wrong. The best product is the one which connects you to a tribe. (Which is never 'everyone' by definition.) And then makes you feel seen for who you are. (Which will almost never happen in crowded room of strangers.) Young people think facebook is for old people, because their parents are on the site. You could probably take facebook, change nothing about the site except for the theme and name (so its not associated with old people anymore). Start with a new, empty database of users and with the right marketing a new generation would fall in love with it again. Once the features are good enough, culture and image is everything.

ryanSrich 6y ago

See I’ve heard the opposite. Just yesterday[1], Ben Thompson posted about how clubhouse is reaching those normie users. I disagree, but often these things have a way of being self fulfilling prophecies. I don’t think Clubhouse is for sure a pump and dump just yet. If they get bought by Facebook or Twitter for billions then that’ll confirm it for me. However, it is very strange how infatuated a16z seems to be with Clubhouse. I see rooms posted on the app all the time with a16z VCs and sometimes the founders of Clubhouse. I’ve joined a few. It’s just naval gazing about what the “vision” for clubhouse is. This isn’t necessarily bad. It’s just radically boring content. Subjective of course, but there’s no substance to these conversations. Anyway, I honestly don’t hate clubhouse the app. I hate a lot of the bullshit content it shows me, but hey, maybe they’ll figure it out. I will say, there is something artificial about the user base of CH. it doesn’t feel organic. I think this gets to your point about getting the right people with the right network on the app. There aren’t any actually _new_ interesting people. It’s people you already know about. People you’ve been reading about (if you’re in startup culture) for years. 1. https://stratechery.com/2021/clubhouses-inevitability/ https://stratechery.com/2021/clubhouses-inevitability/

wutbrodo 6y ago
> It’s just naval gazing about what the “vision” for clubhouse is. Did you mean navel-gazing or are you referring to Naval Ravikant? This is a sincere question, since I gather he's pretty active on CH.
- ryanSrich 6y ago
  Ha...I guess it works both ways
tchalla 6y ago
> If they get bought by Facebook or Twitter for billions then that’ll confirm it for me. Facebook is apparently building a ClubHouse competitor https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/10/technology/facebook-building-product-clubhouse.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/10/technology/facebook-build...
- spullara 6y ago
  Twitter is already testing one. https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/17/22187490/twitter-spaces-test-voice-chat-rooms https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/17/22187490/twitter-spaces-...

Rastonbury 6y ago

Agreed it seems faddish and I don't see how it can have staying power. How will they monetize or put ads in what is essentially audio-only conference calls? That said, social media doesn't have to be innovative to be a good business, it just has to be slightly different, attract a core base who in turn attract their network who build loyalty. Like snapchat > instagram stories > tiktok

wutbrodo 6y ago

> Clubhouse doesn’t do anything all that innovative (what can it do that Discord can’t?) and the pitch isn’t even that unique. The key to success was that they got the right VCs. Those VCs use it, get their friends to use it, pull some strings to get celebrities to pop in. It becomes successful but in this really weird way where once you scratch beneath the surface there’s not actually anything there. I think that’s why there’s so much weird grifty content on there. I used to feel this way about Twitter, Instagram, etc: basically every post-Facebook social network that fundamentally implemented a subset of Facebook functionality. I eventually came around to the notion that the initial conditions of a social network are incredibly important for establishing the community and its norms, which is where most of the value resides. The norms[1] governing what one posts about, the type of people you expect to find, even the Overton Window of what's expressible on a network without getting downvoted/harassed/suspended all depend on these conditions. "This functionality already exists in product Y" becomes more or less irrelevant to the future success of a social media service, and more importantly, only narrowly relevant to its utility. [1] these may differ from subculture to subculture but exist at least locally

josephg 6y ago
I totally agree. People don't really care about the technology; we care about the community that technology connects us to. Its not about the features. Its about who you find when you open the app. Us technologists tend to think the best product is the one which everyone uses. Thats wrong. The best product is the one which connects you to a tribe. (Which is never 'everyone' by definition.) And then makes you feel seen for who you are. (Which will almost never happen in crowded room of strangers.) Young people think facebook is for old people, because their parents are on the site. You could probably take facebook, change nothing about the site except for the theme and name (so its not associated with old people anymore). Start with a new, empty database of users and with the right marketing a new generation would fall in love with it again. Once the features are good enough, culture and image is everything.