4 ms·

I don't think they have product-market fit. It's not even public, you need an invite to use it. Regardless, you wouldn't do this as it introduces massive risk

I don't think they have product-market fit. It's not even public, you need an invite to use it. Regardless, you wouldn't do this as it introduces massive risk to the business and puts you 100% at the mercy of your technology providers (who I hope are currently raking Clubhouse over hot coals for all the cash they have).

zepto 6y ago
> It's not even public, you need an invite to use it. It’s not clear what this has to do with anything, or whether it’s even realistic to say it’s not ‘public’. All existing users have invites to give out. Part of it is a strategy to manage scaling, but the other part is about building a coherent network. It’s not obvious that they ever need to change this. > Regardless, you wouldn't do this as it introduces massive risk to the business and puts you 100% at the mercy of your technology providers (who I hope are currently raking Clubhouse over hot coals for all the cash they have). I assume you don’t have a startup valued in the billions of dollars, so it seems like both they, and then investors know something about this that you don’t, but I could be wrong about this assumption! Feel free to correct me. As for being at the mercy of their providers - normally in business these problems are dealt with by using a contract that sets out what the costs will be and what the service will be for some time period. It’s also controlled by there bing more than one supplier, and supplier reputation. In short, business just doesn’t work the way you are implying it does. If their suppliers are able to ‘rake them over the coals’, that would be a huge failure of their lawyers, and it would be hugely damaging to their suppliers, who would not be trusted by new clients. Exposure to suppliers is also a normal risk which is checked during due diligence. That means their investors attorneys would also have failed.
- solosoyokaze 6y ago
  They have a small, private audience that they've extrapolated into a mass market audience. That does not justify a one billion dollar valuation. They do not have the usage to back that up. VCs make tons of awful bets, I would not say they have any particular insight into what will be big and what will not. They fail more than they succeed. Regarding vendors, you're definitely incorrect. Clubhouse has exposed themselves to great risk by relying on another platform. Just a reminder: https://newatlas.com/skype-joltid-litigation-shut-down/12390/ https://newatlas.com/skype-joltid-litigation-shut-down/12390...
  - zepto 6y ago
    > They have a small, private audience that they've extrapolated into a mass market audience. That does not justify a one billion dollar valuation. They do not have the usage to back that up. How do you know? Have you seen their data? Again you say the audience is ‘private’ but that isn’t true. > Regarding vendors, you're definitely incorrect. I’ve explained my position. You have not explained how it’s wrong. I have to assume you can’t. > Clubhouse has exposed themselves to great risk by relying on another platform. You don’t know what risk they have exposed themselves to unless you have seen the contracts and know what the switching costs will be. You also don’t know anything about where in their timeline their own infrastructure development is. > Just a reminder: https://newatlas.com/skype-joltid-litigation-shut-down/12390 https://newatlas.com/skype-joltid-litigation-shut-down/12390... That link proves my point, and disproves yours. eBay didn’t do appropriate due diligence, and didn’t have an appropriate contract. That is a risk Clubhouse can easily avoid, and the eBay/Skype case is now a well known piece of business lore taught in business schools. I assume you don’t know anything about what contracts Clubhouse has with their suppliers. Again, correct me if I’m wrong about that.

zepto 6y ago

> It's not even public, you need an invite to use it. It’s not clear what this has to do with anything, or whether it’s even realistic to say it’s not ‘public’. All existing users have invites to give out. Part of it is a strategy to manage scaling, but the other part is about building a coherent network. It’s not obvious that they ever need to change this. > Regardless, you wouldn't do this as it introduces massive risk to the business and puts you 100% at the mercy of your technology providers (who I hope are currently raking Clubhouse over hot coals for all the cash they have). I assume you don’t have a startup valued in the billions of dollars, so it seems like both they, and then investors know something about this that you don’t, but I could be wrong about this assumption! Feel free to correct me. As for being at the mercy of their providers - normally in business these problems are dealt with by using a contract that sets out what the costs will be and what the service will be for some time period. It’s also controlled by there bing more than one supplier, and supplier reputation. In short, business just doesn’t work the way you are implying it does. If their suppliers are able to ‘rake them over the coals’, that would be a huge failure of their lawyers, and it would be hugely damaging to their suppliers, who would not be trusted by new clients. Exposure to suppliers is also a normal risk which is checked during due diligence. That means their investors attorneys would also have failed.

solosoyokaze 6y ago
They have a small, private audience that they've extrapolated into a mass market audience. That does not justify a one billion dollar valuation. They do not have the usage to back that up. VCs make tons of awful bets, I would not say they have any particular insight into what will be big and what will not. They fail more than they succeed. Regarding vendors, you're definitely incorrect. Clubhouse has exposed themselves to great risk by relying on another platform. Just a reminder: https://newatlas.com/skype-joltid-litigation-shut-down/12390/ https://newatlas.com/skype-joltid-litigation-shut-down/12390...
- zepto 6y ago
  > They have a small, private audience that they've extrapolated into a mass market audience. That does not justify a one billion dollar valuation. They do not have the usage to back that up. How do you know? Have you seen their data? Again you say the audience is ‘private’ but that isn’t true. > Regarding vendors, you're definitely incorrect. I’ve explained my position. You have not explained how it’s wrong. I have to assume you can’t. > Clubhouse has exposed themselves to great risk by relying on another platform. You don’t know what risk they have exposed themselves to unless you have seen the contracts and know what the switching costs will be. You also don’t know anything about where in their timeline their own infrastructure development is. > Just a reminder: https://newatlas.com/skype-joltid-litigation-shut-down/12390 https://newatlas.com/skype-joltid-litigation-shut-down/12390... That link proves my point, and disproves yours. eBay didn’t do appropriate due diligence, and didn’t have an appropriate contract. That is a risk Clubhouse can easily avoid, and the eBay/Skype case is now a well known piece of business lore taught in business schools. I assume you don’t know anything about what contracts Clubhouse has with their suppliers. Again, correct me if I’m wrong about that.