5 ms·

IMO, Clubhouse was a good idea for the zeitgeist (lockdowns) and had a lot of novelty value, but ultimately wasn't what people really wanted. What they really w

IMO, Clubhouse was a good idea for the zeitgeist (lockdowns) and had a lot of novelty value, but ultimately wasn't what people really wanted. What they really wanted was Twitter Spaces because that's the actual public town square and that's where "knowledgeable" speakers can have opportunistic discussions, pop in and have their say then leave. 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.

skinnymuch 4y ago
The difference is Twitter Spaces are lead by bigger influencers? What’s the point of being live for that? Or how is that much different than a podcast that has Q&A? 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.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  > If something is lead by the main person/people, then it won’t be a natural sort of discussion right? 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.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    Cool. I must not be a big enough Twitter user for them to reveal Spaces to me. Or I'm aloof and haven't noticed it. I'll look out for it now though.