Maybe this is a strategic transition to a more consistent, less advertising dependent Google.
As to advertising - why would they give up revenue? If they can both charge and advertise, they will, just like cable tv.
While not always an exact distinction, the cost of cable is to carry the service to your house, and the advertising on cable is to pay for the content being served over the former.
If you want more channels, you pay more, which is the reverse of how it would be if it worked the way you say it did.
I don't think that's the case at all. Look at the explosion of TV streaming services. Nevermind the fact that we're winding up with a situation worse than cable, people are paying for those.
What people don't pay for is apps that are more expensive than $1. They complain if apps cost more than a cup of coffee because everything else is free.
We have to push out the loss leaders and advertising subsidized garbage, because it puts expectations on the price of our software.
Compare our situation with Steam. People are happy to pay tons of money for games. Often times, they spend money for games they don't even play!
It's good for us if things start costing money and stop being free. Free is something only the giants can afford to offer.
I wholeheartedly agree with your desire here, however nothing that Google is doing is a move in this direction.
The base service is an advertising supported loss leader.
Upcharging on top of that is about capturing more money from those who have already been locked in.