Upvoted for trying something that I think most people would dismiss as a solution to a problem no one has. The best ideas are the ones most people think are bad

Upvoted for trying something that I think most people would dismiss as a solution to a problem no one has. The best ideas are the ones most people think are bad. I had a similar idea almost a decade ago — straight to voice-mail messaging. I never tried implementing it because everyone started using text messaging, which is faster and more efficient than any other medium except (maybe) face-to-face conversation. I say “maybe” because a face-to-face (or voice-to-voice) conversation is actually inefficient in terms of signal to noise. Conversations meander unless everyone involved has strong communication skills, or there is an excellent facilitator. But where voice-communication shines is in its very tight feedback-loop — tighter than any other method. No waiting for an email response. No waiting for the slack or IM “so and so is writing” to turn into a message. No interpreting the tea-leaves of text to figure out intent, emotion, and tone. Voice-to-voice is slow in terms of raw information transmission, but it is the fastest method of identifying the signal in the noise and then focusing everyone’s attention upon that signal. This is to say that voice-communication’s greatest value is in being a synchronous feedback loop. Now, if you can figure out how to keep that feedback-loop while moving to async, then I think you’ve got a killer product. There’s actually a hack that people currently resort to when async voice-communication is a requirement: middle management. Middle managers talk to upper management enough to be able to then speak as if they are upper management to the individual contributors. Although C-Suite execs can send an email to the whole company, it generally works better to talk with the managers enough so that the managers can then speak to their teams. An email can be misunderstood. It can’t answer questions. It can’t elaborate on varying tropics of interest to varying teams and individuals. Good managers almost always have excellent communication skills, in that they serve as a medium of asynchronous voice-communication. So transcription isn’t really what is needed. What’s needed is the ability to get a brain dump from someone (voice is best for this), parse and integrate that dump into some kind of knowledge-base, and then enable interactive human-level voice-communication with that knowledge-base. If you could pull that off, then you’ve essentially made a super-middle-manager that talks to every single person in the company all the time, never forgets anything, and is capable of getting the right information to the right person at the right time. So basically, a Siri for a company that listens as much as it talks, and actually works. Just my two cents, but congrats on tackling a quite interesting problem, and best of luck!