> why do you consider this massively overpriced?

Because i struggle to imagine the ads i watch would amount to $15/m. So it feels like significant markup.

A flat rate seems either upcharging, or subsidizing. Neither feel good as a consumer.

I rather (and have) quit than pay them $15/m for a handful of ads. They started fighting a month back or w/e and i just stopped watching them for ~2 weeks. When i tried later, the "problem" was gone lol. Not sure what happened.

I'd much rather pay for a platform that gives money to creators more directly. I pay for a fair share of things on Patreon, for example.

edit: I should note, my assumptions on price are based on how little ad views net in value.

Sidenote, i'd love to hear of platforms that are more creator first. Anyone have any recommendations for additional platforms that give money directly to creators?

Imho content is content and the creators get more when I pay, and I also don’t see ads. It’s win win and cheaper then other streaming platforms so I don’t see it being out of line cost wise.

55% to creators 45% to platform to host and stream while also supporting a ton of creators who have little to no views.

Seems a better deal then Netflix ect with more ability to control where your dollar goes

Yea, i think i'd agree if i saw the revenue split or if they helped me understand what went to consumers. I'm not invested enough to research this (which isn't an excuse, just saying i'm not interested), so as a basic consumer my assumption is that the revenue i put into something like Patreon is far better than Youtube.

I say that primarily because of experience. For example i subscribe to Spotify, and the revenue split there is atrocious and often a point of debate between platforms. Maybe YT is better, but it's not clear to me from the outside if that's true.