[paxys]

Very dependent on location. I pay $18 for a sandwich and $5.50 for a latte, so this seems pretty cheap in comparison. I'd pay for it in a heartbeat. YouTube Premium at $14/mo is IMO one of the best value subscriptions out there.

[makeitdouble]

I'd pay 5.5 for a delicious latte that will push me through my day, produced by a shop that cares about quality and that I also want to stay in business. There's a lot of strings attached to the price tag.

Facebook and Instagram are none of that.

[andybak]

See my comment above for why I didn't subscribe to YouTube premium. Interesting to see you've reached a very different conclusion.

[yoyohello13]

I use so much YouTube, the bundling didn't bother me. I didn't initially care about YouTube Music, but after giving it a try I find it better than Spotify for my purposes anyway so it worked out.

[gorkish]

Youtube's relationship with the music industry has led to this weird situation where they basically cannot separate the licensing concerns, hence the pack-in of the music service. I respect that you want to dig your heels in on some weird principle of not paying for something twice, but on a pure time-value-of-money basis, pretty much any music or video streaming service is worth the subscription if you use it more than a couple of hours each month.

[rvnx]

In addition, YouTube doesn't remove the ads that are baked into the video stream itself.

At the end of the day, you are paying 10 USD+ per month for an "ad-free experience", and still get ads because YouTube doesn't keep its promises.

And there is no excuse for that, content creators could mark when sponsored segments are starting and ending, and YouTube could skip them.

[yoyohello13]

In those cases, 100% of that add revenue is going to the content creator so it doesn't bother me as much.

[munk-a]

Also, Sponsorblock exists.

[coldpie]

Those are not YouTube ads. YouTube doesn't receive any money from them.

[rvnx]

So, what's the issue here?

When you subscribe to YouTube for ad-free content, you're essentially paying for an uninterrupted viewing experience.

This is similar to how you'd expect no ads when you pay for a service like Netflix.

For example, imagine watching "The Matrix" on Netflix and being unexpectedly interrupted by an Oreo commercial—it would be frustrating, especially since you paid for an ad-free experience.

The issue with YouTube is that if they were to remove baked-in in-stream ads for Premium users, it might require them to compensate content creators more indirectly, which in turn could reduce Google's profits.

This creates a financial disincentive for YouTube to fully eliminate ads.

As a result, you might find be better if you use software like SponsorBlock.

This situation is paradoxical; ideally, paying customers should receive the best user experience directly from the platform, and be rewarded for that.

Technically, there is no limitation, LinusTechTips can perfectly take 1 minute to add a marker for its sponsored segments, at the moment he ticks "This video contains sponsored content".

A more truthful description for YouTube Premium could be: "Pay 10 USD / month, to remove a lot of, but not all the ads", and then you understand it's not that of a good deal.

[coldpie]

> You pay YouTube to provide you ad-free content

No, I pay YouTube to not show me YouTube ads. Separately, I also pay several content creators for their content without ads. I pay the person showing me ads to stop showing me ads.

> Wouldn't you get upset if Netflix is streaming to you "The Matrix", and in the middle of it there is an advertising for Oreos?

If that ad is a part of the movie as it was shown in theatres or on other streaming services, then no, I wouldn't be upset at Netflix.

[rvnx]

> No, I pay YouTube to not show me YouTube ads. Separately, I also pay several content creators for their content without ads. I pay the person showing me ads to stop showing me ads.

When you use YouTube Premium, you are paying the creator for each view, and they still show you the ads, and you find it acceptable ?

> If that ad is a part of the movie as it was shown in theatres or on other streaming services, then no, I wouldn't be upset at Netflix.

Sounds like you agree to pay for Spotify Premium but still get interruptions in the music.

[gorkish]

> "The Matrix", and in the middle of it there is an advertising for Oreos, though you paid for the ad-free experience

Interesting that you picked a movie series quite well known for it's product placement marketing-- I'm sure if Nabisco had been on board, the Oracle would happily have given Neo an Oreo instead of a fresh baked chocolate chip cookie.

[rvnx]

"Neo, we're going to meet the Oracle, (camera panning out), but first, let me introduce you to Twinkies. Have you heard about this sponge-cake ? Get 2 boxes for 4.99 USD, and get extra -10% if you enter THEMATRIX code during checkout."