This is alpha, baby!

October 18, 2005 2:54 PM

Slawesome calls itself "e-mail for your voice" - it's a new web-based service which combines elements of audio blogging and webmail. Messages can be private or public - at least one bleeding-edge blogger is already using it to make voice posts. And it's been built using Ruby on Rails - so it's got to be good, right?
posted by runkelfinker (14 comments total)

I dunno. It seems to offer the awkwardness of voice mail without the intimacy of email. What do you get back?
posted by MrMerlot at 3:08 PM on October 18, 2005

And it's been built using Ruby on Rails - so it's got to be good, right?

I have to agree with trhurler on this one.
posted by tweak at 3:12 PM on October 18, 2005

I think the vast majority of cases, text is preferable to voice. Obviously for conversations it sucks (especially when chatting with a slow typer) but for thought-out communications writing is far superior. both to read and especially to write
posted by delmoi at 3:14 PM on October 18, 2005

MrMerlot kind of hits the nail on the head. So awkward.

And why say bleeding egde blogger when you can say bleedgeogger?
posted by fire&wings at 3:14 PM on October 18, 2005

For what it's worth, I think the service is interesting insofar as it shows that work on the unified inbox concept (single entrypoint and interface to voice, e-mail, IM et al) is even more immature on fixed internet than it is on mobile...
posted by runkelfinker at 3:39 PM on October 18, 2005

I love Slawesome. I love what it represents; a website that records audio you can send to others means all you need is a browser and a microphone and you're good to go. Anything that simplifies these things for users is okay by me.

I tested meebo on a dumb solaris terminal (no hard drive, no downloads) and it worked; I haven't had a chance to try slawesome in those kinds of circumstances yet. If it passes the sunray test, I'll call it a winner.
posted by Hildegarde at 4:02 PM on October 18, 2005

What if the person has a really squeaky annoying voice? In text they seem astute, well-written, you can't help but agree. You click on the link and they have some horrible nasal Long Island accent. What then?
posted by fixedgear at 4:08 PM on October 18, 2005

What then?

Lots of radio people have a 'face for radio'... bloggers who don't audioblog might have a 'voice for text'

I agree with the comments above which note that anything that simplifies voice (single inbox) has a future.
posted by cell divide at 5:42 PM on October 18, 2005

slawful. It delivers what is promised, yes, but what it promises ain't so hot (agreeing with the "voice for text" thing here). Plus flashblock really destroys this page.
posted by boo_radley at 6:14 PM on October 18, 2005

I have to say, the slawsome-powered post linked (by the "bleeding edge blogger") was brilliant. Satire of tech-business bloviation so sharply rendered that I wouldn't have ever guessed that it was parody, except that it simply must have been. Right? Right?

Not that this has anything to do, necessarily, with the inherent promise or lack of promise of the technology.
posted by BT at 7:25 PM on October 18, 2005

i think i understand web 2.0 now.

give things horrible names.

like "blog" or "slawsome."

i mean, dear god, are they proposing that people become... what? slawsages?
posted by poweredbybeard at 7:32 PM on October 18, 2005

Having listened to the bleeding edge blogger, I'm even more against it. How can somebody spew out so many cliches repeatedly and not realize how bad they sound? If slawsome offered slediting, it'd be better.
posted by boo_radley at 7:34 PM on October 18, 2005

An audioblogging manifesto. Transcript here.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:08 AM on October 19, 2005

To understand the aesthetic behind Slawesome, you really should take a look at Nivi's page. You might want to bring your sense of humour. The 'Words' page reveals untold truthiness.

That is all.
posted by waxbanks at 8:00 AM on October 19, 2005