ByteDance in talks with banks to borrow over $3B(reuters.com)
reuters.com
ByteDance in talks with banks to borrow over $3B
https://www.reuters.com/technology/bytedance-talks-borrow-up-5-bln-information-2021-09-08/
113 comments
Any idea exact interest rate ? low means in single digit ? 10 ? 4 ?
The interest rate at which large banks can borrow USD is officially 0-1% and effectively negative due to massive quantitative easing.
But that is not the rate at which they will lend the money to ByteDance, at all. Still has a significant risk involved.
It's close to the base rate. It's not a payday loan...
Except it’s partially-owned by China and there is a possibility that they’re deliberately trying to pull money out of the US economy
More likely trying to get money out of China. Getting a US loan against your Chinese assets is a good way to do that.
Okay, I'll admit to being a little naïve on big finance but holding a debt like this is still going to cost them 30 million a year. If it's "only" 7% of revenue, surely they'd pay the debts off.
Seems more likely all that revenue is sunk into existing costs and they need the loan to remain liquid.
Seems more likely all that revenue is sunk into existing costs and they need the loan to remain liquid.
Of course the revenue is sunk into other things, they're trying to invest as much as possible, and so they're looking for additional funding to grow.
Why don’t we see more large debt rounds, considering interest rates are so low?
Are they just not publicised as much as equity, or could even the largest unprofitable unicorn not raise and service a $5 billion debt?
Are they just not publicised as much as equity, or could even the largest unprofitable unicorn not raise and service a $5 billion debt?
Unicorns have something better than a bank loan; interest-free VC money that costs nothing but equity, which itself is effectively worth $0 otherwise.
That equity ends up being really expensive when unicorns ipo. Unicorns generally don’t raise non-convertible-debt because they simply can’t find lenders willing to take single digit interest rates coupled with even a small chance of failure.
Isn't the expensive-ness an opportunity cost than a real cost?
If I sell a 10% stake for $100m, my company is valued at $1bn.
If I use that $100m towards growing the business, then both the 10% stake, and the remaining 90% grow in value.
If a new investor wants a 10% stake, it's going to cost more than $100m.
This is a very oversimplified example, so there are probably parts of the process where financial cost is incurred by the company. But I'm not sure where that happens.
If I sell a 10% stake for $100m, my company is valued at $1bn.
If I use that $100m towards growing the business, then both the 10% stake, and the remaining 90% grow in value.
If a new investor wants a 10% stake, it's going to cost more than $100m.
This is a very oversimplified example, so there are probably parts of the process where financial cost is incurred by the company. But I'm not sure where that happens.
Yes, but what if you could borrow $100M at 3% interest collateralized by $200M worth of your equity. Then, when you IPO, you just pay back the $100M * 1.03^t.
Equity is orders of magnitude more expensive than debt.
Many big financing rounds include debt. When you see that someone raised $500M, perhaps $100M is debt. It levers the equity investment providing an enhanced return, while reducing dilution for existing shareholders.
There are large debt rounds in businesses that have cash flow, assets and huge operating budgets.
The nature of VC/early-stage is such that it doesn't fit the risk profile for debt.
Companies have no assets to back the debt with, often no consistent revenue etc..
With the insane valuations that companies are getting these days it seems to me that debt would even be more afraid.
Like Clubhouse: 15M users, no revenue, flakey product, no obvious kind of revenue model, $1B valuation. Are you going to loan them $50M at 5% interest? Consider the risk on that.
So if your startup sells some funky kind of new wind turbine, and you do the deployments yourself, you might be able to raise debt to pay for the the installs themselves, because you can do the math on that out for a few years.
So you could raise debt to finance your sales in a way like that.
But it's about a risk profile, and how far out you can predict stable cash flows.
The nature of VC/early-stage is such that it doesn't fit the risk profile for debt.
Companies have no assets to back the debt with, often no consistent revenue etc..
With the insane valuations that companies are getting these days it seems to me that debt would even be more afraid.
Like Clubhouse: 15M users, no revenue, flakey product, no obvious kind of revenue model, $1B valuation. Are you going to loan them $50M at 5% interest? Consider the risk on that.
So if your startup sells some funky kind of new wind turbine, and you do the deployments yourself, you might be able to raise debt to pay for the the installs themselves, because you can do the math on that out for a few years.
So you could raise debt to finance your sales in a way like that.
