Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Clubhouse Payments

joinclubhouse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 241 posts

Re: Clubhouse Payments

#71

Post by hbosch »

paxys wrote: post #50

Very interesting that they chose to go with a tipping model vs letting creators set up "pay to enter" chat rooms. That would be a lot more useful for the way I normally see the product used. I guess this was just the easiest lift from the technical side (not too much work beyond copy pasting some Stripe sample code). Although if it's just a matter of P2P money transfer for tips/donations then I'd rather use something…

>Very interesting that they chose to go with a tipping model vs letting creators set up "pay to enter" chat rooms.

I believe the only way around Apple requesting a cut of the payment is to explicitly avoid any notion of "unlocking" extras or access within the app. The tipping method is just a way for users to send money to each other, no biggie... but "unlocking a room" is basically an IAP, or could be defined as one.

Re: Clubhouse Payments

#72

Post by wpietri »

kazuki wrote: post #8

Why they don't charge any fees? I don't use clubhouse (Android) but if I were user I would be happily paying 1-2% fees and would rather prefer seeing service has source of income.

For an early-stage venture-backed startup a small amount of revenue is worse than zero revenue. What the CEO has sold to investors is slices of glorious future potential. But once you have cold, hard cash coming in, suddenly people start evaluating you as a present, actual thing. And in practice, the amount of money coming in from a new, experimental product won't do shit to drop your burn rate. Better to stay in the land of glorious potential until you're sure your revenue graph is going to be the beloved hockey stick.

Re: Clubhouse Payments

#73

Post by iforgetti »

echelon wrote: post #40
mylons wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giants will clone and make a piece of shit. Apps like this survive by creating a network of people. They do that by creating demand to join the service. How do you do that? Make it invite only, and invite a ton of high profile people and get them using and talking about it, creating FOMO. The only people who threaten this are Facebook and Twitter. Twitter _actually_ could clone it or buy a competitor. But, look at Tw…

> Giants will clone and make a piece of shit. Facebook does a damn good job of sinking ships. The only two survivors I can think of are TikTok and Snapchat. And Snapchat pivoted.

Serious question, what did snap chat pivot to?

Re: Clubhouse Payments

#74

Post by PeterisP »

015a wrote: post #41
dogma1138 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I don’t understand their business model, there is a cost to process a payment so even if I give someone $100 the credit card company and payment processors will take a cut. Now there is a difference between a platform that takes 15-30% cut and And this ofc goes beyond the fact as you mentioned that the big players can simply kill this by having a similar policy especially for smaller creators. The only purpose o…

If you read the linked announcement: > 100% of the payment will go to the creator. The person sending the money will also be charged a small card processing fee, which will go directly to our payment processing partner, Stripe. Clubhouse will take nothing.

It's still a risky business model, since in certain fraud cases it will be left holding the bag for chargebacks if it has released the money to a fraudster but they don't have a revenue stream proportional to the payment amount to cover whatever percentage of the transactions are fraudulent.

Re: Clubhouse Payments

#75

Post by not_exactly__ »

xiii1408 wrote: post #61
rvz wrote: post #22

> 100% of the payment will go to the creator ... Clubhouse will take nothing. Well imagine if they had an Android app in the first place or earlier right before all the big players started copying them, then it would have been attractive to the users. Right now, what is the point if the invite system is still there. Another platform can just announce the same thing and they are back to square zero. > We are excited t…

> Yet, with no Android app and an increasing amount of competitors copying the hell out of Clubhouse, I can only see this going in the way of Meerkat, Yik Yak and Periscope. (By being shut down) We'll of course have to wait and see, but I don't imagine that Clubhouse will be entirely displaced. What's unique about Clubhouse is not the concept of a Clubhouse room itself, which is essentially a Discord channel with bas…

The (possible) irony is that ClubHouse uses Agora behind the scenes to power its real-time audio. that’s a Chinese company based in Mainland China. I’d be careful if I was them. The double irony is that I believe Agora is blocked behind TGF.

