I don't have access to Clubhouse but don't you lose an additional ton of valuable information when there is no video? Like non-physical (video) communication already has its challenges but this takes them to another level. Or am I missing something here?
Clubhouse has proven quite popular for traditionally underrepresented groups, and I believe it is in a large part due to being audio-only. For speakers, they can focus on what they are saying and hearing, rather than what they look like.
It also lowers the cost of entry. While smartphone cameras are quite good, the expectation for video quality has risen to the point where it is prohibitively expensive for a large portion of the population. When you factor in lighting, hardware and software for editing, bandwidth and time, it excludes a huge number of people and narrows down the diversity of content. Traditional podcasting is also suffering from a similar rise in total cost. Clubhouse eliminates most of those costs - all you need is a smartphone. Granted, it is iOS-only, but this will not be the case for much longer. We can expect Clubhouse to explode even more when it launches for Android.
For listeners, everyone is subject to unconscious bias. By being audio-only, it helps reduce a lot of the factors that would bias our opinion of someone.
I think Clubhouse’s community and interest-oriented spaces will probably be its key differentiating feature. Video meeting apps are generally targeted towards known audiences, while Clubhouse lets you spontaneously hop into a room with strangers.