But it's about a risk profile, and how far out you can predict stable cash flows.
> "to refinance its debt"
So I take that to mean that this is not a new loan of $3B, they are already that far underwater, and are refinancing for better terms.
So I take that to mean that this is not a new loan of $3B, they are already that far underwater, and are refinancing for better terms.
As I understand it they have already borrowed around $1B, and now because of the lower interest rate, they are able to secure a bigger loan that they'll use to pay back the original and then still have a bucket of cash, at a lower interest.
I don't know about the US, but here in Denmark it has been a common "trick" in mortgage financing as the interest rate dropped over the last couple of decades.
But as with all taking on debt to pay off debt, it's like wetting yourself.
I don't know about the US, but here in Denmark it has been a common "trick" in mortgage financing as the interest rate dropped over the last couple of decades.
But as with all taking on debt to pay off debt, it's like wetting yourself.
> But as with all taking on debt to pay off debt, it's like wetting yourself.
Taking on debt at a lower interest rate to pay off debt at a higher interest rate is just common sense.
Taking on additional debt just to have a bucket of cash is what can potentially get you in trouble if there is no plan or resolve to use it productively.
Taking on debt at a lower interest rate to pay off debt at a higher interest rate is just common sense.
Taking on additional debt just to have a bucket of cash is what can potentially get you in trouble if there is no plan or resolve to use it productively.
> But as with all taking on debt to pay off debt, it's like wetting yourself.
??
Feels like something didn't translate well from Danish to English in that saying:)
??
Feels like something didn't translate well from Danish to English in that saying:)
Ingvar Kamprad (founder of IKEA) famously said that entering the stock market is like peeing yourself: "first it becomes warm, warm. then it becomes cold, cold"
Like wetting yourself... to stay warm?
The best part is what happens when they cannot refinance anymore. There is a wall in front of the car, but speeding is fun, so why not accelerate a bit more.
>The best part is what happens when they cannot refinance anymore.
they'll 'exit' before that by IPO
they'll 'exit' before that by IPO
ByteDance is barred from IPO'ing internationally and possibly domestically as well. They wanted to and the CCP would not allow it, they capitulated and backed off their IPO plans (Didi by contrast went forward against the wishes of the CCP, and now Didi is being dismantled and nationalized in response). It's part of the new cultural revolution going on in China, they're restricting prominent companies more aggressively, for purposes of control, and that includes how and when they're allowed to IPO.
It’s about control, of course, but someone will end up with control (as always happens in a power vacuum). The decision is whether you want your government in control or enormously powerful corporations. China picked the former, other countries picked the latter.
HK IPO
Having debt doesn’t make a company underwater. If you can use that debt to generate more revenue than it cost to service the debt it makes absolute financial sense to do so.
Basically every major corporation in the world right now has large debt in the form of lines of credit. It’s too cheap not to right now. Especially for a company that doesn’t have easy access to institutional investors.
Basically every major corporation in the world right now has large debt in the form of lines of credit. It’s too cheap not to right now. Especially for a company that doesn’t have easy access to institutional investors.
>ByteDance had been exploring a public listing in the beginning of 2021, sources have told Reuters, but in April the company said it had no imminent plans for an initial public offering.
Has ByteDance been put on the waiting list by the CCP or is it cold feet from looking at Ant Group ?
Has ByteDance been put on the waiting list by the CCP or is it cold feet from looking at Ant Group ?
Why dilute ownership if banks can already provide the capital without the hassle of an IPO?
So founders can cash out and park their money in a safer place than CCP China.
The hard Xi-driven return to Maoism has dried up both funding and operational latitude for most large Chinese companies - tech or otherwise.
Given Xi's family background, combined with his provincial lack of nuance, this isn't remotely surprising.
Given Xi's family background, combined with his provincial lack of nuance, this isn't remotely surprising.
$3B, or $4B, or perhaps $5B, they are not sure.
That's what they want based on some artificially made numbers saying "hey look our growth is exponential it will never stop come play with us". Now the banks will have to decide if they are at risk of being the ones with the bullet in the chamber of this russian roulette debt game.
if you're printing money like they are of course you would refi debt in the stupid low interest world we live in
This is such a bad idea for the banks. ByteDance has plenty of money. This is a political move to create domestic impact if the U.S. ever wants to ban TikTok again, which almost happened under Trump.
Not sure why this is being downvoted?
