[homebrewer]

$14 is two days worth of living in my country for your average man on the street, among many other similar places. Imagine if you had to pay $200 to watch YouTube, that's how much these services cost for us.

They refuse to correct for purchasing power parity and are left with nothing in the end. Steam seems to do very well in comparison.

(I don't watch YouTube even for free, but practically everybody I know does without paying anything, and it makes a lot of sense).

[carlosjobim]

There are a lot of things in this world besides YouTube Premium, which cost $14 or more. That some people in the world are very poor is no kind of argument as to how companies should price their products.

"Purchasing power parity" is a non-concept for almost 100% of companies and products. But YouTube Premium is priced differently in different regions. Sometimes much cheaper than $14.

[embedding-shape]

The person you're responding to is not debating that the companies are setting the wrong prices, so no need to try to convince them that the companies are already setting prices "the right way".

They're explaining for people who don't seem to understand, why people are fine signing in to these kind of 3rd party apps in the first place, because the subscription price ends up being what these people earn in days, not hours.

[balamatom]

A semi-successful YouTuber in a low-income country is basically an infinite money hack. Neat little form of advance scouting, like this forum.