3 ms·

I wonder why clubhouse didn't just sell to the highest bidder. Their product wasn't so complex and the user's weren't very locked in. It just didn't seem like

I wonder why clubhouse didn't just sell to the highest bidder. Their product wasn't so complex and the user's weren't very locked in. It just didn't seem like a product/company that could succeed on its own.

aaronbrethorst 4y ago
hubris. Or everyone who might've bought them recognized that Clubhouse was a fad.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  Clubhouse was a great idea and was mostly about the celebs not the tech. But the UX was good. It was kind of like a curated citizens band. Not sure why it failed. I personally got fed up of being the “beta in the room” not allowed to speak for the most part as the inner circles ran their rooms. Except the room about chronic illness which was a good room.
  - codetrotter 4y ago
    For me it was interesting in the beginning but after a couple of weeks my Clubhouse experience was flooded by people that were on Clubhouse trying to promote themselves or their products, without providing any value in the conversations. I stopped visiting Clubhouse because of this. I know that other people had different experiences, and that my experience is not universal. But I am probably not alone in that experience either.
urbandw311er 4y ago
Likely greed and commitments to investors.
- bundie 4y ago
  Greed? How?
  - jstummbillig 4y ago
    "Greed" is a little presumptuous, but, to answer the mechanics part of your question: Assuming their audience and valuation would continue to grow instead of falter.
    - bundie 4y ago
      Ok. Got it
andy_ppp 4y ago
You could say the same about loads of successful companies. Nobody really knows and hindsight is always perfectly clear what the owners should have done. People said the same about Dropbox and Google at various points and arguably if Google had executed well you’d be saying the same about Dropbox and if Yahoo! had a clue how to leverage their search dominance Google could have also looked stupid for not selling.
rvz 4y ago
> I wonder why clubhouse didn't just sell to the highest bidder. Their product wasn't so complex and the user's weren't very locked in. Yup. They did try to sell to Twitter [0] but that collapsed and Twitter already implemented Clubhouses features using Periscope's infrastructure which I said this before [1] the reports of their acquisition talks happened such as [0] and [2]. So due to Twitter already owning and using Periscope, the avenue for Clubhouse to sell to Twitter already made no sense. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-07/twitter-is-said-to-have-discussed-4-billion-clubhouse-takeover https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-07/twitter-i... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26273255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26273255 [2] https://screenrant.com/twitter-clubhouse-purchase-buy-talks-report-spaces/ https://screenrant.com/twitter-clubhouse-purchase-buy-talks-...

aaronbrethorst 4y ago

hubris. Or everyone who might've bought them recognized that Clubhouse was a fad.

quickthrower2 4y ago
Clubhouse was a great idea and was mostly about the celebs not the tech. But the UX was good. It was kind of like a curated citizens band. Not sure why it failed. I personally got fed up of being the “beta in the room” not allowed to speak for the most part as the inner circles ran their rooms. Except the room about chronic illness which was a good room.
- codetrotter 4y ago
  For me it was interesting in the beginning but after a couple of weeks my Clubhouse experience was flooded by people that were on Clubhouse trying to promote themselves or their products, without providing any value in the conversations. I stopped visiting Clubhouse because of this. I know that other people had different experiences, and that my experience is not universal. But I am probably not alone in that experience either.

urbandw311er 4y ago

Likely greed and commitments to investors.

bundie 4y ago
Greed? How?
- jstummbillig 4y ago
  "Greed" is a little presumptuous, but, to answer the mechanics part of your question: Assuming their audience and valuation would continue to grow instead of falter.
  - bundie 4y ago
    Ok. Got it

andy_ppp 4y ago

You could say the same about loads of successful companies. Nobody really knows and hindsight is always perfectly clear what the owners should have done. People said the same about Dropbox and Google at various points and arguably if Google had executed well you’d be saying the same about Dropbox and if Yahoo! had a clue how to leverage their search dominance Google could have also looked stupid for not selling.

rvz 4y ago

> I wonder why clubhouse didn't just sell to the highest bidder. Their product wasn't so complex and the user's weren't very locked in. Yup. They did try to sell to Twitter [0] but that collapsed and Twitter already implemented Clubhouses features using Periscope's infrastructure which I said this before [1] the reports of their acquisition talks happened such as [0] and [2]. So due to Twitter already owning and using Periscope, the avenue for Clubhouse to sell to Twitter already made no sense. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-07/twitter-is-said-to-have-discussed-4-billion-clubhouse-takeover https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-07/twitter-i... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26273255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26273255 [2] https://screenrant.com/twitter-clubhouse-purchase-buy-talks-report-spaces/ https://screenrant.com/twitter-clubhouse-purchase-buy-talks-...