It makes sense to me that ByteDance wants non-China banks to have skin in the game and share the risk that way.
It makes sense to me that ByteDance wants non-China banks to have skin in the game and share the risk that way.
3 Billion USD to get children hooked to garbage content, ruin their brains with cheap dopamine and ruin their lives. And it's perfectly legal. What a shit society we live in.
"Please don't fulminate."
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Be the change you want to see - this type of defeatism creates zero progress.
And there has been a lot of progress, those kids would have had to push carts up mine shafts in the previous era.
In the era before that, most of them would have died from hunger or some disease
And there has been a lot of progress, those kids would have had to push carts up mine shafts in the previous era.
In the era before that, most of them would have died from hunger or some disease
Not to mention in the era I grew up in (before social media), people had pretty much the exact same complaint, except it was TV rotting kids’ brains (of course, there can be truth to both, but I’m skeptical the present era is uniquely terrible - kids used to watch a lot of TV).
I don’t use TikTok, but I’ve heard anecdotes from users that it’s currently the least-terrible of the social media services, and this doesn’t sound totally implausible to me, given what the competition is.
It seems more productive to focus on the enriching activities that we want more of rather than trying eliminate distracting ones - there are so many of those it’s easy to imagine one distraction just being replaced with another.
I don’t use TikTok, but I’ve heard anecdotes from users that it’s currently the least-terrible of the social media services, and this doesn’t sound totally implausible to me, given what the competition is.
It seems more productive to focus on the enriching activities that we want more of rather than trying eliminate distracting ones - there are so many of those it’s easy to imagine one distraction just being replaced with another.
>Not to mention in the era I grew up in (before social media), people had pretty much the exact same complaint, except it was TV rotting kids’ brains (of course, there can be truth to both, but I’m skeptical the present era is uniquely terrible - kids used to watch a lot of TV).
I grew up in the same era... and the solution to that was easy: my parents told me to go outside and play.
In 2021, their phone goes with them everywhere, and if it doesn't one of their friend's phones does. There's almost no way, short of helicopter parenting 24/7, that you can insulate your children from Tik Tok, and I'd argue it is far, far, far more harmful than TV. Random kids at school didn't attack me for the TV shows I watched privately in my own home in high school.
I grew up in the same era... and the solution to that was easy: my parents told me to go outside and play.
In 2021, their phone goes with them everywhere, and if it doesn't one of their friend's phones does. There's almost no way, short of helicopter parenting 24/7, that you can insulate your children from Tik Tok, and I'd argue it is far, far, far more harmful than TV. Random kids at school didn't attack me for the TV shows I watched privately in my own home in high school.
Modern phones have parental controls that let you limit app usage, of course that doesn’t apply to friends’ phones, but if they are socializing in-person with friends close enough to lend their phone at least there’s some level of child development success there.
And phones are hardly the worst thing friends can get your kid into... I remember the main concern being alcohol or drugs, which I think have since declined (at least among youth).
I have to say I am not familiar with the attacks based on browsing history you speak of though. How/why does this happen? Are you forced to make it public?
And phones are hardly the worst thing friends can get your kid into... I remember the main concern being alcohol or drugs, which I think have since declined (at least among youth).
I have to say I am not familiar with the attacks based on browsing history you speak of though. How/why does this happen? Are you forced to make it public?
This comment of yours also creates zero progress, so what's your point? In fact it might be even more "harmful" because it implies we should just be okay with anything because in olden times things were worse.
[deleted]
It does not imply we should be OK with bad things today. It starts with the words "be the change you want to see".
Defeatism short-circuits one's ability to grow and serves as an excellent excuse to do nothing.
Defeatism short-circuits one's ability to grow and serves as an excellent excuse to do nothing.
> those kids would have had to push carts up mine shafts in the previous era
No, most kids of the previous era never came within a million miles of pushing a mine cart up a shaft. We have very well documented historical records of what type of work young people were most commonly doing circa 1850-1950, mining was not one of the top activities (nor was any other type of very dangerous hard labor).
I don't much care about kids cloning lame faux dance routines on TikTok, I think it's mostly benign and unimportant. And it's definitely a temporary fad (these kids won't be spending lots of time learning and cloning lame dance routines in 10 second videos ten years from now). It's also exceptionally vapid. I grew up with MTV when it was becoming a thing, and it too was largely vapid garbage (although not entirely, as is true of TikTok), and it culturally melted away just as TikTok will recede with time, as the kids move on to something newer and cooler, as always happens.
