[MediumD]

You have any numbers to support that profitability claim? YouTube wasn't profitable when Google acquired them, and it wouldn't surprise me if they still were not profitable now. I'm sure they make substantial ad revenue, and it's entirely possible they are profitable. But running servers and content creators getting paid are not proof of that - Google has more than enough money to subsidize the endeavor.

[myusernameisok]

Google also seemingly hasn't been trying very hard to make Youtube profitable. Spotify has a free tier, but you only get the "standard" 160 kpbs bitrate, as well as ads. To get the "extreme" 320 kbps bitrate you need to subscribe. Youtube could have easily restricted 720p and 1080p to paying customers, but didn't. I think now it's too late for Youtube to reverse their decision on that without some backlash.

[yellowapple]

Spotify also has other restrictions on the free tier, though (for example, you have to have a premium account to run Spotify on a Fire TV Stick (or any other Amazon device AFAICT)). Google/Alphabet might be able to get away with imposing similar restrictions on certain YouTube integrations without too much backlash.