YouTube Premium’s Main Shortcoming: A Summary
Andy Walker, writing for Android Authority on September 14, 2025, argues that YouTube Premium’s current subscription plans present a significant obstacle to subscription for him and potentially a large segment of the user base. Despite YouTube’s consistent efforts to promote Premium through endless ads and the promise of features like ad-free viewing, downloads, and background play, Walker finds the existing plan options ill-suited to his household’s needs, leading him to question the value proposition.
The Inflexibility of Current YouTube Premium Plans
Walker identifies the rigidity of YouTube Premium’s pricing tiers as the primary issue. The available plans include a student option (which he is ineligible for at $7.99/month), an individual plan at $13.99/month, and a family plan for up to six members at $23.99/month. For Walker and his partner, the individual plan is insufficient, but subscribing to two separate individual plans would cost $27.98/month. This price point is notably higher than even Netflix’s premium 4K tier, rendering it financially impractical.
The Family plan, while seemingly a better value at $23.99/month compared to two individual subscriptions, presents its own set of problems. It offers up to six user slots, but YouTube has begun strictly enforcing a rule that all family members must reside in the same household. This policy renders the remaining four slots useless for Walker, as he cannot share the benefits with family members living elsewhere, like his parents or sisters, without violating terms of service. He explicitly states, “I’m no longer a student, I don’t live alone, nor do I live with five other people. No Premium plan makes sense for me.” This situation mirrors a negative experience he had with Netflix, making him wary of similar complications. Consequently, he finds it difficult to justify paying $24 per month for a service whose benefits he cannot fully utilize due to an unsuitable plan structure and restrictive sharing policies. Walker concludes that a crucial mid-range tier, specifically for two-person households, is missing from YouTube Premium’s offerings.
Public Demand for a Two-Person Plan
To substantiate his argument, Walker references a poll within the article titled “Would you subscribe to YouTube Premium two-person plan?” Out of 1497 votes, a significant 66% answered “Yes,” with 34% responding “No.” This strong majority indicates a clear and substantial demand among users for a subscription option tailored to two individuals.
Questioning the “Premium” Value and Overall YouTube Experience
Beyond the pricing and plan structure, Walker scrutinizes whether YouTube Premium truly delivers sufficient “premium” value to warrant its cost. He contrasts his experience with Spotify Duo, which provides ad-free music and collaborative features for him and his partner at a price lower than a solo YouTube Premium subscription. He feels Spotify Duo offers superior value for money, a sentiment he does not extend to YouTube Premium’s existing family plan.
A key point of contention is the diminishing exclusivity of YouTube Premium’s flagship features. Walker notes that “big-ticket” benefits like background play and ad-blocking are increasingly accessible for free through alternative means. He cites examples like Microsoft Edge Canary, Banana Browser, and Brave, which offer built-in features that replicate much of the Premium experience. This availability of core Premium functionalities elsewhere weakens the incentive to pay over $280 annually for YouTube Premium. He summarizes his feeling by stating, “At Family plan prices, none of the genuinely useful Premium features really appeal to me.”
Walker further criticizes the overall user experience of the YouTube platform itself, arguing that its quality has deteriorated. He highlights issues such as the proliferation of “low-quality AI slop on Trending,” the overwhelming presence of Shorts, the introduction of text-posts, a “severe lack of customizability” in the app, and “mediocre personal recommendations.” He contends that these fundamental flaws in the platform’s experience would not be ameliorated by simply paying for Premium. Additionally, while he enjoys YouTube Music, he believes it “still lags behind its competitors like Spotify and is not worth purchasing on its own,” and its inclusion in the Premium bundle does not add enough compelling value to justify the overall cost.
Another poll presented in the article, “Are you a YouTube Premium subscriber?” gathered 5588 votes. While 60% confirmed long-term subscription and 9% were recent subscribers, a substantial 31% indicated they either don’t plan to subscribe (20%) or are considering it (11%). This data reinforces the idea that a significant portion of YouTube’s audience remains unconvinced by Premium’s current offering.
Hope for a Two-Person Plan
Despite his frustrations, Walker points to a potential positive development: YouTube has been testing a two-person Premium plan in select markets, including France, Hong Kong, India, and Taiwan. Based on preliminary pricing in these regions, such a plan could be priced at approximately 1.5 times the cost of a solo plan, which Walker deems a “value proposition” he would seriously consider. However, he notes the uncertainty surrounding a global rollout, acknowledging that the plan could be shelved if testing results are unfavorable. He attempted to contact YouTube for clarification on the pilot program but did not receive a response before publication.
In conclusion, Walker asserts that YouTube needs to re-evaluate its Premium strategy to better align with diverse household structures. The absence of a flexible, mid-range two-person plan is a significant “shortcoming” that alienates users like him. Introducing such a plan, as currently being explored in test markets, would address a critical need and could persuade a larger segment of users who are currently frustrated with the limited and ill-fitting subscription choices.