Tweet Your Voice

Share your voice on Twitter 🗣

Tweeting with your voice is not too different from Tweeting with text. To start, open the Tweet composer and tap the new icon with wavelengths.
Would you recommend this product?
11 Reviews2.7/5
Glad to see Twitter experimenting with audio, especially with the rise of AirPods/bluetooth headphones and smart speakers further decrease friction to consume and create. That said, the biggest challenge (imho) for Twitter is that it's text-first. People come to the platform ready to consume and create text, not audio. Something like this might be better suited for its own app/destination, but then you have a distribution challenge. Will Twitter spin this off into an audio-first experience longer term? 🤔
Upvote (11)Share
@rrhoover My instant reaction was the same. Though then I realised that I happily consume videos on twitter (always have a pair of headphones). And obviously video tends to convey better than text. Audio creation is easier >> more audio tweets will be generated than videos. It might just end up taking audio consumption mainstream. Though audio first is a long way from here.
I think Josh Constine summed it up really well :-D -
@rrhoover For me, Twitter has always been *thoughts-first*, a place to speak out my thoughts and what better way to do this than voice? Sounds like a great experiment!
Would say that Twitter is "visual" first, not just text....if they added transcripts to the audio clips, they might be able to get away with not needing another app/destination. But - even with transcript support - the bandwidth of audio is so much lower than text/images - I think that's the main point of friction, in addition to the user needing to have headphones in.
@kaz This is what makes Twitter's many flailings on product features infuriating. They have support for video broadcasts, but fail to let users switch to the audio feed only.
?makers I'm intrigued, but does this offer the same subtitles/description functionality as Twitter's videos/images? How accessible is this?
If they do create a standalone app focused on audio, I'd much prefer they focus on the discovery, consumption, and sharing of podcasts than a UGC play. Many startups have tried to make UGC audio work and none have succeed. I suspect this is because there isn't actual user demand for such a thing. Audio as a medium has a higher barrier to entry for creators and a different use case than visual alternatives (text, images, video).
@alexcartaz Clubhouse is UGC audio-first and seems to be headed towards success. I think you’re right about the past, but can definitely see this changing in the future as people get more comfortable sharing their voices online.
@bethstachenfeld I’ve really enjoyed a number of conversations on CH, but so far that seems to be a live chat experience btw established and up and coming experts in various (mostly tech) fields Traditionally by UGC I guess I mean recorded audio that is consumed later, async, on-demand CH may end up solving a real problem making it easier for interesting ppl to spin up podcast-like content, removing some friction on the creation side (or maybe some kind of live chat experience), but it doesn’t follow that every single person needs a microphone or that others will want to listen. Voice is higher friction than text and therefore users are more discerning in their consumption of it
@alexcartaz Ah yeah I see what you're saying. There's definitely a difference when it's async vs sync
I love this. I remember writing about Utterz (then utterli) which was like the audio twitter many years ago. It was an exciting platform.