The biggest shot against TikTok is that most of the young people on there aren't even producing their own content, they're directly copying other content and repeating it like brainless zombies. Maybe it's no worse than mediocre cultural cloning was in past decades, it's just considerably accelerated and pumped up in terms of projection / audience. It's nothing great to celebrate though, it's a high-fructose soda for the brain (which is why it's so addictive), an intravenous line of cheap validation for nacissists and young people with low self-esteem, not high quality sustenance. MTV didn't lead to an improved outcome for the generation reared on it, and TikTok won't either, there isn't actually much value being created with it. These types of platforms don't matter very much ultimately, in terms of consumption they're mostly just another way to pass the time for bored brains.
No, most kids of the previous era never came within a million miles of pushing a mine cart up a shaft. We have very well documented historical records of what type of work young people were most commonly doing circa 1850-1950, mining was not one of the top activities (nor was any other type of very dangerous hard labor).
I don't much care about kids cloning lame faux dance routines on TikTok, I think it's mostly benign and unimportant. And it's definitely a temporary fad (these kids won't be spending lots of time learning and cloning lame dance routines in 10 second videos ten years from now). It's also exceptionally vapid. I grew up with MTV when it was becoming a thing, and it too was largely vapid garbage (although not entirely, as is true of TikTok), and it culturally melted away just as TikTok will recede with time, as the kids move on to something newer and cooler, as always happens.
The biggest shot against TikTok is that most of the young people on there aren't even producing their own content, they're directly copying other content and repeating it like brainless zombies. Maybe it's no worse than mediocre cultural cloning was in past decades, it's just considerably accelerated and pumped up in terms of projection / audience. It's nothing great to celebrate though, it's a high-fructose soda for the brain (which is why it's so addictive), an intravenous line of cheap validation for nacissists and young people with low self-esteem, not high quality sustenance. MTV didn't lead to an improved outcome for the generation reared on it, and TikTok won't either, there isn't actually much value being created with it. These types of platforms don't matter very much ultimately, in terms of consumption they're mostly just another way to pass the time for bored brains.
What? Don't use TikTok? Encourage kids to read a book? The train has passed on this one. Pretty sure it's considered child abuse in the lower 48 if your toddler doesn't have their own smart phone and a 24/7 internet connection. I'm only slightly exaggerating.
i dont know why this is downvoted
if you dont allow your children tiktok/insta/etc, they get completely excluded from their community.
a possibility is to move into a community that does not use social networks that much, so not using them is normalized, but sadly this is not easy in western europe (at least for me).
if you dont allow your children tiktok/insta/etc, they get completely excluded from their community.
a possibility is to move into a community that does not use social networks that much, so not using them is normalized, but sadly this is not easy in western europe (at least for me).
TikTok is ruining kids brains same way as rock’n’roll did in 50s, MTV did in 90s, and video games did in 2000s
I don’t believe rock & roll, music videos or violent video games rot children’s brains (those were moral panics). But the current generation of social media and certain kinds of video game designs are absolutely designed to be addictive. I don’t think culture war stuff is comparable to people engineering software for dopamine hits.
> I don’t think culture war stuff is comparable to people engineering software for dopamine hits.
It should be noted that most culture war stuff is itself engineered for an emotional "hit", although usually an angry one.
It should be noted that most culture war stuff is itself engineered for an emotional "hit", although usually an angry one.
At least a music video or song is three minutes long. That’s an eternity to a Tik Tok brain and they will become uncomfortable having to concentrate that long.
Rule #382: You can translate 'kids these days' commentary from one generation to the next by simply substituting $newthing for $oldthing, and inserting a new value of $newthing. For instance:
1990s: Kids these days wouldn't have the attention span to {read a book}. All they can do is {watch music videos}.
2020s: Kids these days wouldn't have the attention span to {watch a music video}. All they can do is {browse TikTok}.
1990s: Kids these days wouldn't have the attention span to {read a book}. All they can do is {watch music videos}.
2020s: Kids these days wouldn't have the attention span to {watch a music video}. All they can do is {browse TikTok}.
Ya know, this would be a lot more comforting if the attention span required for each new medium wasn't lower and lower...
But what you said happened and is happening.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2687861
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2687861
You see how you just highlighted a worsening trend right?
Most video games are created to be addictive.
