YouTube Premium Family Price Increase to A$39.99/month

LGanralf on 11/06/2025 - 15:28
Last edited 11/06/2025 - 15:36 by 1 other user

I just got this email, probably going to end my subscription today.

YouTube Premium Family plan price update

Hi x,

Thank you for being a YouTube Premium member. We hope you and up to 5 members of your household are enjoying your YouTube Premium benefits, including ad-free and downloadable videos, background play, and uninterrupted access to over 100 million songs with the YouTube Music app.

To continue delivering great service and features, we’re increasing your price to A$39.99/month. We don’t make these decisions lightly, but this update will…. Cut rest of the email

Entertainment Music Streaming Video on Demand YouTube

Related Stores

YouTube

Comments

SnowDragon on 11/06/2025 - 15:37

+42

If you had all 6 family members paying their share that would be $6.66 a month.
I was paying $10 a YEAR with an Indian subscription.

Luckily Smarttube and Revanced exist.
- Ganralf on 11/06/2025 - 15:41
  
  +7
  
  I use this with actual family members, cannot really reduce the cost. Will look into Smarttube and Revanced
- jv on 11/06/2025 - 15:48 Comment score below threshold.
  - SnowDragon on 11/06/2025 - 15:50
    
    +42
    
    Are you Indian?
    
    I'm whatever you want me to be jv
    - jv on 11/06/2025 - 15:51
      
      +9
      
      https://i.gifer.com/7Q2Y.gif
- AustriaBargain on 11/06/2025 - 16:58
  
  +4
  
  Adblockers get rid of all ads, YouTube Premium is going to start showing ads on Shorts soon.
  - onetwothreefour on 11/06/2025 - 18:15
    
    +1
    
    I've been having issues with adblock recently, not sure if if it's unique to me or not?
    - AustriaBargain on 11/06/2025 - 18:18
      
      Me too, but it seems to have cleared up now. Watching in a private browser tab works fine and usually in a normal tab it works fine, but the last few days the normal tab had issues. Works fine now though. I suspect adblockers are so mainstream that YouTube can't clamp down too hard on it or else they'd break the site for too many users.
      - onetwothreefour on 11/06/2025 - 18:19
        
        @AustriaBargain: Yeah it seems to be hit and miss, sometimes works sometimes doesn't.
    - kaleidoscope on 11/06/2025 - 22:41
      
      use a different browser may be? eventually they will ofcourse figureout a way to present ads in a different way to prevent all these workarounds for sure.
    - SpicyStew on 12/06/2025 - 01:20
      
      +1
      
      try ublock origin
      - onetwothreefour on 12/06/2025 - 08:44
        
        @SpicyStew: ublock origin doesn't work either, looks like I already had that installed along with adblock.
        
        If I look on the chrome store for ublock origin it has this message:
        
        This extension is no longer available because it doesn't follow best practices for Chrome extensions.
        
        Rysta on 12/06/2025 - 14:11
        
        +3
        
        @onetwothreefour: You have to use ublock origin on firefox, not chrome. They intentionally broke adblockers on chrome.
        
        longy317 on 13/06/2025 - 14:36
        
        +2
        
        @onetwothreefour: Get rid of Chrome - move to Firefox.
        
        onetwothreefour on 13/06/2025 - 15:17
        
        @longy317: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/16612263/redir
    - Frozensage on 12/06/2025 - 07:52
      
      Adblock stopped work so now I just use brace on all my devices to watch ad free
      - onetwothreefour on 12/06/2025 - 13:53
        
        @Frozensage: I couldn't find anything about brace, do you mean brave? I can't download other browsers as I mostly need it for listening to youtube in the background when I'm WFH so limited to what is on my work laptop.
    - serpserpserp on 12/06/2025 - 22:03
      
      +6
      
      Use Brave browser and it skips ads natively
      - onetwothreefour on 13/06/2025 - 15:17
        
        @serpserpserp: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/16612263/redir
    - Aleigh123 on 17/06/2025 - 08:04
      
      I've found I get the best results running uBlock Origin on Firefox with a VPN.
- kaleidoscope on 11/06/2025 - 22:40
  
  +18
  
  If you had all 6 family members paying their share that would be $6.66 a month.
  
