News Google made a mistake with YouTube Premium

[AC News]

Google squandered goodwill by raising the price of Premium and ending its grandfathered plans for long-time subscribers. Premium Lite was the solution, but it killed it for the sake of maximizing profits.

Google made a mistake with YouTube Premium : Read more

 

[aleftshoe]

This is a ridiculous article.
Aside from the poor criticism of YT Music with no viable alternative to your gripes, you fail to recognize it as much more than competent as it does everything the other streaming services do, including uploading your own files, including being able to add YouTube videos to your playlist/likes/queue, and the fact that YouTube can easily be a 60 hour per week usage.
Working any job from home/overnight/delivery/valet or anything else that allows for focused/solo work means you can just listen to YouTube in the background. 50 hours, 200 hours of any random podcast that isn't on Spotify or anything else as easily, random video essays, independent news, or anything else.

Not including also the 5 person family plan that is 23 bucks a month, so your children don't have to be drowning in advertisments because children are gonna spend most of their time on YouTube and not the other **** you mentioned.

This is honestly one of those articles people phone in and do no critical thinking for. It's a click and a paycheck and that's it.

 

[gatorboi352]

This is a ridiculous article.
Aside from the poor criticism of YT Music with no viable alternative to your gripes, you fail to recognize it as much more than competent as it does everything the other streaming services do, including uploading your own files, including being able to add YouTube videos to your playlist/likes/queue, and the fact that YouTube can easily be a 60 hour per week usage.
Working any job from home/overnight/delivery/valet or anything else that allows for focused/solo work means you can just listen to YouTube in the background. 50 hours, 200 hours of any random podcast that isn't on Spotify or anything else as easily, random video essays, independent news, or anything else.

Not including also the 5 person family plan that is 23 bucks a month, so your children don't have to be drowning in advertisments because children are gonna spend most of their time on YouTube and not the other **** you mentioned.

This is honestly one of those articles people phone in and do no critical thinking for. It's a click and a paycheck and that's it.

Not to mention the blatant false claim that YT Music can't play local files.

Click Library -> Device Files from the upper left drop down menu selector (on Android).

I watch more YouTube than every other piece of video from any other service combined. Gladly paying for Premium. Sad article.

 

[jimbarr]

And the numbers aren't 100% genuine. "Amazon Video" requires an Amazon Prime account. And while Prime certainly adds additional features beyond video, you still have to pay $18 per month ($15 for Prime + $3 for no ads) which is more than YT Premium.

 

[cazmn01]

The list of ad removal fees is misleading. Amazon Prime charges $3/month to remove ads ON TOP of the $149/year fee for access. ALL of the services you mention charge a monthly fee JUST TO USE them. I agree that YT Premium is too expensive for what it is, and you should be able to subscribe to just YT and/or YTM without bundling. However, your argument needs a better premise. You can't compare the ad removal fee without mentioning the access fee. YTP is still less expensive than the ad free version of all of the comparison services, and the ad supported version is free.

 

[cazmn01]

And the numbers aren't 100% genuine. "Amazon Video" requires an Amazon Prime account. And while Prime certainly adds additional features beyond video, you still have to pay $18 per month ($15 for Prime + $3 for no ads) which is more than YT Premium.

Prime is an especially bad comparison because most people don't subscribe to prime for the streaming service. They pay for "free shipping" and access to the prime credit card for the 5% cash back.

 

[Michael L Hicks]

Hi all! A couple of points of clarification.
1. I meant to say that my coworker found that when he streamed local music files on YT Music, it lagged for him to the point that it wasn't convenient, not that he couldn't do it. Perhaps that issue has been fixed, but it was his complaint that stuck out in my mind because I have a lot of local music files I listen to.
2. Yes, I'm aware that these other streaming services charge more overall, and that YouTube is free, and that you can get a lot of value out of no ads and YT Music. I'm very specifically talking about removing ads and how other companies charge less for that one thing, while Google bundles in more content to make people pay a price similar to the overall price of a streaming service (about $15/month).

I'm super glad that y'all get great value out of this service. I'm simply pointing out that part of that value is predicated on whether you are willing to switch music services or already like YT Music. If Google had stuck with Premium Lite and expanded it worldwide, that would've helped all those people who use YT to keep themselves entertained for hours during the work week.

As it is, I know there are plenty of people upset that it costs so much now that the grandfathered price has gone away, that would gratefully pay less for a Lite plan.

 

[DorothyZbornak]

YouTube Premium offers access to hundreds of petabytes of content, which is multitudes more than any other streaming service. This vast amount of content provides significantly greater utility to the average user. Given this immense library, YouTube could easily justify charging much more for its Premium service. The YT Music element is irrelevant.

 

[bcweir]

How do I give this a thumbs up? The one thing more irritating than YouTube ads is reading about people complaining about them but refusing to pay for YouTube Premium. This article reads like the freeloader that comes to your house uninvited, eats all your food then has a tantrum when you ask them to chip in for the groceries to fund the free raid on your fridge.

What these free loaders don't understand is that it COSTS MONEY to operate the largest video content site on internet, because God knows the free loaders sure aren't going to it

For crying out loud, either stop crying about the ads paying for your entertainment (since you obviously won't) or get your self respect back and just start paying for your consumption. It's SEVENTEEN DOLLARS a month already. Stop the crying.

 

[eagleeye]

I'm not sure where all the hate is coming from in the comments. Tl;Dr I use Spotify so YT Premium is overpriced, period. Also, comparing the two on Pixel 8 and 7a, YT music kills battery life 75% faster, making it useless to me.