On the extreme end, you got the Civ series. It's been around for 30 years now. There is literally a joke website called Civ Anonymous. "One More Turn"
FPS games like CS really feed that dopamine hit when you get a kill, especially a head shot. You think the game designers aren't thinking about how to make that kill as satisfying as possible?
Even the games of the 90s were engineered to be addictive. Tetris when you clear the blocks. Mario when you get a power up. Even Solitaire when you win the game and the cards go flying.
On the extreme end, you got the Civ series. It's been around for 30 years now. There is literally a joke website called Civ Anonymous. "One More Turn"
FPS games like CS really feed that dopamine hit when you get a kill, especially a head shot. You think the game designers aren't thinking about how to make that kill as satisfying as possible?
Even the games of the 90s were engineered to be addictive. Tetris when you clear the blocks. Mario when you get a power up. Even Solitaire when you win the game and the cards go flying.
It's not because those are things we have positive emotional associations with from of our childhood that they're actually positive things. I for one would have rather never played video games or watched MTV.
You remember those old farts, annoying everybody with their sanctimonious imprecations about video games ? They were right.
You remember those old farts, annoying everybody with their sanctimonious imprecations about video games ? They were right.
I'm with you 100% on this one. I wish I never picked up that first game when I was 6.
I wasted so much time especially in my 20's racking up idiotic "achievements" that exist only in a Factorio savegame and other similarly irrelevant places.
I wasted so much time especially in my 20's racking up idiotic "achievements" that exist only in a Factorio savegame and other similarly irrelevant places.
I completely agree with your sentiment, but it's important to be aware of the real problem.
Most people, opponents and supporters of video games alike, tend to discuss if the activity itself is harmful - does it make us desensitised to violence etc, but the real issue is what you are NOT doing when you play those games.
If a child doesn't have easy access to cheap thrills from a video game, she will start using her imagination, draw something, go to a friend, come up with some mischief.
Time is limited, and childhood is the most precious thing in the world, don't waste it.
Most people, opponents and supporters of video games alike, tend to discuss if the activity itself is harmful - does it make us desensitised to violence etc, but the real issue is what you are NOT doing when you play those games.
If a child doesn't have easy access to cheap thrills from a video game, she will start using her imagination, draw something, go to a friend, come up with some mischief.
Time is limited, and childhood is the most precious thing in the world, don't waste it.
Nah, not really. Video games have been shown to be very good at increasing problem solving, planning, and fine motor skills. The problem is parents (including mine) who didn't/don't put reasonable limits on their use. A kid who plays video games a couple hours per week is going to turn out just fine.
I think there are also serious qualitative differences between games in the 90s/00s and mobile freemium games of today.
I think there are also serious qualitative differences between games in the 90s/00s and mobile freemium games of today.
Practicing problem solving skills in the simplified and consequence-free video game world is very useful at a very young age. But young minds must switch over to solving problems in the far richer and more complicated real world as soon as possible.
> I for one would have rather never played video games or watched MTV.
This is rather sad; would you rather have been prevented from them? What would you prefer to have been made to do?
This is rather sad; would you rather have been prevented from them? What would you prefer to have been made to do?
Go out, socialize with other kids, experience a broader variety of things, grow up. I'm now absolutely certain my using video games as an excuse to stay inside as a teenager and young adult severely delayed my emotional and social growth. I was always a rather solitary kid but there was no merit in reinforcing those habits.
Few things are as useless as watching TV and playing video games. Especially when you're young, the world is your oyster, you should hang out with friends and do things in the real world.
Yes, playing video games occasionally with friends or watching the odd film can be good things but that's obviously not what we're talking about here.
I'm very happy most of my childhood memories revolve around tree houses, bicycles and gangs of friends roaming the streets.
Yes, playing video games occasionally with friends or watching the odd film can be good things but that's obviously not what we're talking about here.
I'm very happy most of my childhood memories revolve around tree houses, bicycles and gangs of friends roaming the streets.
Spot on. I wish I “played” in my 20’s by starting side businesses in real life rather than ones that only exist on a tiny piece of silicon.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Do kids used to watch MTV for hours daily in 90s?
Do they used to watch MTV in School?
Do they used to watch MTV while waiting for bus?
Was their classmates all making videos for MTV?
Do they used to watch MTV in School?
Do they used to watch MTV while waiting for bus?
Was their classmates all making videos for MTV?
