Google made a mistake with YouTube Premium

Features
By
last updated

Google canned its Premium Lite option, tying YouTube Music to an ad-free streaming experience. It's still disappointing.

YouTube Premium homepage on Android
(Image credit: Jay Bonggolto / Android Central)

I'm certain Google execs think the YouTube Premium + YouTube Music bundle is generous and fairly priced. For some people, it's not.

It's nearly a year on since YouTube raised Premium's price from $11.99 to $13.99. From that point on, YouTube killed its short-lived Premium Lite experiment, ensuring you had to pay for Music in addition to Premium.

Google then ended its grandfathered YouTube Red plans at the beginning of 2024, so people used to paying $8 or $10 suddenly had their bills skyrocket. Finally, it spent this year finding every possible method of counteracting ad blockers.

I'm a bit late to the discussion. Since the price hike, I scrounged a year or so of free YouTube Premium thanks to free 3-month trials from various Android phones, tablets, and watches. Now that they've run out, I've grown accustomed to seeing an ad every 10 minutes or less, or if I pause too long and the page auto-refreshes, or if I scroll back to check something and hit an ad checkpoint. 

YouTube doesn't care how obnoxious the experience is for everyday viewers. It wants to annoy us into giving Google money and enhancing its bottom line. The problem is how much they charge. 

YouTube Premium Galaxy Z Fold 3.

(Image credit: Andrew Myrick / Android Central)

Let's do a little comparative exercise. Most streaming platforms now offer a low-tier ad option, followed by an ad-free upgrade. They all cost more than YouTube, a free service. But how much does each platform charge to remove ads, specifically?

  • Prime Video ($3)
  • HBO Max ($6)
  • Paramount+ ($6)
  • Peacock ($6)
  • Netflix ($8.50)
  • Hulu ($10)
  • Disney+ ($10)
  • YouTube ($14)

Streaming companies have the same mandate from shareholders to maximize profits, and they've all begun to alienate long-time customers by geolocking accounts. They're just as greedy for our money, in other words. And even they wouldn't charge an extra $14 for no ads. 

Edit: To clarify, I'm aware that you have to pay for these other services and that YouTube starts off free. Obviously, Prime Video is only a "deal" if you pay for Prime, and these services end up being more expensive than Premium overall. I'm specifically pointing out the one thing related to this article: removing ads. And Google charges more for that than anyone else, bundling in a lot more stuff to bring the total price closer to other services.

"Now hold on," I can picture YouTube CEO Neal Mohan saying, "Those don't give you a music streaming service in the bargain." And that's true! Most music streaming services cost about $11/month, including YouTube Music. So to spend only $3 more for no YouTube ads is eminently fair. 

This assumes, however, that you care about YouTube Music. And I don't. I had to use it while reviewing the Fitbit Charge 6 — which, annoyingly, blocks playback controls for every music app besides YouTube Music. Otherwise, I haven't gotten my money's worth. 

It's not that YouTube Music is bad. My coworkers swear by it, and its music recommendations aren't bad, if not quite as on point as what I've gotten from Spotify or Apple Music. I simply don't need it, as I have all of my MP3 files and playlists somewhere else! I could switch, but I dislike having that choice made for me.

Edit: Removing my mention of local files streaming. It's not that YT Music can't stream local files, it's that my coworker found that it struggled to load the files, making it unusable for him. Perhaps that's no longer an issue? Regardless, my main point — that not everyone needs another music streaming service foisted on them, no matter how good it is — was being lost.

Compare YouTube Premium and Apple One. Premium is $6 less per month, and some people might not care about Apple throwing in Arcade and a meager 50GB of iCloud storage. On the other hand, you aren't forced to pay for Apple One; you can subscribe to Music by itself, or TV+ by itself.

A Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 5 running YouTube Music next to a Greygreen Galaxy Z Fold 4

(Image credit: Nicholas Sutrich / Android Central)

If I could sneak into YouTube's offices and send emails from Mohan's computer, I'd mandate a few changes. For instance, I'd offer an annual Premium family plan so that entertaining the whole family with endless streaming was more affordable. I'd also add a Google One bundle with ad-free YouTube, in addition to the current Gemini Advanced AI bundle. 

But those don't qualify as "mistakes," merely missed opportunities. Not expanding its $7/month YouTube Premium Lite outside of Europe was a mistake. 

If Google offered a slightly cheaper ad-free experience, it would have a heck of a lot more Premium subscribers than 100 million. Yes, that might temporarily decrease the flow of its money hose to shareholders, but it would bring in more people than Android power users in the long run — users who love YouTube but don't need another music platform. 

It could still try to upsell people to the main Premium tier with 4K videos, video downloads, background play, and Music. That's a fair amount of value to double the subscription cost! But leave it for consumers to choose, with a Lite option to open up long hours of streaming to more people. 

Instead, I'm certain Google will keep YouTube Premium bogged down with an inflated price to keep Music's subscriber numbers consistent. And since Premium is too expensive for some folks, they'll grit their teeth and endure videos oversaturated with ads.

Michael L Hicks
Michael L Hicks
Senior Editor, Wearables & AR/VR

Michael is Android Central's resident expert on wearables and fitness. Before joining Android Central, he freelanced for years at Techradar, Wareable, Windows Central, and Digital Trends. Channeling his love of running, he established himself as an expert on fitness watches, testing and reviewing models from Garmin, Fitbit, Samsung, Apple, COROS, Polar, Amazfit, Suunto, and more.