  Stop averaging and look at the face value on it's own. is that really worth $40/mo?
  - 2esc on 12/06/2025 - 10:08
    
    +2
    
    I cant justify $10 let alone $39.99 for a subscription service.
    - serpserpserp on 12/06/2025 - 22:04
      
      So you must have nearly no subs these days
      - kaleidoscope on 12/06/2025 - 22:47
        
        +1
        
        @serpserpserp: or sailing the seas
- bashar20 on 12/06/2025 - 07:46
  
  As well as YouTubeLite and YTPlys for iOS amongst many others.
- lawyerz on 14/06/2025 - 14:37
  
  I was paying for Indian YouTube (while living at the taj Mahal address) but I was annoyed i couldn't get sponsorblock on the official YouTube app.
  
  Then I found revanced and smarttube and I just cancelled the paid membership even at $10/yr to just use that for free
- Dr Phil on 15/06/2025 - 18:14
  
  -2
  
  What the…?
jv on 11/06/2025 - 15:47

+31

What a rip off…
pegaxs on 11/06/2025 - 15:51

+69

$40 a month for YouTube… LOL.
- ricadam on 11/06/2025 - 16:24 Comment score below threshold.
  - DingoBilly on 11/06/2025 - 17:13
    
    +34
    
    There's nothing there worth paying $40 a month for.
    
    If it was $5 a month I'd do it just because it's simple, but otherwise it's easier and better to use alternatives for free.
  - MarshallMatters on 12/06/2025 - 11:18
    
    +2
    
    You can do the first two by using brave browser. For me at least, videos keep playing even when screen is off.
    - BartholemewH on 12/06/2025 - 12:29
      
      +1
      
      Yes, there is a setting in Beave specifically to enable screen off playback.
      - ricadam on 13/06/2025 - 11:12
        
        @BartholemewH: This is very useful to know!
  - eug on 13/06/2025 - 11:08
    
    -5
    
    @ricadam People don't realize (or care) stealing content takes money away from creators which will make the platform less attractive (or more expensive) in the long run.
    
    Don't like the price? Don't use it.
    - Ti-au on 16/06/2025 - 13:40
      
      but do they actually share in the revenue?
      
      If a channel gets:
      1 million views/month if 10% of those from Premium users
      And Premium pays $2 per 1,000 views
      → That’s ~$200/month from Premium (compared to maybe $2,000–$6,000 in ad revenue).
  - Lucille Bluth on 14/06/2025 - 04:45
    
    -1
    
    All of which you can get free with SmartTube and YouTube Revanced.
    
    $40 is a ripoff.
    - eug on 14/06/2025 - 10:48
      
      All of which you can get free with SmartTube and YouTube Revanced.
      
      "All of which you can steal for free"
      - Guybrush57 on 14/06/2025 - 11:14
        
        -2
        
        @eug: It's not stealing. YouTube was created as a free service without ads for people to watch videos uploaded by users.
        
        What makes you think your content has monetary value?
        
        eug on 14/06/2025 - 11:42
        
        @Guybrush57:
        
        It's not stealing.
        
        YouTube provides streaming video in exchange for users watching ads which sustains the platform.
        
        Ad revenue goes to both the creators and the cost of running a worldwide video delivery platform hosting 20 billion videos and 20 million daily uploads.
        
        A person who blocks ads denies both the content creator and platform the ad revenue. They are taking without compensating. If you want to be pedantic, piracy could be a better word to define it. But at the end of the day, it is taking something from someone without compensating them for it.
        
        What makes you think your content has monetary value?
        
        I have no idea what content you're talking about as I don't create any. Nice try though.
        
