YouTube Premium, despite offering benefits like ad-free viewing, downloads, and YouTube Music Premium, faces a significant hurdle in attracting subscribers: its inflexible plan structure. The author of an Android Authority article expresses frustration that none of the current plans—Student, Individual, or Family—adequately cater to a two-person household, a sentiment echoed by a substantial portion of the readership.
The author highlights the shortcomings of the existing tiers. The Student plan is not an option for most adults, while the Individual plan, priced at $13.99 per month, becomes prohibitively expensive at $27.98 if two individuals in the same household subscribe separately. This cost surpasses even Netflix’s premium 4K tier. The alternative, a Family plan at $23.99 per month, offers up to six member slots and appears cheaper than two individual plans. However, YouTube’s strict enforcement of same-household residency rules for family plan members creates a dilemma. For a two-person household, this means four “wasted” slots, and the author is wary of attempting to share with non-resident family members, citing past negative experiences with similar restrictions from services like Netflix.
A poll within the article underscores this point, revealing that a strong 66% of 1511 respondents would subscribe to a two-person YouTube Premium plan, indicating a clear market demand that Google is currently not meeting. This sentiment is further reinforced by comments from readers, some of whom express similar frustrations with the lack of a suitable middle-ground option. One reader explicitly states that a two-person plan “does not exist in California” and confirms that YouTube Premium and YouTube Music Premium only offer individual, student, and family plans there. Another sarcastically questions how many families truly have exactly five members, supporting the author’s argument for more flexible tiers.
Beyond the pricing and plan structure, the author questions whether YouTube Premium offers enough “premium” value to justify its cost. As a Spotify subscriber, the author praises Spotify’s Duo plan, which provides ad-free music and collaborative tools for less than a solo YouTube Premium subscription, demonstrating a superior value proposition for two users. The article points out that many of YouTube Premium’s headline features, such as ad-free playback, background play, and video downloads, are readily available through third-party browsers and apps like Microsoft Edge Canary, Banana Browser, and Brave. This diminishes the exclusivity of Premium’s offerings, making the annual cost of over $280 seem unwarranted.
The overall YouTube experience also contributes to the author’s reluctance to subscribe. Concerns are raised about the proliferation of low-quality AI-generated content on Trending, the overwhelming presence of Shorts, the addition of text-posts, a severe lack of app customizability, and mediocre personal recommendations. These issues, the author argues, would not improve even with a Premium subscription. Furthermore, YouTube Music, despite being an enjoyable service, is deemed to lag behind competitors like Spotify and is not compelling enough on its own to drive a Premium subscription. One frustrated reader corroborates this, stating they canceled Premium due to sponsored in-video ads that bypass the subscription, the dominance of Playables and Shorts, and the constant push for “Subscribe+” options, all contributing to a diminished perceived value.
In response to these criticisms, a reader offers a counter-argument, suggesting that the Family plan at $24 per month for two people is still a “great deal,” especially when bundling YouTube Premium with YouTube Music Premium. This reader posits that YouTube Music is “vastly superior to Spotify” due to its broader access to unofficial music content. They also dismiss the idea of “wasted” slots in a family plan, equating it to unused car radio presets, and argue that the family plan is simply for “your family,” regardless of its size. However, this argument overlooks the explicit household residency requirement that YouTube has began enforcing, a key point of the author’s concern. Another reader highlights a practical limitation: ad-blockers typically don’t work on the iOS mobile app, where a significant portion of YouTube viewing occurs, making Premium more appealing for iOS users.
There is a glimmer of hope on the horizon: YouTube has been piloting a two-person Premium plan in select markets, including France, Hong Kong, India, and Taiwan, for several months. Initial pricing indications suggest it could cost approximately 1.5 times a solo plan, which the author considers a much more attractive and viable value proposition. However, there is no official confirmation regarding a global rollout, and YouTube has not responded to inquiries about the pilot program’s future. The author concludes that a dedicated two-person plan is essential to address the growing frustration among users like himself, who are currently left without a suitable and justifiable subscription option for their household needs.