[briffle]

Youtube is $14/month. netflix is $17/month. That is VERY expensive, considering that most of Netflix's cost is production. Youtube has almost no production costs. Their users create content.

Maybe if they paid their users more, so they didn't also have to add 'sponsor segments' inside their video's it would make more sense. The bundling music for the same price is the same crap cable and phone companies have been doing for decades, that most people hate. Let me buy just youtube without ads, and keep spotify.

But as it sits right now, $14/month for video's without youtube ads, but still with ads added by the creators themselves (or paid promotion, I guess) is pretty expensive, compared to $17/month for actual movies with no ads at all.

[BXlnt2EachOther]

YouTube gives, I think, 55% of revenue (not just profits) to creators, which could be considered similar to production costs making up a majority of expenses.

[mirashii]

Just for comparison, Netflix in 2024 spent somewhere between $14B and $17B on content, and made $34B in revenue.

[blinding-streak]

But Netflix doesn't let you upload your own videos and show them to anyone on earth. The businesses are different.

[vunderba]

You're not wrong, but the amount of content on YouTube (that they need to index, store, and stream) is several orders of magnitude more than what's on Netflix.

And for that matter, the number of active viewers is also significantly higher since there's no paywall. AND they also support live streaming.

[smoe]

I switched from Spotify to Youtube Music a couple of years ago because of Spotify showing disruptive ads/promotions on the premium plan. YT Premium for Music + Videos is worth it for me, being about 2.5USD more expensive per month than Spotify where I live. But I agree that one should just be able to subscribe to them separately.

[bobsmooth]

$14 is the average cost for a McDonald's trip. It's really not that much.