Hacker News Reader

>1. TikTok exists today, and the author still feels like YouTube is a monopoly. If TikTok was actually a viable alternative to YouTube, this article wouldn't exist.

Or the article might have just wrongly failed to take into consideration TikTok as a viable alternative. Imagine that?

>2. Futhermore, TikTok is not a substitute for YouTube, especially for the kinds of content that the author is watching. People don't treat TikTok as a video library -

>how many TikTok videos are posted straight to HN? TikTok does not have the same diversity of content as YouTube.*

HN is a niche platdorm mostly for older farts. Doesn't say anything about the viability of TikTok as YouTube replacement in general.

And an argument can be made about TikTok's viability to replace YouTube in its own thing, not that it already has done that. Unlike other platforms, TikTok has brand recognition, viewers, younger demographics, advertising and payments sorted out, and lots of initial content. If it can make a good proposition for longer YouTube style content, it has everything else sorted to be a viable alternative.

>YouTube doesn't have the existential threat of the next PewDiePie defecting off the platform.

WTF YouTube wont have it? If another platform starts to be seen as a cooler alternative, creators can jump ship on a heartbeat...

"TikTok does not have the same diversity of content as YouTube."

Maybe this is true but it is also easy to get the impression because of algorithmic differences.

I think YouTube quite aggressively tries to find a global optimum for your viewing preferences and for that constantly throws a certain fraction of random content at you to test if you like it. At the same time there is high inertia for active engagement to influence your feed.

TikTok is completely different. Once you are locked into your niche it tries to keep you engaged there as much as possible but never strays into other niches by itself. If you actively search for content outside your niche it is quick to adapt.

So, if you are just a lurker on TikTok it is very easy to get the impression that content diversity is low there.

Fwiw, the only content on youtube I see as both interesting and irreplaceable are music videos. News clips, recipes, sharing of opinions, etc are all on tiktok and don't waste my time. Virtually all long-form content is better presented in prose. Documentaries with critical clips can be purchased without having to watch ads or found on archive.org. Interviews and monologuing work just fine with podcasts and without having to be subjected to the most obnoxious ads known to man. The incentive to make videos long makes 95% of the clips shared with me unbearably boring, and I can't exactly search or scan the video for the interesting parts like I can text. Plus, did I mention how the ads make me want to rip my eyes and ears out?

Maybe if I had children, it would seem more attractive, but I just don't get the appeal outside of that.

That's the thing YouTube works for so many different people. Some just listen to music. Others just for tutorials, others for news etc

That's kind of my point: music videos is the only thing on which youtube has a monopoly.

It has also the monopoly on having every kind, which makes the brand strong.

TikTok is a fluke, created by the condition of how it was originally born as Douyin in China. It is also the only app that translated well from the domestic China market to international markets.

Being backed by lots of VC cash and Bytedance's revenues in China is a key factor in getting TikTok established overseas.

TikTok is the most prominent one, for a number of reasons, but other platforms that pioneered or copied the format also reached considerable prominence. Instagram Reels, Snapchat Stories, etc. And tellingly, when YouTube wanted to compete, they needed to build an experience quite separate from the rest of the site. There is a qualitative difference in how people perceive and consume this type of content. It's not just "vertical YouTube".

Of course each one of these platforms was backed by VC or stock market money, but that's the nature of the industry. Over the years, VCs ended up throwing a lot of money at Google and YouTube killers and that didn't get them anywhere, so that in itself isn't the winning formula.

Wasn't TikTok originally Musicaly that already popular then acquired by ByteDance?

Vine had more active users than Musically, and look what happened to Vine. It would have never had the investment internationally if not for the blow-out success it had inside Mainland China.

well yeah, crossing the giant youtube moat took a lot of money, both invested and prexisting

but what makes it a fluke?

Combination of factors, but mostly the success Douyin had in Mainland China leading to the investment in TikTok internationally, given that no other Chinese social app had reach this level of penetration.

Not to mention that TikTok has now been clearly also been brought to heel by the ruling cabal of narcissistic psychopaths.