        Guybrush57 on 14/06/2025 - 12:06
        
        -3
        
        @eug:
        
        YouTube provides streaming video in exchange for users watching ads which sustains the platform
        
        YouTube was created to provide streaming video ad-free at no cost.
        
        20 million daily uploads
        
        How many of these uploads are worth money? Are we allowed to charge the uploader if it wastes our time and money?
        
        A person who blocks ads denies both the content creator and platform the ad revenue. They are taking without compensating
        
        Nope. The person is using the platform as it was intended.
        
        I have no idea what content you're talking about as I don't create any
        
        Do you mind linking to several videos you believe deserve money?
        
        eug on 14/06/2025 - 13:54
        
        +3
        
        @Guybrush57:
        
        YouTube was created to provide streaming video ad-free at no cost.
        
        YouTube was started in 2005 with angel investor and VC money from Sequoia Capital. I'm not sure if you're aware of how tech companies like that work, but the investors and VC firms are not charities; they expect a return on their investment.
        
        It is impossible to get a return if all a company does is provide an expensive service for no cost with zero revenue forever. The intention from day one was always to monetize the platform as it is simply impossible to run such an expensive service with zero income.
        
        YouTube started dabbling with ads in 2006, before Google bought them.
        
        How many of these uploads are worth money? Are we allowed to charge the uploader if it wastes our time and money?
        
        Nobody is forcing you to watch videos online. You should be able to judge whether or not a video is worth your time before investing siginificant time into it.
        
        Do you mind linking to several videos you believe deserve money?
        
        No, there is no point in doing that as you're just moving the goalposts.
        
        This is a lot less complicated than you're making it out to be.
        
        Content creators get paid by ad revenue. Some rely fully on ad revenue, some are able to get sponsors but the videos are still hosted on YouTube which costs money to run.
        
        Blocking ads deny content creators that revenue, but the watcher still gets to consume their work.
        
        So effectively, money is being stolen from the content creators (and the platform). You can call it whatever you want but at the end of the day an ad blocker user is getting someone's work and not paying for it.
        
        Guybrush57 on 14/06/2025 - 14:57
        
        -3
        
        @eug:
        
        they expect a return on their investment
        
        As do I.
        
        Nobody is forcing you to watch videos online
        
        Nobody is forcing content creators to upload videos.
        
        You should be able to judge whether or not a video is worth your time before investing siginificant time into it
        
        Seen plenty of videos worth some of my time. Seen zero videos worth my money or additional time to watch ads. Ads also start before videos so you won't know if the video is any good until you've already paid for it. For the videos that aren't worth my time I only learn this by investing significant time into it. Also, if I do bail before investing significant time in it then are you implying that should be free of time and money costs to me?
        
        No, there is no point in doing that as you're just moving the goalposts.
        
        So 20 billion videos with 20 million uploads a day yet you can't link a single video worth additional time and money to watch it? Your actions speak louder than words.
        
        Content creators get paid by ad revenue
        
        Almost all "content" creators steal content. The others use unethical behaviour to stretch out runtimes of their videos and embed product placements for shady products, even if you have paid to remove ads. The only worthwhile videos are the ones that the uploader created as a hobby for fun and wanted people to view them for free.
        
        Blocking ads deny content creators that revenue, but the watcher still gets to consume their work.
        
        So effectively, money is being stolen from the content creators (and the platform). You can call it whatever you want but at the end of the day an ad blocker user is getting someone's work and not paying for it.
        
        I "consume" jokes told by others. Doesn't mean their "content" was worth money.
        
        eug on 14/06/2025 - 15:16
        
        +3
        
        @Guybrush57:
        
        Nobody is forcing content creators to upload videos.
        
        Nobody is forcing anybody to earn a living. But people still do.
        
        Also, if I do bail before investing significant time in it then are you implying that should be free of time and money costs to me?
        
        This is not about you. This is about denying income to content creators whose videos you watch. You do not need to use the platform at all if you are unhappy with how it is funded.
        
