I wonder if it was intentional or just a matter of priorisation.
Find it hard to believe it wasn't intentional. The class associations with iPhone are quite strong.
I assume both? Intentionally prioritise iPhone over Android, because thats still (rightly or wrongly) considered the higher value platform to target. Instagram did this back when they launched in 2010 too.
But it looks likely it'll be only iPhone during their current invite-only phase.
Don’t shoot the messenger.
Shifting from GitHub Issues as the default project management is a good prime candidate for starting to move the needle. Public-facing Clubhouse-the-project-management-app would be easier for non-eng contributions, holding open OKR processes, and having some clear ways for non developers to contribute.
Fwiw I tried to help on growth / product on one consumer OSS product I love- there just wasn’t a mechanism for someone to say yes, and there was a need for centralization to do some of the obvious next practices any startup would do. It’s easy for engineers to contribute, but ambient hostility and concern about marketing / growth / product tactics make it tough to turn rock solid OSS technology into competitive OSS products.
Suppose you had met the original author at the very beginning of the project and convinced them that marketing/growth/etc. is important. Let's suppose they only write some single facile sentence in the README about, "marketers/growth experts welcome" in response.
I would hold that just having that single, facile sentence buried in the README from the outset is more powerful and persuasive to the project's developer base than the most detailed proposal that a marketing/growth expert could possibly write after the fact.
Maybe another way to say this: if you showed up to a consumer OSS product that had this facile sentence in it there, the entire developer base would welcome you make a marketing pitch to them. Without it, they would interpret it as noise.
As new hyped up social networks come along with missing things we have this. I can only see this unofficial app eventually withering away as soon as the Android app is ready. (Whenever that is)
The main concern is the private API. With this, individuals can abuse the API very easily. If the invite system is phased out, it creates an opportunity for bots to ruin the app.
Here we go again.
If someone can make bots do convincing voice chat with groups of the glitterati, heckling Elon with persuasive counter arguments, that would be quite impressive.
it kills authenticity same as all the other services that create humans that consider themselves "influencers". it's not too different from the CCP's SCS only that we are too propagandized into thinking that this won't create a society of digital slaves who bow to the one with the highest karma.
It might even be understandable if you are an underdog while bootstrapping while not having enough resources, but Clubhouse should have more than enough resource to make a simplified wannabe Discord app on Android.
Any semi-competent mobile dev should be able to do it.
Reading now other's comments makes kind of sense, Clubhouse is positioning itself as an elitist app, so of course they are trying to build exclusivity.
Good luck to them, but I personally go out of my way to not use apps or services like that. I know this might come as a shocker, but some people don't like the Apple "Stockholm syndrome" ecosystem.
I prefer my Android phone over an iPhone, even though I have and use an iPad, and I still prefer my Windows PC over a Mac for developing, even though I have a Mac ( I only use it for signing apps for iOS).
Looks like having a different taste and preferring a choice is unpopular in this decade.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/cl...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/barrycollins/2021/02/10/clubhou...
why does it send traffic to China?
why is audio sent over unencrypted UDP in 2021?
who in their right minds would want to listen to footage of what are essentially meeting recordings. I get why people who are enchanted by their own voice, and want to get on it to hear themselves talk, but why on earth would anyone else want to listen to boring audio of people dialogue. it sounds flippant but it's an honest question. the ratio of those who derive utility from this is skewed tremendously toward the speaker (not the listener)
why no ADA compliance?
why the unenforcable ToS?
why no sane way for users to unsubscribe from the service? (not compliant with GDPR)
Those are all good questions for someone who works at the service in question. I just don't think the person you're responding to is that person.
I think the kinds of shared digital experiences is what is helping keep people sane while we are all isolating so I welcome all new attempts at new social platforms.
smughouse.xyz
So you're cool if you're already in, you know?
It got hyped up when Elon Musk joined and roasted Vlad from Robinhood, and suddenly everyone wanted an invite.
It's a interesting concept, but it was driven by celebrities hype and exclusivity ... but what isn't like that currently? Stocks, Crypto, you name it.
