How YouTube won the battle for TV viewers

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Viewing devices & apps

  • Many watch YouTube primarily on TVs (Apple TV, Nvidia Shield, etc.), often replacing traditional cable entirely.
  • Chromecast’s newer Android TV direction is criticized as heavier and less stable; some report crashes and UI regressions and switched to Apple TV.
  • YouTube’s TV app is seen as weak for episodic viewing (no good “watch next episode,” odd playlist ordering), though a new “shows” feature is mentioned as coming.

YouTube as a music platform

  • Several commenters say YouTube / YouTube Music effectively became their main music streamer: huge catalog (including live shows, bootlegs, small artists, obscure uploads), often better discovery, and bundling with YouTube Premium.
  • Others dislike YouTube Music’s design, playlist/channel pollution, and lack of thoughtfulness; some reverted to local libraries or stick with Spotify/Apple Music.
  • Disagreement over whether YouTube is truly #1 in music; some cite usage, others point to Spotify’s dominance in revenue/market share.

Monopoly, infrastructure & competition

  • Many feel YouTube is a de facto monopoly: creators stay for the audience and monetization; alternatives (Odysee, Rumble, BitChute, etc.) are seen as niche, under-resourced, or dominated by low‑quality/political content.
  • Debate over antitrust: some argue YouTube’s scale, Google cross-subsidy, and long-term losses killed competition and should’ve triggered regulation; others say it’s just a superior product and not legally a monopoly, given TikTok, Facebook, etc.
  • High video infra costs (transcoding, multi-resolution storage, bandwidth) are repeatedly cited as a huge barrier to new entrants; profitability of YouTube itself is disputed.

Why TV & subscription streaming lost ground

  • Traditional TV is condemned for excessive ads and bland, mass‑market content. DVR and ad‑skipping further undercut ad models.
  • Streaming services are criticized for: fragmentation across many apps, rising prices, constant content shuffling, canceling shows quickly, and weekly drip releases.
  • Some see big‑budget “prestige” TV economics as unsustainable compared with YouTube’s pay‑after‑success, creator‑risk model and infinite niche channels.
  • There’s nostalgia for 80s/90s shows and movies, and a sense that “there’s nothing to watch” in contemporary TV.

User experience: recommendations, discovery & product gaps

  • YouTube’s recommendation engine is polarizing: some say it’s excellent and surfaces incredibly varied, high‑quality content; others say it’s stuck in ruts, overreacts to one-off views, and ignores “not interested” feedback.
  • Specific complaints: floods of sports or topic‑clusters after a single video; tendency to push shorts, sensational or political content; difficulty blocking specific creators.
  • Some users carefully prune watch history, disable history entirely, or use separate browsers/containers to keep the algorithm under control.
  • Desired features include: stronger comment tools (visible dislikes/downvotes, profile histories, reply inbox), better search, and ways to discover channels via other channels’ subscriptions.

Premium, ads & ethics

  • YouTube Premium is praised for being truly ad‑free in playback (with tools like “skip section” for in‑video sponsorships) and including Music; some happily pay and consider it their only subscription.
  • Others resent that Premium feels like paying to stop harassment—ads described as aggressive, weird, or AI‑like—and see this pattern (“free version deliberately unpleasant”) as predatory.
  • Adblocking is widely mentioned on desktop; on mobile, options are more limited, leading to either tolerating ads or subscribing.

Addiction, time use & content quality

  • Multiple commenters identify as YouTube addicts or heavy users, often using longform content as “background noise.” Some deliberately enforce time/intentionality rules or use tools to curb usage.
  • There’s debate over video length and “time respect”: some feel many 20–30 minute videos could be 3 minutes, driven by monetization incentives; others explicitly prefer detailed, documentary‑style depth and reject ultra‑short, TikTok‑style summaries.
  • Many argue YouTube now offers educational and documentary content that rivals or exceeds traditional TV in quality, produced by small, independent creators.
  • Others associate YouTube with “quick and dirty” or low‑effort looping content, and use self‑hosted solutions (e.g., Jellyfin) to favor long‑form, intentional viewing.