> Do kids used to watch MTV for hours daily in 90s?
Not MTV exclusively, but yes I knew kids (in elementary school!) that watched TV for hours every day (although I didn’t grow up with that habit).
Pretty sure the same hours-a-day thing was true for video games as well, although in my view at least that’s not totally passive and was sometimes social (kids playing against each other in person).
Not MTV exclusively, but yes I knew kids (in elementary school!) that watched TV for hours every day (although I didn’t grow up with that habit).
Pretty sure the same hours-a-day thing was true for video games as well, although in my view at least that’s not totally passive and was sometimes social (kids playing against each other in person).
> Not MTV exclusively, but yes I knew kids (in elementary school!)
Which I suppose was a small minority. Defintely not the case with TikTok.
Which I suppose was a small minority. Defintely not the case with TikTok.
The the statistic that was bandied about at the time was 5hrs of TV a day on average, across all Americans. I don’t have a number for kids but of course they had more free time than working adults.
That seems to fit with this recent data [1], which shows the average as still high but lower in the younger demographic. It has the 65+ group as 7+ hrs/day on average, which seems mildly horrifying considering half of people are likely above that. But perhaps not surprising - especially with the obesity rates being what they are, many people may not be very mobile at that age.
[1] https://www.statista.com/chart/15224/daily-tv-consumption-by...
That seems to fit with this recent data [1], which shows the average as still high but lower in the younger demographic. It has the 65+ group as 7+ hrs/day on average, which seems mildly horrifying considering half of people are likely above that. But perhaps not surprising - especially with the obesity rates being what they are, many people may not be very mobile at that age.
[1] https://www.statista.com/chart/15224/daily-tv-consumption-by...
Sure - in the same way Fentanyl is essentially Aspirin.
I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives.
I love coming to HN during European hours. Only then is the community is primed to deliver harsh truths.
Is it a harsh truth? It's harsh, that's for sure. It strikes me as unbelievably illiberal and puritanical to suggest that it should be illegal to create content for children which (the speaker considers) is unedifying.
I don't know if it's just me, but I feel like some of these attitudes which are considered progressive nowadays would have made Mary Whitehouse blush. What happened to insisting on a free and pluralistic society?
I don't know if it's just me, but I feel like some of these attitudes which are considered progressive nowadays would have made Mary Whitehouse blush. What happened to insisting on a free and pluralistic society?
> It strikes me as unbelievably illiberal and puritanical to suggest that it should be illegal to create content for children which (the speaker considers) is unedifying.
HN is in favor of free speech, except for teenagers dancing to each other.
HN is in favor of free speech, except for teenagers dancing to each other.
It's full of 40-year-olds trying to justify how their phobia of TikTok is somehow different from their parents' phobia of video games or rock-and-roll.
OP (myself), is GenZ for what it is worth.
Fair enough, perhaps I should have said 'adults'. Every generation of adults, since time immemorial, has complained that 'kids these days' are intellectually or spiritually degenerate compared with their own generation. It wasn't true then. It isn't true now. TikTok is not 'rewiring children's brains', or whatever it is that adults are panicking about, any more than Grand Theft Auto or Eminem did. Buck the trend.
It’s not even really a harsh truth. It’s just a hot take from someone who only has the most surface level understanding of why people like TikTok.
It’s legitimately the best social network around right now. The content is so freaking good, raw, silly, and spans all walks of life. Whatever they did with the algo makes it extremely high-signal for me and my friends who are on it. I get really high quality content for exactly my niche interests without ever having to spend time searching for it.
It’s legitimately the best social network around right now. The content is so freaking good, raw, silly, and spans all walks of life. Whatever they did with the algo makes it extremely high-signal for me and my friends who are on it. I get really high quality content for exactly my niche interests without ever having to spend time searching for it.
I've never used Tik-Tok but what weirds me out is it seems like there are a ton of people in their early middle to late middle ages desperately making meme videos to try to capture the attention of all these children. It's grotesque.
Children? Everyone I know has one.
I didn't mean it in a "think about the children" sense, I was more responding to OP.
It's hard for me to imagine adults spending their time watching these stupid clips constantly but you are right, it's not just limited to children.
It's hard for me to imagine adults spending their time watching these stupid clips constantly but you are right, it's not just limited to children.
No one I know has TikTok....