Re: Clubhouse Payments

#76

Post by fastball »

paxys wrote: post #55
fastball wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're taking VC. The strat here is probably to get as many users onboarded as possible ("of course I'll support them directly on Clubhouse, it's the cheapest way to do it!") and then at some point once people have grown accustomed to supporting creators through clubhouse they'll start taking a cut.

You would think they need to grow user count as quickly as possible (like all other VC funded startups), but the fact that they don't have a web app, don't have an Android app and don't have open signups on iOS leaves me very confused about their entire strategy. Is Clubhouse just being pushed by VCs and other tech celebrities as their personal soapbox, or does it have potential to be something beyond that?

The "closed beta" is the marketing strat – people getting FOMO because they can't listen to a convo on CH.

"Anyone have a CH invite?" was something I was seeing a lot of on Twitter over the past yearish. FOMO is one helluva drug.

Re: Clubhouse Payments

#77

Post by PeterisP »

tmpz22 wrote: post #56
filoleg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On another hand, it provides a strong incentive for Clubhouse to ban such bad actors asap without even a second thought, because Cluhbhouse doesn't make a single dime off them due to not taking a cut from payments. No conflict of interest and no perverse incentives. Which is in stark contrast to some perverse incentives other popular platforms have, e.g., Twitter and FB being lenient on botting and fake profiles beca…

Every content platform has a slew of top earners who are effectively bad actors. But they're profitable so they get to stay. Diet supplements, vitamins, and other garbage on Youtube. xQc on Twitch. Every. Single. One.

Well that's kind of the big difference - such a bad actor is profitable for Youtube or Twitch (since they earn from the "safe" money stream of ads and engagement and are not in the risky money stream of payments for the shady goods/services), but loss-making if you're a payment intermediary without any direct revenue from their fraudulent schemes like Clubhouse intends to be.

Re: Clubhouse Payments

#78

Post by skinnymuch »

hbosch wrote: post #71
paxys wrote: post #50

Very interesting that they chose to go with a tipping model vs letting creators set up "pay to enter" chat rooms. That would be a lot more useful for the way I normally see the product used. I guess this was just the easiest lift from the technical side (not too much work beyond copy pasting some Stripe sample code). Although if it's just a matter of P2P money transfer for tips/donations then I'd rather use something…

>Very interesting that they chose to go with a tipping model vs letting creators set up "pay to enter" chat rooms. I believe the only way around Apple requesting a cut of the payment is to explicitly avoid any notion of "unlocking" extras or access within the app. The tipping method is just a way for users to send money to each other, no biggie... but "unlocking a room" is basically an IAP, or could be defined as one…

Patreon doesn’t give a cut to Apple. It isn’t that far from what is described.

Re: Clubhouse Payments

#79

Post by dd36 »

xiii1408 wrote: post #68
secondcoming wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't it invite only?

You can create an account even without an invite. If you give it access to your contacts, your friends will get a notification to invite you, if they have an invite to give. Once you get an invite, your account will be activated, and you can use Clubhouse. This is how I got in, through a friend I hadn't talked to in a while.

That’s an interesting way to scrape people’s connections and phone numbers.

Re: Clubhouse Payments

#80

Post by [deleted] »

hbosch wrote: post #71
paxys wrote: post #50

Very interesting that they chose to go with a tipping model vs letting creators set up "pay to enter" chat rooms. That would be a lot more useful for the way I normally see the product used. I guess this was just the easiest lift from the technical side (not too much work beyond copy pasting some Stripe sample code). Although if it's just a matter of P2P money transfer for tips/donations then I'd rather use something…

>Very interesting that they chose to go with a tipping model vs letting creators set up "pay to enter" chat rooms. I believe the only way around Apple requesting a cut of the payment is to explicitly avoid any notion of "unlocking" extras or access within the app. The tipping method is just a way for users to send money to each other, no biggie... but "unlocking a room" is basically an IAP, or could be defined as one…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN