Just received an email from Google saying that our Family plan is increasing from $17.99 to $32.99 a month. This represents an 83% increase. Not sure how this is justified, seems completely ridiculous.
YouTube Premium Family Plan Increase to $32.99 a Month
klonky on 02/11/2023 - 11:27
Last edited 02/11/2023 - 11:30
Last edited 02/11/2023 - 11:30
Related Stores
Comments
I am with youtube Pakistan, charges me around $5 for family plan - my family in Australia & Pakistan are happy :D
While it's a a fairly hefty jump, and Google are absolute grubs, I'm sure most people who subscribe to Youtube Premium get $32.99 a month value from it.
Between this and Twitter charging more and more I'm getting closer to going back to IRC and warez.
Twitter charging more and more
I'm out of the loop now, what is Twitter charging for? I thought that was just to be verified?
They aren't charging here yet, they are trialling a small charge in NZ and I forget which other country…
I cannot remember if it's a dollar a month or a dollar a year but it's not huge. Still not worth it if they do it here for me, since I only rarely use Twitter.
It's less the fact of it being charged $1 a month and more the fact of another company that will need your payment details. Plus wasn't this whole thing supposed to be about free speech lol
IRC is still there, but I wish you hadn’t put it in the same sentence as ‘warez’ - they don’t go hand in hand :-p (yes, I’m one of those people who used to use Usenet for communication too :-p)
Not sure why people use these corporate messaging systems when non corporate ones exist! :-)
You just need to sign up as Ssssssniperwolf. Apparently she can do no wrong.
doxxxx
Anybody had any success contacting YouTube support to get a loyalty retention offer to soften the blow?
I spoke to YouTube support (chat) and they didn't give a shit and just regurgitated the same lines from the email about improving Premium and supporting creators. I've been a family subscriber since the very beginning.
Well that's annoying.
Well you do realise the support agents were not the ones to make the decision to increase the price, likely have no leverage in order to provide a discount and have to follow a standard script.
Thanks for letting me know, I thought it was the support agents that made all company decisions. You do realise that company's often have goodwill budgets they set aside for customers to aid retention, Foxtel wouldn't have any customers if they didn't for example.
@BargainMe: Places like Foxtel and Hellofresh give out account credits like no tomorrow because that's what their business model is and they have very strong competitors. They bake the retention budget into their pricing so they've got lots of room to wiggle it.
You also do realise that there is a whole data profile on you and your habits. Whether you pay for YouTube Premium or watch ads, Google is still making money. They know there's not exactly an equal to YouTube so they can put that YouTube "goodwill budget" into other areas.This is why fundamental business concepts should be taught in schools.
@BargainMe: Foxtel survives thanks to boomers who need Sky News and don't know how streaming services work, nor do they want to learn.
No email for me. YouTube still saying $23 hmm.
Kids'll have to learn to cope with ads if it's true.
I got mine 11 hours ago, so might be coming to you soon
I wonder how many users they will lose over this.
I've been a member for a long time, family account with my wife and kids. $17.99 was fine, $32.99 is taking the piss. I get that we were on a grandfathered deal, but what was it for new users before this rise??
It has been worth it for simplicity, especially for the kids iPads, we also use a few google assistants around the house so it all works nicely. Time to look at overseas trips or just cutting the Youtube/Music cord and calling it done. For me at least I'm a grump old man and listed to the same decades old music anyway :P
@The Hawk: Hardly any. People just whinge about it for a day or two and life goes back to normal.
When Netflix cracked down on password sharing, there was a larger than usual drop in subscriptions, followed by a surge later. E.g. People quit in protest but their addiction/habit forced them to come back.
But with netflix without subscription you can't access anything. With YT - same content + ads.
wait until some marketting genius at YT works out that they could incentivse content creators to make premium only content.
Heh, I quit Netflix then they decided to woke curate their collection and remove shit like Casa Blanca.
I'd never watch it but it's not up to them to dictate what I should and shouldn't watch.
Just download all the music and listen to them offline.
Realised Apple had been charging me $42 for a while and before that $30. Guess they take the extra apple charges into the bill.
Switched to direct billing with Google, now $15 as I am currently in KSA, using an Aussie Amex.
So I guess use a VPN and try billing to another country.
didn't realize the average KSA citizen was that rich for them to charge $15.
Is it possible to migrate a family plan over to whatever regional pricing is in vogue and still retain youtube music libraries etc?
I got the email for my family plan. $32.99 !!! they're having a laugh. Mine doesn't change until April 2024 so time to sit on it, but already teeing up the fam to start getting ready for Spotify.
https://github.com/yuliskov/smarttube
SmartTube for Android and FireTVs, also skips sponsor adverts, I had premium but still got annoyed by sponsor adverts. Can chose to skip intro's, fillers… it's great.Received the email. Immediately cancelled.
Up until a month or two go i was paying for Stan, Binge, netflix, apple and youtube premium.
I have now dropped it to netflix on the base setting so the kids can watch some shows and apple.
Im expecting to cull apple soon and will likely head to the high seas as the numerous price increases has become absurd.
Mine jumped from around $24 to $33. Pretty significant but I'm paying for 3 accounts that use it a lot so whatever.
Just shocked when I have received the notification email yesterday. I am unsubscribing now.
Got email. Cancelled. Screw that… Well have to figure something else out but since it's only 2 people in for me in my "family" , is not with it
Also cancelled, over it, I will listen to music on my devices I guess for a while, going from 9.99 to 16.99 is too much
So annoyed I cancelled it today!
I really feel like companies need a “couples” and “family” as two seperate tiers. Quite often the family plans don’t work well for a couple, which now days is a significant portion of the population with many couples opting not to have kids.
Literally signed up a month back for 22.99$ family plan as I didn’t want to deal with Turkey and India. Cancelled kids Spotify premium.
Got an email yesterday stating trial coming to an end. Then this morning stating rate jumping from 22.99 to 32.99 per month.
Cancelled service
It's rather insulting to a loyal customer. I will cut the subscription and look for a cheap country option via VPN.
get brave browser. Blocks all adds.
can use it with youtube music and spotify too (web version)
Thanks, just installed and zero ads! No idea why ad blocker on Opera browser stopped working.
i think youtube is cracking down on these ad blocking platforms…
There are some excellent youtube addblockers around , even for Android TV setups …
Any for Google TV Chromecast?
Cancelled.
Time to review all subscriptions
We use YouTube music and have nest devices. Being able to just play ad-free music through speakers at home and in the car is great. Ad free youtube was always an extra bonus for the kids on the ipad. I could justify the original price we were on. However, the price increase means we will end up cancelling.
You know that at some point, there has to be some public recognition of overly using adblockers which inevitably leads to what YouTube is about to roll out, which is banning of using the service if an ad blocker is detected.
I know it's hard to reconcile but YouTube isn't a government funded service and actually does require storage and funding to host 60 hours of video each minute.
I'm sure this is an unpopular opinion here, though.
They can do whatever they like but people will just jump ship for being greedy.
Its hilarious because piracy was solved for a few years. Now back we go.
Oh they get government kick backs for spying on you.
I can't see any benefits for me, therefore there can't be any benefits for anyone, as everyone lives exactly the same life as I do.
Seem about right?
YouTube is on the charge against ad blockers.
Not everyone uses an Android device.Do these Android apps allow for the downloading of videos and music for use while offline?
YouTube's campaign against ad blockers only affects logged on users. Don't log on and keep using ad blockers?
Yep you can download with a single click in those ad-free apps, but downloading from YouTube has never been an issue, there is a command-line utility called youtube-dl. Anyone can download anything, entire playlists can be downloaded with a single command on a PC.
If you don't use Android you probably deserve to be charged a bit extra for everything.
I got email today saying they are increasing prices for Turkey account.
"To continue delivering great service and features, we’re increasing your price to TRY 115.99 /month. We don’t make these decisions lightly, but this update will allow us to continue to improve Premium and support the creators and artists you watch on YouTube."The amount of ads on youtube these days is disgusting. Multiple ads in a short 15min video, some of the ads can not be skipped and some could be as long as 5minutes. If you decide to fast forward 1minute during a video, then grats…you get to enjoy more ads.
If you have older people in the family or young kids who can't use the remote well to click 'skip ad', buying the premium is probably the only option. I guess i'm still paying after the price increase, but i'm definitely not happy about it, and will definitely switch as soon as i find a better option.
I guess i'm still paying after the price increase, but i'm definitely not happy about it, and will definitely switch as soon as i find a better option
Sounds like their price increase is about right then - everyone's frustration will pass and 99% of people will "keep paying until a better option comes along" (which is never).
If the money was really a problem you would be blocking the ads for free already.‘A better option’ - this seems like a strange thing to say for a platform like YouTube.
Or is that it - you’re hoping for a competitor to YouTube?
My Youtube sub is going up from 389 Pesos to 869. So I'm looking at going from $1.77 to about $3.89, which will soon be about $3 as Argentina's economy continues to crash.
Just throwing this out there: I'm looking for few more members to join my YouTube + Spotify Premium family to split costs. If anyone's interested let me know :)
"To continue delivering great service and features, we’re increasing your price to ARS 1,569.00 /month."
Ironically paying through the ARS is the cheaper option
Would it be tax deductible if, on occasion, I need to watch induction/procedural videos for work purposes?
Yeah possibly. If education subscription
Yes, but only for the % of work use you actually use it for. But not worth the time it would take to write it down on your tax return - assume something like 5% work use: (32.99x12)x0.05 =19.79. Reduce your taxable income by ~$20.
Turkey's YT premium family plan went up 100% as well, was paying about $3/month or something now it's gonna be $6.3/month..
100% is brutal
Mine individual plan is going from $10.99 to $16.99, but not until April.
I'll keep it for now. If I dropped it I'd end up paying for Spotify anyway, may as well stump up the extra couple of dollars for no ads when streaming on the TV.
Would like to see them deliver some decent YouTube Original series if they are going to keep pumping up the price though. Only thing I really watched that was released on the platform was Cobra Kai, for nostalgia, and it moved to Netflix anyway.
rofl, ah - these tech/media companies.
It's like they enjoy piracy.
This is good, it opens up possibilities for competition. X is going after their content creators, Spotify has always been the better music service.
reality is that it's just inconvenient to pirate these days. these apps offer so much convenience on demand.
Piracy is more convenient these days.
Kodi is basically universal on demand now.
Streamio is the same
Why cause of a dns block that can be bypassed in 5 seconds? Piracy will never be inconvenient the only reason I'm subbed to these services is so artists get a tiny cut
Im sure most people would still gladly pay
You’ve vented sure but you can’t win against the bulk of the people
You might like.. grayjay app Download a video or entire playlists for when you need it.
https://grayjay.app/I like the app and the concept. My issue was I don't really know what to watch without YT algorithm giving me recommendations
My issue was I don't really know what to watch without YT algorithm giving me recommendations
Looks like you need to pay a ridiculous asking fee going forward for that laziness. 👏
I was thinking about it this morning, because Louis Rossman got 2 strikes for his videos on grayjay. Why I actually liked grayjay mostly was because it put YT and Rumble in the same app so I could still watch what google doesn't want me to watch.
I use both apps but mostly YT because yes laziness/habit.
wait people actually pay these???? LOL!
To continue delivering great service and features, we’re increasing your price to ARS 1,569.00 /month.
step1. vpn connection to india
step2. signup using their cheap as chips currency (currently paying under $5 p/month for family account)
step3. $$$$profit$$$These are subscriptions. They can cover the vpn loop hole at anytime.
you need a card from that country now to pay. tried to extend an extra year onto my account. would not work.
YouTube Premium Family Argentina is going up to ARS1569, which is just under AUD7. That's a fair price (although probably expensive in economically-challenged Argentina), $33 is mental and terrible value for money.
Youtube Revanced + Youtube Music Revanced Extended with sponsorblock, and SmartTube for TV, have not seen a single ad in years.
Add in Tik Tok Revanced, Twitch Revanced and Lightroom Revanced for even superior experience. No need to juggle subscriptions or worry about price hikes.
Sent from my Android.
Does Revanced work with Android Auto and Google Nest Hubs for Music?
Actually to be honest this isn't that crazy, given the price of the individual premium of $16.99. $17x2 = $34, this is already $1 cheaper than 2 individual prices, and if you're a family of 3+ then it keeps getting better and better value.
The previous price was exceptionally low, and this price is far more logical.
This is definitely a disappointing increase (to say the least).
I got it when it was YouTube red, for multiple reasons:
* streaming music for the family
* all that sweet video content ad-free as a bonus
* peace of mind that I’m not stiffing the awesome creators by watching with adblockers
* making a statement that I’m happy to pay to avoid adverts for a modest fee (in general).
* no longer having to worry about adblockers on any abnormal devices (phones, TVs, consoles, etc)Now though, with just that ‘modest fee’ almost doubling? I’ll just go back to mp3s, and have a little less convenience and switched to piped or that sort of thing for desktops, and say ‘stuff it’ to anything but jellyfin or plex on the TV :-p
Sorry creators. Maybe I’ll try that curiositystream that so many of you hawked in the past :)
Wonder what the price increase will be in another year or two…
Mine's more than doubling, going from 699 ARS to 1569 ARS
I'll wear the cost. I don't really want the kids to be bombarded with ads, especially as I use it for their sleep music. I don't really use it myself. I can't be bothered messing around to see if there's a cheaper region. Wouldn't keep at $33/month though, that's insane.
With all of the TV subscriptions going up and up and the content going down and down because it's spread across more services I opted out of that one. I pay an illegal service to download and stream everything because it's easy. Netflix wasn't too bad back in the day and I paid for it and sometimes another service, but it's not worth the cost anymore and it just ends up being a decision about what is available that I'm okay with watching (like free to air) instead of what do I want to watch.
Every organization seems to think they're entitled to a subscription to provide very little value. I was watching a Royal Institution Youtube video this morning. This is an organization with a long history of hosting open public lectures that were free for anyone to attend. They now want $3.99/month to watch their Q&A videos following the lectures. Madness. $48/year. Why rely on donations when you can paywall content? And everyone has their hand out similarly lately.
Why rely on donations when you can paywall content?
How do you know that the donations they receive are enough for them to keep everything running?
How many people are going to subscribe just for the Q&A videos? Do you think that's likely to be a more suitable source of revenue than donations? Better than the bequests and government grants they have? I doubt it would even make a dent to supplement that money. But it sure makes a dent in their reason for being.
How many people are going to subscribe just for the Q&A videos?
People subscribe as a member for more than just access to the Q&A videos.
If they feel the RI has benefited them, they may choose to support them via memberships, just like any other content creator who uses the memberships feature.
Do you think that's likely to be a more suitable source of revenue than donations? Better than the bequests and government grants they have?
Did they stop receiving donations and grants or are they supplementing it with subscriptions? The cost of living has gone up. The institution is run by actual people who are affected by it. Running costs have gone up. Ad blockers take away ad revenue from their videos. Every cent counts.
I doubt it would even make a dent to supplement that money. But it sure makes a dent in their reason for being.
I'm sure The Royal Institution knows their financials better than you, so I'm sure there's a good reason why they're doing it.
@eug: The Q&A videos appear to be the main perk. Again, there aren't going to be enough subscriptions earnt by blocking the Q&A when they are still making the main lecture free.
The whole point of RI is to bring science to the public for free so that money is not a barrier to engaging with science. It is a charity.
https://www.rigb.org/about-us
"We’re a leading independent charity dedicated to connecting as many people as possible with the world of science."Your arguments suggest it would be fine if they sought a model that charged hundred or thousands of dollars to attend their talks, much like TED. There are already other organizations that provide these things.
I am sure there are reasons for the change. That doesn't mean they are good reasons. Greed is a reason. Elitism is a reason.
The Q&A videos appear to be the main perk.
It might not have been communicated clearly; the main point of memberships is to support the creator - that is the first point under "Five reasons to join" on the YouTube memberships page. It's their answer to Patreon.
To encourage people to join as a member, creators can offer perks. The minimum perk is a channel badge which is displayed in comments and live chats. Some creators decide to offer more perks to make it more enticing, for example access to videos that aren't available for free.
The whole point of RI is to bring science to the public for free so that money is not a barrier to engaging with science.
Yes, that is why all the main lectures are free.
It is a charity.
And that is why they need support.
Your arguments suggest it would be fine if they sought a model that charged hundred or thousands of dollars to attend their talks, much like TED.
I'm not sure how you jumped from a $3.99 membership to hundreds or thousands of dollars per talk, but no, I did not say or imply the RI should be charging for their main lecture videos.
Everything costs money to run. If all people do is take, take, take, the system will break down and reality will hit.
