Why? (sounds interesting as a very very long Spotify customer)
I've learned what Youtube Premium is: "YouTube and YouTube Music ad-free, offline, and in the background"
For me, that's nothing as I can already view with no ads, and download whatever I want.
To me, it's a matter of principle that evolved over the years. I grew suspicious of free services. So, I pay for what I use, at least, in the terms that the provider lays out. I pay for my domain, I pay for my email, and I pay for YouTube as well, as I use it heavily. I still think that the subscription cost absolutely doesn't compensate for my usage, there is just no way in hell. But I do really like the service, and so, I would like to contribute, so I like that I can have this subscription relationship with it. I also like to express my opinion with my wallet: "I don't like being sold to advertisers, I would rather pay directly". I think youtube is fair for offering this alternative, I wish more providers did.
Untrue. I pay the largest marketer in the world (debatable, but not the point) to consume content on-demand, of which some, negligible percentage is ads. And usually I don't care about those being ads either. For example, I enjoy Abroad in Japan, and he is sometimes sponsored, invited to present a Japanese restaurant or tourist place. I don't mind at all.
>I agree with paying for things, but subscription model provide no ownership and limited value.
I know exactly what I get, and I don't mind that at all. I desire no ownership over these videos. It's very rare that I re-watch them, and I am comfortable that if, for any reason, it all goes away in an instant, I can move on to other things, with not feeling that I have lost my money in it or anything.
I do understand that the value proposition doesn't work out for you personally, but since the original question was "why would you pay money to use YT", this is why. It's an excellent service for an excellent price.
For one, there is nothing wrong with a subscription model, in exchange for a service. How else is a continuous service supposed to be funded, if not continually? This is not encouraging bad behavior, it's a fair exchange. It's not anti-consumer at all. I don't see how it's different from my electricity bill, for example.
>all that is available for free.
The free opportunity does not mean that it's the best course of action automatically, same as how not every legal thing is moral or encouraged also. For example, computer games are also available to me for free, even legally, because in Hungary, I'm entitled to have my personal copy of an intellectual property, no matter how I got it. Going on with this, choosing to pirate all my games would be optimal, as it would require the least amount of resources from me. But then, I don't just want to maximize my own gains, I want to see a healthy gaming ecosystem, where the creators of the games are financially rewarded for their effort, so that they are enabled to create more or better games. So, I contribute to this ecosystem with my money. Even subscriptions, so to say, for example I always buy the "game pass" for my multiplayer game of choice, because while I bought the game also, they host the servers, do matchmaking and create in-game content continually - so I participate continually as well.
I kinda get the point that with these subscriptions, we don't get to own what we "buy". But I think that if one realizes this, and consciously goes into a transaction like this, then it is not a problem. In fact, I don't want to own many things, for example, the YouTube videos I watch I specifically don't want to own. What I enjoy is the access, and the experience, and I don't mind at all to pay for those.
I too have a pet revenge peeve like this though, and for me, it's Microsoft. I'm using Windows for my multiplayer games, and I refuse to ever pay a cent for the piece of shit. Right now I'm activating it with my own activation emulator, for example.
Now my YouTube Music is more used by the kids and the family than Spotify