I still can not understand how we moved to a point where Vertical Video is acceptable in civil society
I still can not understand how we moved to a point where Vertical Video is acceptable in civil society
> I still can not understand how we moved to a point where Vertical Video is acceptable in civil society
- default phone capture mode
- default phone display mode, both due to the way you hold it
- humans are vertical: vertical video frames the whole body, useful for dance videos. Portrait mode more useful for quadrupeds
- default phone capture mode
- default phone display mode, both due to the way you hold it
- humans are vertical: vertical video frames the whole body, useful for dance videos. Portrait mode more useful for quadrupeds
For some kind of videos vertical is just better, for others horizontal. I have a phone and I have a vertical secondary screen on my desktop so I can watch vertical videos without issues.
Never quite understood why some people get so upset at vertical videos.
Never quite understood why some people get so upset at vertical videos.
Cinema screens was the most popular screen format in the early 20th century.
It was cheaper to have wider halls than taller, more seats, maybe lesser construction costs so 11:8 ( standard academy) or 1.43:1(IMAX) or 2.2:1 (70mm) all became popular.
The wider screens also gave more immersive experiences and film makers took advantage of that in their movies with panoramic landscape shots and other techniques.
Most non professional films(post covid even a lot of professional ones) are watched today on a smart phone screen which is usually something like 9:16.
So, unless you are making a movie to be released in theatres I would say film makers should default to use 9:16 not other way around.
A good film maker should target the medium they are working with, there is nothing inherently special about either one.
There were great directors/actors who could do amazing work without sound or only b/w etc (sometimes failed to adapt to to the transition), all mediums have some limitations we have to work with what we have.
It was cheaper to have wider halls than taller, more seats, maybe lesser construction costs so 11:8 ( standard academy) or 1.43:1(IMAX) or 2.2:1 (70mm) all became popular.
The wider screens also gave more immersive experiences and film makers took advantage of that in their movies with panoramic landscape shots and other techniques.
Most non professional films(post covid even a lot of professional ones) are watched today on a smart phone screen which is usually something like 9:16.
So, unless you are making a movie to be released in theatres I would say film makers should default to use 9:16 not other way around.
A good film maker should target the medium they are working with, there is nothing inherently special about either one.
There were great directors/actors who could do amazing work without sound or only b/w etc (sometimes failed to adapt to to the transition), all mediums have some limitations we have to work with what we have.
>>usually something like 9:16.
Funny way to write 16:9....
>>are watched today on a smart phone screen
This is where my age likely shows as I still can not use my mobile as a video consumption device. I need 27in or larger monitor, or even better a 40in or large TV screen. I primary consume YouTube and other non-professional video from my Roku not my phone...
Funny way to write 16:9....
>>are watched today on a smart phone screen
This is where my age likely shows as I still can not use my mobile as a video consumption device. I need 27in or larger monitor, or even better a 40in or large TV screen. I primary consume YouTube and other non-professional video from my Roku not my phone...
It is not 16:9 it is 9:16, in mobile height is more than width.
When the most accessible form factor for a screen is portrait in orientation, it's kind of inevitable.
> how we moved to a point where Vertical Video is acceptable in civil society
Think about what shape a human being is…
Think about what shape a human being is…
Are you body shaming people??? :)
[deleted]
I guess I am a bit older than the target demographic, but is the content really garbage?
I don't spend much time on it, but there are a lot of original funny bits I have seen people do in the compressed timeframe that are really quite good.
I don't spend much time on it, but there are a lot of original funny bits I have seen people do in the compressed timeframe that are really quite good.
Even if TikTok got banned, we still have Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts, Snap Spotlight, and whatever Reddit is planning on doing to fill the void. Pandora’s Box has already opened—short video is here to stay.
The only thing that really bothers me is TikTok has CCP party members sit on its board, that review and have final say on everything.
To me this is a massive liability for the US. It's just a matter of time before China starts to dabble in "content shaping" on the platform, if they aren't already.
To me this is a massive liability for the US. It's just a matter of time before China starts to dabble in "content shaping" on the platform, if they aren't already.
"When I grow up I want to be a influencer"
One might actually think that it is positive that bar for these sort of dreams have been lowered and it has become more realistic. Kids wanted to be movie stars, tv celebrities, rock stars or in reality tv. I might consider influencers to be more healthy than any of those...
Nice try Kim Kardashian
A 3B refinancing deal - done at a time of very favorable interest rates - is really a non-story.