I am sure there are reasons for the change. That doesn't mean they are good reasons. Greed is a reason. Elitism is a reason.
Rising operating costs is a reason. Charities need money to operate. With the rising cost of living, many people could have cut back on their donations to the RI as well, putting them under greater pressure. It's amusing how you default to greed and elitism.
They are under no obligation to put their videos on YouTube for you to watch for free. It costs them time and money to maintain a channel. They could have found that the ad revenue from YouTube is not enough to pay for a staff member (or part of a staff member) to maintain the channel, especially with the number of people using ad blockers, so one way to stem the bleeding is to offer memberships for the Q&A parts.
@eug: Youtube rarely communicates anything clearly. Those "reasons to join" are not all financial and are generic for all channels, focusing around creators, not charities meant to make science accessible. I find it bizzare that you're parroting Youtube propaganda. Most of those "perks" are intangible, and can be achieved in a better way.
You seem to be intentionally missing the point of the charity altogether, and while insisting that you know better what RI's reasons for doing this are. You don't have any more knowledge of their financials or governance than I do. That said, the source of their funding is in the name, and their reports are public. They do much more than run a Youtube channel, so again, I find you pointing me at that rather than their financials utterly bizzare.
I also find it funny that you think in this day and age when producing quality video is cheaper than ever "rising costs" to put on these lectures is the reason. The "Christmas Lectures" were started in the 1800s, were first broadcast in 1936 when TV was extravagant, expensive and new. You think running a Youtube channel is expensive.
The bottom line is if they start to charge for any part of these lectures, they are deviating from their organisation's mission statement. I'm guessing you support nothing being free and everything being user pays. The point of this whole organisation is that your financial situation shouldn't limit your access to science and it's sad to see everything going the way of unsustainable subscriptions. Every organisation you interact with wants to charge a small amount, and in the end it just limits the availability of the content, which leads to a spiral of declining membership and increasing prices until the whole mess becomes unsustainable and collapses. It's not enough that every fragmented streaming service wants to increases their subscriptions, now we're on track for the same with every Youtube channel….and when people just don't bother, the whole thing shuts down.
Those "reasons to join" are not all financial and are generic for all channels, focusing around creators,
YouTube Memberships were created to give people another way to support channels and creators they like.
You can imagine that it's a subscription for extra content, but that doesn't change the fact that it is primarily a method to support a channel.
not charities meant to make science accessible.
The RI literally says YouTube channel memberships rely on donations to bring their videos, and that becoming a YouTube member helps them bring you more lectures.
I find it bizzare that you think a charitable organisation should not be allowed to encourage donations by putting some side content (which wouldn't haven been aired on TV anyway) behind a channel membership.
You don't have any more knowledge of their financials or governance than I do.
That is exactly right.
The difference is, you assume the RI has plenty of money and starting channel memberships is simply based on greed and elitism while I give them the benefit of the doubt based on their two-century reputation and the fact that the cost of living has gone up which would affect their sources of income.
They do much more than run a Youtube channel, so again, I find you pointing me at that rather than their financials utterly bizzare.
Exactly right - they are not a YouTube company. YouTube is a side thing that they do. In these tighter times, if side projects start bleeding money for them, or they need to divert their resources to another area, they can either cut it off or find ways to keep it going. If they can get some money from channel memberships, that would go towards supporting their side project.
You think running a Youtube channel is expensive.
You seem to think running a YouTube channel is not much more than dragging and dropping a video file into a web browser, and charitable organisations have plenty of technical staff members who have a lot of free time to handle all aspects of running a social media presence. I assure you, there's more to YouTube than just dropping a file into a browser and typing out a title. Social media management is a full-time job nowadays.
I'm guessing you support nothing being free and everything being user pays.
Again - you are making up statements and putting words into my mouth.
The main lectures are free. Charitable organizations need money to continue providing content for free. One way to keep the lectures free is to move the Q&A section behind channel memberships.
Remember, neither one of us knows the true reason why the RI decided to start channel memberships.
You're assuming it's greed and elitism.
I'm assuming it's because money is tighter for everyone nowadays, and that includes charities with staff to pay as well as donors who might start cutting back on donations to charities.
The point of this whole organisation is that your financial situation shouldn't limit your access to science and it's sad to see everything going the way of unsustainable subscriptions.