        So 20 billion videos with 20 million uploads a day yet you can't link a single video worth additional time and money to watch it? Your actions speak louder than words.
        
        Let's just say I have experience with commentors who continually try to move the goalposts to divert attention away from the main point.
        
        To reiterate, the point is:
        
        A company runs a video platform that allows users to watch videos in exchange for watching ads
        
        The company pays creators and the high costs of running the platform with ad revenue
        
        People who use ad blockers are consuming media and resources without paying for them by watching ads (which generates income), or by subscribing to Premium.
        
        The content creators do not get paid while those people consume their work.
        
        There is a term used to describe the act of taking or consuming something without paying for it.
        
        People always try to justify themselves with all sorts of reasons.
        
        They are free to do what they want. They just shouldn't pretend it isn't what it is and try to justify themselves to the moon and back.
        
        Guybrush57 on 14/06/2025 - 15:41
        
        -4
        
        @eug:
        
        Nobody is forcing anybody to earn a living. But people still do.
        
        Subjectively untrue and your point has no relation to the topic.
        
        This is not about you
        
        You said it was.
        
        Let's just say I have experience with commentors who continually try to move the goalposts…
        
        You said YouTube content has worth. I asked for evidence. 100% on topic. No goalposts moved. In your wall of text you still failed to supply a single piece of evidence.
        
        I'd happily subscribe to a costing model where I pay for videos worth my time and I get paid for videos that aren't worth my time. I'd be way in front.
        
        eug on 14/06/2025 - 16:21
        
        +3
        
        @Guybrush57:
        
        You said YouTube content has worth. I asked for evidence. 100% on topic. No goalposts moved. In your wall of text you still failed to supply a single piece of evidence.
        
        You might not realise it but what I find good, you might not. So there is no point in giving you examples as you will just attack it because you don't think it's good yourself - hence the moving of the goalposts.
        
        The point is - you should pay for what you consume. It's completely irrelevant what I like because it might not be what you like. The point is still the same - whatever you watch, you shouldn't withold income from. If you don't like something you can just skip the video (and the ads). If you're watching the majority of a video, you're consuming the creator's work so you shouldn't deny them their income.
        
        Guybrush57 on 14/06/2025 - 16:25
        
        -2
        
        @eug: I do skip large portions of videos including the AI slop, intros, sponsored ads, and I only watch what I need. I therefore am not required to pay based on your advice because I am not consuming a majority of the video.
        
        eug on 14/06/2025 - 16:38
        
        +1
        
        @Guybrush57: You can justify it however you want, as long as you realise what you're doing is denying income for the creators you watch.
        
        Guybrush57 on 14/06/2025 - 16:57
        
        -2
        
        @eug:
        
        You can justify it however you want, as long as you realise what you're doing is denying income for the creators you watch.
        
        You can justify it however you want, as long as you realise what you're doing is crying afoul of denying income for creators that provide nothing of monetary value.
        
        eug on 14/06/2025 - 17:19
        
        +2
        
        @Guybrush57:
        
        creators that provide nothing of monetary value.
        
        …he says, while still consuming the content. :)
        
        Guybrush57 on 14/06/2025 - 17:34
        
        -2
        
        @eug: Do you pay people to talk to you? If not, why not? They created their speech and you consumed it. Same principles. Same non-monetary value.
        
        eug on 14/06/2025 - 20:53
        
        @Guybrush57: Keep justifying it, you know what you're doing.
        
        Guybrush57 on 14/06/2025 - 21:24
        
        @eug: Yep. I'm using a free service as intended and employing ethical practices to block unethical theft from hard working people by a monopoly (who creates no content) and its "content" creators who try to monetise stolen content.
        
        eug on 14/06/2025 - 21:27
        
        +2
        
        @Guybrush57:
        
        I'm using a free service as intended
        
        Blocking ads is not part of the deal.
        
        employing ethical practices to block unethical theft from hard working people by a monopoly and its "content" creators who steal the content they try to monetise.
        
