4 ms·

Clubhouse will soon have major competition with Twitter Spaces too. It already has closed captioning, tweet based Q&A highlighting, and is integrated with Fleet

by DLay 6y ago

Clubhouse will soon have major competition with Twitter Spaces too. It already has closed captioning, tweet based Q&A highlighting, and is integrated with Fleets. Looks to be the most meaningful update in a very long time for them.

solosoyokaze 6y ago
I think all of these products will quickly find that there is no mass-market demand for an audio only social network. This is a tool for self indulgence among "thought leaders" not something people actually want. Even podcasts, which I'd argue are more accessible than live rambling, are not a mass market product after more than a decade of trying.
- jimkleiber 6y ago
  Radio was one of the most mass market products, wasn't it? Not trying to be mean with that but to say that audio-only can be big as well. Maybe talk radio declined precipitously with video on TV yet I think there's still quite a huge market for listening to people talk and/or joining the conversation.
  - solosoyokaze 6y ago
    I think that's the theory behind why people keep chasing this market, but radio's success was likely due to lack of competition. People have been banging on this door since Odeo.
    - jimkleiber 6y ago
      What I've seen is that the barrier to join CH as a speaker is lower than being on video or maybe even writing in text. Audio only is much easier to produce, especially when one doesn't have to edit it, than video I'd say by orders of magnitude. Also, for people who don't like to read and write so much, speaking can be much easier. Will audio-only eat up video and text platforms? No. Video can provide much more rich info and text can be much quicker to read and in loud places. But I do think there is a spot for live audio-only content, just don't know how big it is and how that changes when the pandemic subsides.
      - solosoyokaze 6y ago
        I totally agree that it's super easy to produce, that's one part of the problem with it. No barrier to entry, means a lot of trash content. I think the real challenge is on the listening end. I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone would sit around listening to people talk. If there's important information I need, I'll read it or watch a Youtube video. Audio is the least useful medium to absorb info. I'm sure some people feel otherwise, but we haven't seen a success in this space yet, and not for lack of investment/trying.
        jimkleiber 6y ago
        Fair point on being too easy to produce content, yes, can lead to lots of noise. I think many people listen to people talk, especially at conferences. Imagine a panel discussion: if one is not in the first few rows, the visual info is quite little (can't see facial expressions much) and so it's mostly audio. I guess for me, I like listening to live conversation, where it has the unpredictability of where it will go. I like to watch live interviews on TV and yet believe that many of them are stale, scripted, and too short, vs CH which yes can be stale but rarely feel scripted or too short. What I like about interviews or live conversations is that things may arise that one wouldn't think to produce without the external stimulation. I wonder if it hasn't succeeded before because it didn't have the initial crowd. CH is basically just group conversations and if I go to a party where I think the people are not interesting (or more so, famous), I may not be so excited to talk/listen. But if I go to a private party, almost like going to a TED conference, I'm quite interested to hear those people talk to each other and myself try to contribute if I can. That's what it is, based on the audience it initially curated, it kinda felt like being at a TED or other similar conference. I wonder how that changes over time. But still, it lets ad-hoc conversations arise, sometimes with combinations that have not really happened on other platforms, e.g., Shane Battier, former NBA player, asking a question to Chris Voss, former FBI hostage negotiator. Again, sometimes the interactions bore me, but sometimes they thrill me, and that feeds to the variable ratio reward addiction mechanism of the app.
  - rasz 6y ago
    Just like horses.
- CharlesW 6y ago
  I agree completely with your first paragraph. > Even podcasts, which I'd argue are more accessible than live rambling, are not a mass market product after more than a decade of trying. In the U.S., 37% of Americans surveyed by Edison Research listened to at least one podcast during the last month. (It was 32% the previous year.) That means podcasts are about 50% more popular than Twitter or LinkedIn. Is that not a mass medium? http://www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/The-Infinite-Dial-2020-U.S.-Edison-Research.pdf http://www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/The...
  - solosoyokaze 6y ago
    That research firm seems heavily invested in podcasts succeeding by the looks of it. If podcasts were actually that popular, wouldn't there be a Twitter/Instagram/LinkedIn equivalent site for podcasts? To the best of my knowledge it's just a feature inside of iTunes for the most part. I also think we'd see a big advertising industry around podcasts. I have to admit to not being an expert in that particular market, but it sure doesn't seem like podcasts have the scale of other consumer social media.