The lectures are still free, just as they have been on British TV all these years.
Every organisation you interact with wants to charge a small amount, and in the end it just limits the availability of the content, which leads to a spiral of declining membership and increasing prices until the whole mess becomes unsustainable and collapses.
Now you're mixing up the RI with all the other for-profit companies out there.
With commercial entities like Netflix and Disney etc, I definitely agree that fragmenting everything again is just going back towards the same old Foxtel situation where you have to end up paying a lot per month for lots of content you won't watch.
But we are talking about a charity here. They need money to run. They don't charge for their main lectures - it has always been free and is still free now. They survive on grants and donations; every cent counts - not just for running costs today but also to build up resources to ensure their continued existence.
If they put all their content behind a channel membership that would be a different story. But they're just putting the Q&A portion there to encourage channel memberships.
@eug: I'm no longer reading everything you write because it's repedative and you're not processing what I've written. What you don't seem to realize is you're advocating for a race to the bottom.
Summary of my position:
1. Charging for access goes against the mission statement of this charity. It basically shouldn't exist if it's just going to be another Youtube channel and one that puts its videos behind a paywall. It's a slippery slope once you start paywalling some content - the natural progression will be to paywall some videos then all videos.
2. If every company does that the entire business model is untennable because no one will be able to afford many, many small but increasing recurring memberships. We're already seeing this with streaming services themselves, hence the OP's post complaining about increasing YouTube Premium pricing. We're also seeing this with gaming monetization.
3. Paywalling Q&A is particularly silly. Only people who have large disposable income are going to subscribe just to see Q&A videos.You can reply again but I probably won't. I have other things to do than rehash your rebuttals over and over.
What you don't seem to realize is you're advocating for a race to the bottom.
What you don't seem to realize is that charities operate under different conditions to for-profit entities.
If we were talking about Netflix or Disney or similar, then I agree that it's a race to the bottom.
But we are talking about a charity.
If you keep insisting that charities should not be able to encourage donations by releasing some side content - which would not have been seen historically on TV anyway - under a YouTube membership, that's also a race to the bottom.
Just wait till you find out that paying even more to become an Ri Patron brings even more exclusive access to events. The Ri would have already completely failed a century or two ago by your measure.
@eug: Love the condescending tone. I dug up RI's financials. You don't think I know about their patron program? Of course you did. It was snark. Patronage is optional. Their content use to be all free.
Again, you are ignoring that the mission and history of this charity is promoting free science to all, regardless of their income.
Are we done yet, or do you need more repetition and snark for closure?
@syousef: I apologise for the condescending tone, now upon re-reading it, it does sound condescending when in my head it wasn't meant to be. The limitations of text-only communication rears its head.
The point of it was this:
You're of the opinion that all of the Ri's content should be free and this "new" practice of them putting side content behind a paid membership is due to greed and elitism rather than genuine financial concerns.
I brought up the fact that Ri Patronage, which has been around for a very long time, does exactly that - if you pay to be a patron, you will "enjoy access to a wide range of benefits including exclusive patron events, speaker’s drinks receptions, behind-the-scenes access and have the opportunity to attend our Faraday Dinner and Discourse dinners.".
The more you pay, the greater access you will get to content and events that are not available for free.
This will clearly go around in circles because of two fundamental disagreements:
You seem to be of the opinion that the Ri should give absolutely everything away for free. If they make any attempt to encourage contributions by putting some side content behind a membership, it's because of greed or elitism rather than any genuine financial concern.
I am of the opinion that the Ri should continue giving their main content away for free like they have been for the past two centuries, but it is acceptable for them to encourage contributions by putting some side content or events behind a membership or patronage - which is what they have been doing for the past two centuries.
We are not talking about Netflix or Disney, we are talking about a registered charity. Inflation and COVID affects charities a lot more than Netflix or Disney.
As with everything these are all opinions and there's room for more than one. I'm not intending to change your mind on it as you have already decided that the the Ri's YouTube membership option is purely due to greed and elitism rather than any financial concerns. So I'll leave it at that.
lol 😂. Feels so good to be using adblockers on this
Did a bit of research and saw that in the US their family plan was $17.99 USD until last year when it changed to $22.99 USD. Weird that we used to have a way cheaper family plan than the US, guess they finally looked at our prices and adjusted, still shit though.