[next_xibalba]

> by far the most common mistake startups make is to solve problems no one has. - Paul Graham [1]

I think this proposal points at an interesting issue that I see crop up often on sites like HN. It goes (I think) like this: 1) "I care deeply about what I perceive to be a problem." 2) Extrapolates onto some large critical mass of people, 3) That critical mass of people does not actually agree with the problem statement in any way, 4) Build a solution, never gets meaningful traction, misdiagnoses the root cause of the failure.

I'm not saying this to dump on this idea. Rather, I think it is a meaningful bias that all humans are vulnerable too. But I do think that filter bubbles amplify whatever this bias is to a powerful degree. If you are surrounded by people who are obsessed with privacy, it seems like everyone is inflamed by the economic model of social networks. But, outside the small filter bubble, most other people don't care at all or actually think its a great model.

Having said all of that, maybe a way to test whether you are experiencing this bias is to interview or collect information from as close to a random sample of social media users as possible. The more random the better. If you find yourself talking to people in SF/Seattle or people in the tech industry, that's a sure sign you have a bad sample. When you talk to them, don't ask leading questions that will bias them. Try to understand what their unbiased views on the problems (if any) are with social networks. Maybe you ask them what their best friend thinks so as to try to sidestep preference falsification. If you discover a consistent problem, maybe you're onto something. But then, you're still up against a world saturated with social networks, and convincing people to pay for something they get for free will be very, very hard. I think, ultimately, the only way you'll discover whether the problems you may have found are really important or not is if you can convince anyone to pay you. I suspect it will be a Sisyphean endeavor.

[1] https://paulgraham.com/startupideas.html

[bryanrasmussen]

I'm going to just add a question to this - if you assume that privacy is a concern that a large enough base of users have that your service can generate enough revenue to support it - why do you think that celebrities and the like are in the group of people who would care about privacy, the main selling point of your service.

It seems to me that, by definition, it is the quality they care least about as they already do not have it anywhere else in their life. And you want them to be attracting more users by being "the celebrity" which is a person without privacy.

[frunkopop]

Pretty sure listening to PG over your gut (or worse, your brain) is a more common startup mistake than that one.

[yawnxyz]

Tiktok solves a problem no one has, and look at it go.

Not a dig on PG or Tiktok. It's just such an outlier I don't really understand it, and to me it breaks the framework.

[chatmasta]

TikTok clearly solves two problems that fit squarely within Maslow’s hierarchy of needs:

1. For content consumers: “I’m bored, and want to be entertained with minimal effort.”

2. For content creators: “I’m externally motivated and need the self validation that comes from attention and praise.”

Solutions to these problems have been sold for hundreds of years and trillions of dollars in profit. TikTok is the latest and possibly most efficient iteration on solving them.

[wruza]

Youtube already solved 1, 2.

What TikTok really solves is mixing a song from its library into your video and applying a cool visual effect.

No one with a youtube account is gonna download a separate video editing app and build a production pipeline at day 1 (plus copyright issues). It’s a stopper that separates viewers from creators. TikTok made creation trivial and that itself created an enormous funnel. It could afford to not even be a “short” video platform, that’s just a coincidence.

[chatmasta]

> What TikTok really solves is mixing a song from its library into your video and applying a cool visual effect.

That's what Musically solved 10 years ago, but it's not what TikTok is solving today. At this point, that feature is no different than the ability to add stickers to your Instagram post.

...which is not to undersell the achievement of Musically/TikTok. I specifically remember back in 2015, discussing whether such an app would even be a success, and deciding that nobody would ever film themselves karoke'ing to a song... but here we are.

[yawnxyz]

right, and you don't get to any of these problems by "talking to the customer" b/c they'll never just say "I’m bored, and want to be entertained with minimal effort" — or at least, that's kind of obvious

it breaks the framework bc to make a successful company like tiktok, you'd build "obvious" apps like this, and wouldn't really need to ask customers what their needs are

[throwaway519]

Self-validation is Herzberg (motivator, not hygiene).

Maslow hierarchy of needs is: Physical, Safety, Social, Esteem, Self-actualisation.

[chatmasta]

I'd put the TikTok validators under safety/esteem, but thanks for the reference to Herzberg, I hadn't seen that before.

[next_xibalba]

I disagree… sort of. TikTok found a better way to deliver video content. The problem was, video content and its associated social data, sucked. Most of us just didn’t realize it. But TikTok did. And they were right. It’s sort of like how you didn’t realize that horses sucked for transportation until you saw car. A flawed metaphor, but you get my point. I think a distinction here is that video, in the TikTok, is the product. Privacy is not. You aren’t entertained or informed by privacy. It’s like insurance. You only value it when something bad happens. And if your business model is less good entertainment/information, but with some insurance on the side, seems like a very tough pitch.

Now, of course, that points out a flaw in my original post. Very hard to get people to articulate something of which they are unaware.

[sureglymop]

They also didn't come first. Vine was a very popular platform that seemingly shut down out of the blue (at the height of it's popularity). There was no real replacement for a long time after that. Tiktok first started out as Musically, allowing people to create mainly dance and lipsync videos. Only later they rebranded to Tiktok and pivoted to general purpose video content.

The point is, even tiktok didn't just get right and had to pivot and maybe that is key. So to the op I would say: try your idea but just be very very spontaneous and flexible to change it quickly if it doesn't work.

[yawnxyz]

yeah exactly, no amounts of user research would lead to "people want a platform like tiktok"

[musicale]

With the possible exception of Vine's 200 million users.