Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ProfessorLayton 564 days ago
YouTube Premium costs 90% as much as a standard Netflix subscription, but with one major difference: Netflix needs to spend ~17B on content per year to collect that $15.49/mo.

Youtube gets content for free and pays out a revenue share. If they also had to spend billions on content, they would have to charge more than $13.99/mo.
2 comments
johnnyanmac 560 days ago
well it's not really "free" in that case, is it? The other issue is that those payouts vary a lot on whatever is ad-friendly and various other channel statistics we never see in public.

But yes, Youtube (to my charaign. There's loads of problems) is very much the "indie scene" in comparison, where it doesn't need highly produced million dollar sitcoms to bring in viewers.

link
wat10000 564 days ago
And YouTube’s content is far more interesting, useful, and entertaining. Hence why I pay for YouTube and don’t even use the “free” Netflix subscription I have with my cell phone plan.

Not sure what your point is besides YouTube’s offering being far superior both in terms of content and not showing ads when you’re already paying.

link
ProfessorLayton 564 days ago
My point was that YT already charges a lot for content they get for free, and if they had to license/create it, they would need to charge much more. Spotify is partly owned by record labels, and they have other incentives that are affect subscription pricing.

Their subscription model is not really that comparable to other services that have high acquisition costs for content.

link