        Do you steal farm produce from Coles or Woolies too?
        
        Guybrush57 on 14/06/2025 - 21:32
        
        @eug:
        
        Blocking ads is not part of the deal.
        
        Ads were never part of the deal. If they want to introduce ads and/or paid memberships then they need to add something of value to the transaction.
        
        Do you steal farm produce from Coles or Woolies too?
        
        No and I'm not sure what you mean by "too".
        
        eug on 14/06/2025 - 21:46
        
        +1
        
        @Guybrush57:
        
        Ads were never part of the deal.
        
        User monetization was always part of the deal. Video ads were tested way back in 2006 during the VC funding phase before Google bought them. An expensive video streaming service cannot survive indefinitely without revenue. They would not have gotten any VC money at the start if there was no prospect of turning a profit.
        
        Guybrush57 on 14/06/2025 - 22:58
        
        @eug: If it's not a viable business then no point flogging a dead horse. Close it down.
        
        eug on 15/06/2025 - 00:15
        
        @Guybrush57: It's viable until too many people refuse to pay for what they consume. Freeloaders just drive the cost up for everyone else.
        
        zwolf on 15/06/2025 - 00:20
        
        +2
        
        @eug: Wow. Are you a real person? 🤨 ARE YOU REAL?
        
        Ti-au on 16/06/2025 - 13:48
        
        -1
        
        @Guybrush57: speech is not the same as shooting content perhaps on multiple cameras, then trying to edit hours of content into something that is engaging and 'hooks' the audience which can include spending further money to access resources to make their videos better.
        
        Guybrush57 on 16/06/2025 - 14:46
        
        @Ti-au: Multiple cameras and editing does not equate to being of monetary value. Case in point: Reaction videos
        
        Ti-au on 16/06/2025 - 15:46
        
        -2
        
        @Guybrush57: I didn't realise that every video uploaded to youtube was a reaction video.
        
        Literally the most stupid comment of the year.
        
        Guybrush57 on 16/06/2025 - 15:56
        
        -1
        
        @Ti-au: So you agree that editing and multi-cameras doesn't equate to automatically deserving money? Thank you.
        
        Ti-au on 17/06/2025 - 14:04
        
        -1
        
        @Guybrush57: You are a thief plain and simple.
        Its time to come clean and just admit it.
        
        Guybrush57 on 17/06/2025 - 14:11
        
        -2
        
        @Ti-au: Can I ask why you haven't paid me for any of my comments that you have read? I created the content and you consumed it.
        
        Ti-au on 17/06/2025 - 14:41
        
        -1
        
        @Guybrush57: Oh you don't get it - this site is about posting bargains.
        Its not about uploading interesting videos that may take hours to shoot and hours to edit.
        Your inane comments are a net loss to me.
        So you thieve off youtube creators and now you are thieving my time in an attempt to pretend you are not a thief.
        
        Guybrush57 on 17/06/2025 - 15:00
        
        -1
        
        @Ti-au:
        
        you are thieving
        
        this site is about posting bargains
        
        Speaking of. Why don't you stop your 12-year long thieving and post a bargain on this bargain site?
        
        eug on 17/06/2025 - 15:27
        
        @Guybrush57:
        
        Why don't you stop your 12-year long thieving and post a bargain on this bargain site?
        
        OzB does not have terms of service that stipulate its users must post a bargain.
        
        YouTube specifically states ad blockers are against its terms of service.
        
        You're free to do whatever you want. Just stop pretending it's not effectively stealing from content creators and the service provider. A lot of people do it and that's up to them, they just don't fool themselves into thinking it's not what it is.
        
        Guybrush57 on 17/06/2025 - 15:31
        
        -1
        
        @eug:
        
        OzB does not have terms of service that stipulate its users must post a bargain
        
        So using your example from before, if Coles/Woolworths don't have a sign telling me that goods must be paid for then it's OK to steal them?
        
        eug on 17/06/2025 - 15:33
        
        @Guybrush57:
        
        So using your example from before, if Coles/Woolworths don't have a sign telling me that goods must be paid for then it's OK to steal them?
        
