Professional introductions · Features guide
Lunchclub's features are not worth relying on now. Its app has had no update since 3 Mar 2022, and the features that worked were assigned matching, video calls and automatic scheduling. Each had real use for some members, and each had a catch that the reviews describe. [1] [9] [4]
Add Omnitwine as a preferred source on Google| Feature | What it does | Who it's for | The catch | Worth using? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Profile-based matching | Builds matches from your objectives, interests and profile | People who want strangers with shared goals | Matching rules are not published today; the location filter was removed | No, not now[6] [7] [4] |
| One-to-one video calls | Video chat, added in version 2.3.1 (Oct 2021) | Members who want a short video meeting | Duplicate calls and iPad problems reported; video called unreliable | Only as history[1] [2] [3] |
| Automatic scheduling | Books calls after profile approval, at the weekly count you set | Members who do not want to chase bookings | Recurring meetings can be joined without your knowledge | Only with a low cap[9] [2] [6] |
| Calendar link | Reads calendar data from a connected Google account by default | Members who want calls to fit their diary | Reads calendar by default; contacts only with permission | Decline unless needed[5] |
| Feedback after meetings | Said to shape later matches | Members who want better matches over time | Little detail published on how feedback is used | Unclear[6] [7] |
| First Magic Meeting | A first-meeting feature added in version 2.3.6 (Jan 2022) | New members | The store does not say what it does | Unclear[1] |
| Choose a partner by field or person | Not offered; location filter removed | People with a named goal | Matches are assigned, not chosen | No[4] |
Lunchclub appears to be retired. Its latest App Store release is dated 3 Mar 2022, and the status page lists the dated signals behind that verdict. The features below describe the 2020 to 2024 service, and this page is kept for reference. [1] [12] [13]
Worth using now: no. The 2020 sign-up asked for your name, email, location, objectives, interests, a photo, LinkedIn or Twitter links, a short bio and a conversation starter. Members chose how many meetings they wanted each week and when, and feedback after each meeting was said to shape later matches. [6]
The 2019 description said profile data came mostly from public sources such as Twitter, GitHub, Dribbble and AngelList, and that matching improved from feedback on which introductions worked. A Lightspeed partner who spent about 40 meetings on the service said matching weighs factors beyond sector and seniority, without naming them. Neither account describes the rules as they stand today, so you cannot tell what your match is based on. [7] [8]
Version 2.3.1 added video chat on 27 Oct 2021, and version 2.3.6 added a “First Magic Meeting” feature on 24 Jan 2022. Version 2.3.8, dated 3 Mar 2022, is listed only as “Bug fixes.” The store does not say what the first-meeting feature does. [1]
Worth using only as a record of how it was. A December 2022 App Store reviewer with about 200 conversations said the iPad app worked only in portrait, could not show chat and the meeting room together, and made duplicate calls. A July 2023 Trustpilot reviewer called the video platform unreliable. [2] [3]
Worth using only with a low weekly cap. The February 2024 personal review describes one-hour calls that the system scheduled after profile approval. A January 2023 App Store reviewer found recurring meetings they had not knowingly joined, and pausing did not stop new matches. [9] [2]
Volume varied by account. A 2020 run had seven weekly 45-minute calls, and a November 2023 commenter took three random 45-minute calls a week and still found them worthwhile. Set your cap at the lowest number you can live with. [10] [11]
Three of the 25 user reports in this guide, all from Product Hunt with relative dates only, say the location filter was removed and that members cannot pick a match by field or by person. Those dates run from about two to four years ago, so the reviews cannot be placed on a timeline. [4]
Worth using: no, if you need a specific person. That is the gap that matters most for anyone with a named goal. The alternatives page covers services that could fill it.
Bibliography