25 Comments Comment from the forums
  • aleftshoe
    This is a ridiculous article.
    Aside from the poor criticism of YT Music with no viable alternative to your gripes, you fail to recognize it as much more than competent as it does everything the other streaming services do, including uploading your own files, including being able to add YouTube videos to your playlist/likes/queue, and the fact that YouTube can easily be a 60 hour per week usage.
    Working any job from home/overnight/delivery/valet or anything else that allows for focused/solo work means you can just listen to YouTube in the background. 50 hours, 200 hours of any random podcast that isn't on Spotify or anything else as easily, random video essays, independent news, or anything else.

    Not including also the 5 person family plan that is 23 bucks a month, so your children don't have to be drowning in advertisments because children are gonna spend most of their time on YouTube and not the other shit you mentioned.

    This is honestly one of those articles people phone in and do no critical thinking for. It's a click and a paycheck and that's it.
    Reply
  • gatorboi352
    aleftshoe said:
    This is a ridiculous article.
    Aside from the poor criticism of YT Music with no viable alternative to your gripes, you fail to recognize it as much more than competent as it does everything the other streaming services do, including uploading your own files, including being able to add YouTube videos to your playlist/likes/queue, and the fact that YouTube can easily be a 60 hour per week usage.
    Working any job from home/overnight/delivery/valet or anything else that allows for focused/solo work means you can just listen to YouTube in the background. 50 hours, 200 hours of any random podcast that isn't on Spotify or anything else as easily, random video essays, independent news, or anything else.

    Not including also the 5 person family plan that is 23 bucks a month, so your children don't have to be drowning in advertisments because children are gonna spend most of their time on YouTube and not the other **** you mentioned.

    This is honestly one of those articles people phone in and do no critical thinking for. It's a click and a paycheck and that's it.
    Not to mention the blatant false claim that YT Music can't play local files.

    Click Library -> Device Files from the upper left drop down menu selector (on Android).

    I watch more YouTube than every other piece of video from any other service combined. Gladly paying for Premium. Sad article.
    Reply
  • jimbarr
    And the numbers aren't 100% genuine. "Amazon Video" requires an Amazon Prime account. And while Prime certainly adds additional features beyond video, you still have to pay $18 per month ($15 for Prime + $3 for no ads) which is more than YT Premium.
    Reply
  • cazmn01
    The list of ad removal fees is misleading. Amazon Prime charges $3/month to remove ads ON TOP of the $149/year fee for access. ALL of the services you mention charge a monthly fee JUST TO USE them. I agree that YT Premium is too expensive for what it is, and you should be able to subscribe to just YT and/or YTM without bundling. However, your argument needs a better premise. You can't compare the ad removal fee without mentioning the access fee. YTP is still less expensive than the ad free version of all of the comparison services, and the ad supported version is free.
    Reply
  • cazmn01
    jimbarr said:
    And the numbers aren't 100% genuine. "Amazon Video" requires an Amazon Prime account. And while Prime certainly adds additional features beyond video, you still have to pay $18 per month ($15 for Prime + $3 for no ads) which is more than YT Premium.
    Prime is an especially bad comparison because most people don't subscribe to prime for the streaming service. They pay for "free shipping" and access to the prime credit card for the 5% cash back.
    Reply
  • Michael L Hicks
    Hi all! A couple of points of clarification.
    1. I meant to say that my coworker found that when he streamed local music files on YT Music, it lagged for him to the point that it wasn't convenient, not that he couldn't do it. Perhaps that issue has been fixed, but it was his complaint that stuck out in my mind because I have a lot of local music files I listen to.
    2. Yes, I'm aware that these other streaming services charge more overall, and that YouTube is free, and that you can get a lot of value out of no ads and YT Music. I'm very specifically talking about removing ads and how other companies charge less for that one thing, while Google bundles in more content to make people pay a price similar to the overall price of a streaming service (about $15/month).

    I'm super glad that y'all get great value out of this service. I'm simply pointing out that part of that value is predicated on whether you are willing to switch music services or already like YT Music. If Google had stuck with Premium Lite and expanded it worldwide, that would've helped all those people who use YT to keep themselves entertained for hours during the work week.

    As it is, I know there are plenty of people upset that it costs so much now that the grandfathered price has gone away, that would gratefully pay less for a Lite plan.
    Reply
  • DorothyZbornak
    YouTube Premium offers access to hundreds of petabytes of content, which is multitudes more than any other streaming service. This vast amount of content provides significantly greater utility to the average user. Given this immense library, YouTube could easily justify charging much more for its Premium service. The YT Music element is irrelevant.
    Reply
  • bcweir
    How do I give this a thumbs up? The one thing more irritating than YouTube ads is reading about people complaining about them but refusing to pay for YouTube Premium. This article reads like the freeloader that comes to your house uninvited, eats all your food then has a tantrum when you ask them to chip in for the groceries to fund the free raid on your fridge.

    What these free loaders don't understand is that it COSTS MONEY to operate the largest video content site on internet, because God knows the free loaders sure aren't going to it

    For crying out loud, either stop crying about the ads paying for your entertainment (since you obviously won't) or get your self respect back and just start paying for your consumption. It's SEVENTEEN DOLLARS a month already. Stop the crying.
    Reply
  • eagleeye
    I'm not sure where all the hate is coming from in the comments. Tl;Dr I use Spotify so YT Premium is overpriced, period. Also, comparing the two on Pixel 8 and 7a, YT music kills battery life 75% faster, making it useless to me.
    Reply
  • libertao
    Hahaha not only that you still use old mp3s and playlists but that you unironically wrote it in an article as a viable option for people shows how completely out of touch you are. What percentage of people in US do you think use mp3s? I wish my YouTube Premium cost less, and my older kid doesn't think it's as cool as Apple/Spotify, but everyone appreciates the lack of ads. I even added my gf to the plan and she was so happy when she realized how great it is.
    Reply