        Why don't you try it?
        
        Guybrush57 on 17/06/2025 - 16:08
        
        -1
        
        @eug: Why don't you admit Ti-au is stealing from OzBargain content creators?
        
        eug on 17/06/2025 - 16:41
        
        @Guybrush57: Moving the goalposts again I see. :)
        
        Guybrush57 on 17/06/2025 - 16:54
        
        -2
        
        @eug: What goalposts were moved? Either all content (OzBargain + YouTube) deserves monetary compensation or they don't.
        
        Ti-au on 18/06/2025 - 18:52
        
        @Guybrush57: Oh your a bit dim and thats why you pretend you aren't thief when you are one and think we are fooled.
        
        I'll help you out.
        
        The main content of this site is Bargains listed on the front page.
        I DO SUPPORT those people who post links by clicking on their affiliated links.
        
        I would also buy a subscription if it was offered.
        
        The ability to make posts is just an ancillary service by ozbargain.
        It's not its primary objective (which is to bring bargains to the public - please see the front page to see what the primary focus of this site is).
        As such no one would get paid for adding comments.
        
        Thats also why youtube also does not pay for comments.
        
        Guybrush57 on 18/06/2025 - 19:45
        
        -1
        
        @Ti-au: The bargain content is posted to this website not by the website itself, but by its users. I encourage you to stop your 12-year thieving spree and post a bargain yourself. You know what you are doing is stealing.
        
        Also do you buy using the affiliate links of every OzBargain post every time? If not, then you read the deal without paying for it. That is content that you have consumed without paying for it. That is immorally wrong because you are stealing.
        
        Ti-au on 18/06/2025 - 20:15
        
        @Guybrush57: "post a bargain yourself."
        
        As I said before I run two accounts and posted over 100 bargains.
        
        "Also do you buy using the affiliate links of every OzBargain post every time? "
        If I can I do.
        
        "That is content that you have consumed without paying for it."
        But I am willing to pay for it, unfortunately ozbargain does not allow me to subscribe.
        The great thing is youtube allows you to watch advertising or subscribe,
        you are not subscribing and not watching advertising which is breaking the TOS and thieving off creators.
        
        "immorally wrong because you are stealing."
        
        Oh so you do ADMIT YOU ARE THIEF! Fantastic.
        Now please admit you break the TOS too.
        
        eug on 18/06/2025 - 19:50
        
        @Ti-au: I think it's time to stop feeding the ……. :)
        
        Guybrush57 on 18/06/2025 - 19:56
        
        -1
        
        @eug: I'd like to point out you've still failed to supply a single video (of 20 billion) you believe is worth a subscription for. I know things are subjective, supply with ten if different varieties to better your chances.
        
        Ti-au on 18/06/2025 - 20:16
        
        @eug: true, but I did get @Guybrush57 to admit that he is a thief :-)
        
        Guybrush57 on 18/06/2025 - 20:59
        
        -1
        
        @Ti-au: I used your own rules against you to make you admit you are a thief. You are the thief. The thief was you. Not sure how you misconstrued that.
        
        bohn on 20/06/2025 - 16:55
        
        +1
        
        @eug:
        
        YouTube specifically states ad blockers are against its terms of service
        
        Judging by the amount of comments about SmartTube, Firefox+ublock origin and revanced, not many give two shits about youtube and their terms of service. Luckily for me, youtube and other sites can probably do nothing to force me to watch them, as the adblocking community works hard to bypass all their crappy measures.
        
        I have only had a short period of disruption when using Tubular whilst waiting for the dev to update it. The dev gets no money.. they do it out of love for the community, and the hated of ads https://github.com/polymorphicshade/Tubular
        
        JustSayNoToAds
        
        NoShame
        
        Ti-au on 18/06/2025 - 18:39
        
        @Guybrush57:
        
        Terms of service do not require me to post bargains, but who says this is my only account?
        
