First of all, let me say that I love YouTube, there are content creators covering so many genres I am interested in, then there are those random ones where I just enjoy the esthetic or the feel.
For over a year I have been watching the HoofGP even though I am not overly a cow fan and remotely involved in farming. In the same way, I have loved watching Sheepishly Me, the lambing videos will never get old, at least I find the lambs cute.
I am not remotely in shape never mind fit and yet enjoy watching Nile Wilson and his pose getting up to all sorts of gymnastics and other sporting antics.
In December I took out a months trial of premium to keep up with Vlogmas and I loved it, even though I knew I couldn't afford to continue with it. At no point did I use their music service I don't need it, all I wanted was to remove the annoying adverts.
My initial thoughts were to shrug it off as another downside of living on a limited budget due to having a chronic illness. Then I read a conversation on Facebook in a productivity group and discovered that YouTube premium is far from equal. In some countries like India, the cost is less than a quarter of what it is in the UK.
Before anyone jumps on me I know that there are people in India whose yearly income is no doubt minuscule, although, of course, the cost of living is hugely less in India too. We need to remember that there are also millionaires in India too.
So my question is if Google has decided that YouTube Premium should differ in price depending upon circumstance for what reason are they applying the same circumstances to everyone within a particular country regardless of circumstances.
To make things even easier, why don't they consider a second lower price to just remove adverts. Why on earth would anyone want to pay more for advert removal than it costs per month for some whole streaming platforms. Or was the whole purpose just to try and grow their music platform and the removal of adverts was just thrown in as an afterthought.