 

[libertao]

Hahaha not only that you still use old mp3s and playlists but that you unironically wrote it in an article as a viable option for people shows how completely out of touch you are. What percentage of people in US do you think use mp3s? I wish my YouTube Premium cost less, and my older kid doesn't think it's as cool as Apple/Spotify, but everyone appreciates the lack of ads. I even added my gf to the plan and she was so happy when she realized how great it is.

 

[goodweather2024]

Haha... Someone wrote an article telling the whole world how cheap he is and not willing to pay for services. Content creaters need to get paid, if you think they are too expensive just don't pay the company and watch ads! You can still watch review videos from YouTube with ads. Or you can join a family plan to share the bill with your friends. Some streaming services won't even let you watch anything unless you pay, as least YouTube has a free option. You can't just say "I don't use this service so you should charge me lower fee" , this is ideal but the realistic world doesn't work this way. I don't watch any video channels related to finances and gardening should I complaint they charge too much?

Someone comparing Spotify and YouTube Music, ya Spotify is cheaper but they charge so low that they are losing money every year, bundling both YouTube and Music service can keep them both alive and profitable.

 

[Lather7753]

Literally registered to reply to this article (which, now that I think about it, might have been the point?). The financial comparison makes no sense. It's like comparing a car company that offers an upgrade for a premium sound system to one that has it built in and complaining that one only costs $1500 while the other costs $30k. It's a meaningless comparison.

 

[DeFunct1222]

Google is a marketing giant and doesn't make a habit of making flippant decisions. Do I wish that YT Premium had an option to exclude YT Music, yes. Can I guarantee the cost of not bundling it will be recouped by individual YT Premium subscriptions, no. Also, unlike Apple Music and Spotify, Youtube Music also has music from unpublished artists and obscure podcasts from YouTube. Premium also lets me leave off on my phone and continue the video on another device, downloads and smart downloads are a life saver on commutes and journeys, family plan gives access to all these features to 5 people in the family at a marginally increased cost. Also, lest one forget, most other platforms especially ones associated to Movie and TV studios sell tickets to their movies, air it on TV, sell them on Discs and License out their content which is absent as an alternative revenue stream for YouTube afaik.

This complaint about YT Premium isn't about the cost, it's about the fact that without it, the Author cannot tolerate ads on YouTube and now that Google has tackled AdBlockers, the Author can't find a way to not pay while simultaneously enjoy YouTube. The early years of over investment into the dot com and now the startup bubble has lead to a false sense of what can be free and what cannot on the internet. People like the author here can't seem to able to grasp the fact that just because they've been enjoying something in a particular state until now, doesn't mean that now it's the creators'/owners' responsibility to keep it the same regardless of changing dynamics their own survival and profitability be damned.

Additionally, as others have pointed out, it would've been an Apples to Apples comparison if the Author, instead of ranting, had actually engaged in quality journalism and compared all pricing options of all the services and value propositions of each package to see whether their hypothesis held any water. No mention of whether YouTube has any comment on this or of an attempt of extracting one from someone at YouTube. Sad, feckless and lazy journalism.

 

[boufa]

Ironically, I couldn't read an entire paragraph on my samsung s24 because it was hidden behind a Best Buy ad.

So thing have gotten boring for these "news sites" and so they are simply tossing out half baked opinion pieces... like youtube owes you anything. There are other services...personally I love youtube premium, I'm listening to youtube music as I type this.

 

[chidmas]

YouTube likely costs way more to run than almost al of those streaming platforms combined due to the petabytes of data stored and delivered, add on moderation and monetization means it's a totally different beast to normal streaming platforms like Netflix. You either need to see ads or pay for it. Yes it's not cheap but just because it was cheap before does not mean that it should have been that price. Think of Uber. For years, people were paying less the reality was venture capitalists were subsidising your rides. Overall I think this was a badly thought out article, apples to orange comparison and a moan about having to pay for YouTube after not having to pay for it. You can complain and that's fine but making bizarre comparisons ignoring the base required tiers for streaming platforms makes absolutely zero sense

 

[eyedunnoh]

Ironically, I couldn't read an entire paragraph on my samsung s24 because it was hidden behind a Best Buy ad.

So thing have gotten boring for these "news sites" and so they are simply tossing out half baked opinion pieces... like youtube owes you anything. There are other services...personally I love youtube premium, I'm listening to youtube music as I type this.

Literally came here to say the same thing, I couldn't read the article because of the scrolling ads.

 

[DeFunct1222]

Literally came here to say the same thing, I couldn't read the article because of the scrolling ads.

Right. I'll agree with this kind of whiny article when the author invents a monetisation strategy that pays for servers, infrastructure, employees and creators without ad revenue or subscriptions. Until then, pay up or shut up.

 

[MelmanVT]

You covered most of why YouTube premium isn't for me, even if I'm not sure about your math on some of the services. If there was a YouTube lite without music I could add to my Google One account for a few dollars I'd definitely want it - especially if there was a family plan

 

[illitero]

Hahaha not only that you still use old mp3s and playlists but that you unironically wrote it in an article as a viable option for people shows how completely out of touch you are. What percentage of people in US do you think use mp3s? I wish my YouTube Premium cost less, and my older kid doesn't think it's as cool as Apple/Spotify, but everyone appreciates the lack of ads. I even added my gf to the plan and she was so happy when she realized how great it is.

You're calling ownership of music out of touch? You got stock in Apple or something? Maybe Ubisoft/EA? There is no sane person that calls ownership and self-reliance "out of touch." Be proud of your willing reliance on an internet connection and digital subscriptions, but don't act like you aren't left with nothing the moment some of the hundreds of links between you and the content you're borrowing goes down — leaving you in silence with nothing you can do to remedy it. Calling somebody out of touch for having "old" mp3s, you absolute brat hahaha