        I have SUPPORTED people who post bargains by clicking on affiliate links.
        
        I have SUPPORTED the charity efforts of this site.
        
        This site already makes money, but I would be happy to pay for a subscription if it was offered.
        
        Multiple users are calling you a thief.
        Why can't you just admit thats what you are?
        
        Guybrush57 on 18/06/2025 - 19:54
        
        @Ti-au:
        
        So you feel your stealing is OK because there was no sign telling you not to?
        
        I have SUPPORTED people on YouTube by clicking on affiliate links. I guess we've established I am a paid content consumer after all.
        
        What does that involve?
        
        Google already makes money. Uploaders already make money.
        
        Multiple users are calling you a thief.
        Really? What am I accused of stealing?
        
        bohn on 14/06/2025 - 12:30
        
        @Guybrush57:
        
        What makes you think your content has monetary value?
        
        heh, this was my first thought too
      - Lucille Bluth on 14/06/2025 - 12:53
        
        +1
        
        @eug:
        
        "All of which you can steal for free"
        
        😮 I'm going to hell. 🔥
        
        I am happy to let others (i.e. you) pay, especially after YouTube stopped accepting my money for YouTube Argentina. Now they get NOTHING. 🙂
        
        eug on 14/06/2025 - 13:55
        
        +3
        
        @Lucille Bluth: Sure, you can do whatever you want. I just find it amusing that people keep arguing that it isn't stealing when it effectively is. :)
        
        Randolph Duke on 16/06/2025 - 08:13
        
        +3
        
        @eug: You’ve lasted longer than I would have in that conversation. I think YouTube subscriptions are overpriced but to say there’s no monetary value in the content and content creators don’t deserve revenue is asinine.
Guybrush57 on 11/06/2025 - 16:09

+19

$480 a year… christ!
- afah0447 on 12/06/2025 - 12:59
  
  +2
  
  Not even he would pay that much!
  - MrFrugalSpend on 12/06/2025 - 22:11
    
    +2
    
    He is usually capitalised in this context
  - Illyria on 15/06/2025 - 13:08
    
    +1
    
    If He did would that allow every baptised Christian access to YouTube under the family plan?
- n3ck3ntry8bort0rgasm on 14/06/2025 - 18:07
  
  and that's just for one sub.
  
  wasn't there an article a few years ago, that showed the average spend per person a year on subs? how much was it again? $1k I think. so this would be half of that in one sub.
  
  I get it's for families, so pay in bulk and save a bit compared to individual Premium. but still..
ESEMCE on 11/06/2025 - 16:09

+7

Here I was thinking Turkey was getting expensive!
- jv on 11/06/2025 - 20:04
  
  +5
  
  Turkey was getting expensive!
  
  I really depends where you get it from…
mskeggs on 11/06/2025 - 16:12

+17

It's a bloody outrage it is!
If they hadn't blocked my access to an overseas family plan I might pay a higher price, but instead I spent an hour setting up adblocking on my family's devices.

Thanks for the motivation, Alphabet! You ended up saving me $60 a year.
- Master Bates on 11/06/2025 - 16:44
  
  +3
  
  What was your solution, Pi-hole?
  - mskeggs on 11/06/2025 - 17:05
    
    +1
    
    Yes at home and Firefox adblock extension on Android and vinegar extension on iOS (though it hasn't been reliable)
  - SnowDragon on 11/06/2025 - 19:08
    
    +8
    
    Pi hole doesn't block YouTube ads.
  - bohn on 13/06/2025 - 13:29
    
    Pihole and adguardhome are good, but you still want to run ublock origin
- MrFrugalSpend on 12/06/2025 - 22:12
  
  +2
  
  I'm going to take this all the way to the Prime Minister!!!

YouTube Premium Family Price Increase to A$39.99/month

Related Stores

Comments

JustSayNoToAds

NoShame

Related Products

New Forum Topics