by DLay 6y ago

solosoyokaze 6y ago

I think all of these products will quickly find that there is no mass-market demand for an audio only social network. This is a tool for self indulgence among "thought leaders" not something people actually want. Even podcasts, which I'd argue are more accessible than live rambling, are not a mass market product after more than a decade of trying.

jimkleiber 6y ago
Radio was one of the most mass market products, wasn't it? Not trying to be mean with that but to say that audio-only can be big as well. Maybe talk radio declined precipitously with video on TV yet I think there's still quite a huge market for listening to people talk and/or joining the conversation.
- solosoyokaze 6y ago
  I think that's the theory behind why people keep chasing this market, but radio's success was likely due to lack of competition. People have been banging on this door since Odeo.
  - jimkleiber 6y ago
    What I've seen is that the barrier to join CH as a speaker is lower than being on video or maybe even writing in text. Audio only is much easier to produce, especially when one doesn't have to edit it, than video I'd say by orders of magnitude. Also, for people who don't like to read and write so much, speaking can be much easier. Will audio-only eat up video and text platforms? No. Video can provide much more rich info and text can be much quicker to read and in loud places. But I do think there is a spot for live audio-only content, just don't know how big it is and how that changes when the pandemic subsides.
    - solosoyokaze 6y ago
      I totally agree that it's super easy to produce, that's one part of the problem with it. No barrier to entry, means a lot of trash content. I think the real challenge is on the listening end. I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone would sit around listening to people talk. If there's important information I need, I'll read it or watch a Youtube video. Audio is the least useful medium to absorb info. I'm sure some people feel otherwise, but we haven't seen a success in this space yet, and not for lack of investment/trying.
      - jimkleiber 6y ago
        Fair point on being too easy to produce content, yes, can lead to lots of noise. I think many people listen to people talk, especially at conferences. Imagine a panel discussion: if one is not in the first few rows, the visual info is quite little (can't see facial expressions much) and so it's mostly audio. I guess for me, I like listening to live conversation, where it has the unpredictability of where it will go. I like to watch live interviews on TV and yet believe that many of them are stale, scripted, and too short, vs CH which yes can be stale but rarely feel scripted or too short. What I like about interviews or live conversations is that things may arise that one wouldn't think to produce without the external stimulation. I wonder if it hasn't succeeded before because it didn't have the initial crowd. CH is basically just group conversations and if I go to a party where I think the people are not interesting (or more so, famous), I may not be so excited to talk/listen. But if I go to a private party, almost like going to a TED conference, I'm quite interested to hear those people talk to each other and myself try to contribute if I can. That's what it is, based on the audience it initially curated, it kinda felt like being at a TED or other similar conference. I wonder how that changes over time. But still, it lets ad-hoc conversations arise, sometimes with combinations that have not really happened on other platforms, e.g., Shane Battier, former NBA player, asking a question to Chris Voss, former FBI hostage negotiator. Again, sometimes the interactions bore me, but sometimes they thrill me, and that feeds to the variable ratio reward addiction mechanism of the app.
- rasz 6y ago
  Just like horses.
CharlesW 6y ago
I agree completely with your first paragraph. > Even podcasts, which I'd argue are more accessible than live rambling, are not a mass market product after more than a decade of trying. In the U.S., 37% of Americans surveyed by Edison Research listened to at least one podcast during the last month. (It was 32% the previous year.) That means podcasts are about 50% more popular than Twitter or LinkedIn. Is that not a mass medium? http://www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/The-Infinite-Dial-2020-U.S.-Edison-Research.pdf http://www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/The...
- solosoyokaze 6y ago
  That research firm seems heavily invested in podcasts succeeding by the looks of it. If podcasts were actually that popular, wouldn't there be a Twitter/Instagram/LinkedIn equivalent site for podcasts? To the best of my knowledge it's just a feature inside of iTunes for the most part. I also think we'd see a big advertising industry around podcasts. I have to admit to not being an expert in that particular market, but it sure doesn't seem like podcasts have the scale of other consumer social media.