Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The more than 2 billion "active users" number was based on logged-in users viewing content at least once a month.
Ok, so that’s not sufficient to interpret. At least once a month, for how many months in a row? How much content duration needs to be watched to qualify as viewing content?

And most importantly, is one user with multiple Gmail accounts a single active user or multiple users? Given most people likely have more than one Gmail account this would be an easy way to inflate reports.
 
Every time MacRumors mentions an update or change to an app where it goes into a subscription model, there are pages of comments from readers about how much they hate subscriptions and how they'll never support anything said company does in the future. I'm often one of them.

Reports like this show, however, that the masses, in general, love the "just a cup of coffee" business model. People speak with their wallets and I'm sure this just helped convince more companies to switch to subscriptions. "We may alienate some customers but look how much more we're making now!"
Not the same thing. The vast majority of these apps are content providers. Paying for a subscription to access licensed content is completely different than paying a subscription to unlock a journaling app or local password locker.

I will happily pay for Apple Music or Netflix, but neither Day One nor 1Password, for examples, will ever get another dollar from me.
 
I always find deceptive this kind of analysis. Besides Tinder, all other apps that made the top 10 are streaming/service platforms. So it's not the subscriptions market growing, but more people using personal devices to watch content.
Counterpoint, I subscribe to a number of streaming apps, several of them through the App Store, and I never watch them on personal devices (if by that you mean phone/tablet). I watch on Apple TV, but I find subscribing via Apple's IAP better for some services, because you get the ability to discontinue at any time by just clicking a button in the Settings app, rather than having to go through some (occasionally hard to find) web form on the streaming service's website.
 
Given most people likely have more than one Gmail account this would be an easy way to inflate reports.
Your other questions are perceptive, but I'd bet that the vast majority of people who have a gmail account, have one gmail account. They aren't all techies like the crowd that gathers here.
 
iCloud storage isn't paid for in an App Store app
And yet that's still kind of a technicality (or, rather, maybe Google One should be removed from a variant of the scores) - iCloud and Google One are offering largely the same kind of thing on competing platforms, they're just billing via a different avenue.
 
Reports like this show, however, that the masses, in general, love the "just a cup of coffee" business model. People speak with their wallets and I'm sure this just helped convince more companies to switch to subscriptions. "We may alienate some customers but look how much more we're making now!"
There are a few programs that I'm quite happy to pay a subscription for, while there are a bunch of others where I'd be happy to pay $15 or whatever when they release a new major version, but they're not worth $5/mo to me, so I've walked away from them.
 
The only thing this study shows is that we are stupid enough to pay for lousy content, which is mostly reruns and filled with commercials, whenever the content providers hold the metaphorical gun to our heads and extort our hard earned money.
Wait, who is putting a gun to your head and extorting you to watch TV? I pay for some streaming services, because I've chosen to do so for entertainment purposes. Nobody threatened or extorted me to make me watch. If the prices were more than I was willing to pay, then I wouldn't pay, I'd just do something else with my time instead. It's not like TV is a vital necessity for survival.

If you don't like what's on offer, or the prices, then vote with your wallet. Walk away. Nobody is forcing you to watch.
 
Your other questions are perceptive, but I'd bet that the vast majority of people who have a gmail account, have one gmail account. They aren't all techies like the crowd that gathers here.
I don't disagree that the MR forum isn't a representative sample of normal usage. However, given how many schools and organizations distribute Gmail accounts, I can't imagine the average number of Gmail users with multiple Gmail accounts round down to 0.

This is relevant because reports say there are 1.8 billion Gmail accounts in 2022. Two billion YT accounts would mean about 200 million people use registered for YT but don't have a Gmail account, despite being required to have a YT account.

It might be possible that millions of people actively use YT but don't have a Google account, but that makes me wonder how they are identifying unique YT users that aren't logging in. Streaming devices and smart TVs mean that more and more YT can be observed in groups, and living room viewing makes the issue harder to interpret because multiple people are now sharing a single account.

If three people share one YT account: that's three active users.
If one person watches YT on three accounts: that's one active user.

My problem with all these metrics is that they don't reliably tell us anything particularly interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ
Ok, so that’s not sufficient to interpret. At least once a month, for how many months in a row? How much content duration needs to be watched to qualify as viewing content?

And most importantly, is one user with multiple Gmail accounts a single active user or multiple users? Given most people likely have more than one Gmail account this would be an easy way to inflate reports.

The figure also doesn't count regular users that may view YouTube content without being logged in so that 2+ billion could be even higher. As I said, stats like these can always be questioned one way or another but 50 million YouTube Premium/YouTube Music subscribers is low compared to the likely billion, two billion or more non-subscribers.
 
So not to step over it. Google, No1 in revenue. According to the members of this site, Apple users don't use anything Google. Because privacy is everything.
 
The figure also doesn't count regular users that may view YouTube content without being logged in so that 2+ billion could be even higher. As I said, stats like these can always be questioned one way or another but 50 million YouTube Premium/YouTube Music subscribers is low compared to the likely billion, two billion or more non-subscribers.
I mentioned that.

My point is that you are comparing two numbers with different units: Premium Accounts vs Active Users.
 
My point was to note that the number of paying YouTube Premium subscribers was small compared to the likely overall total of all YouTube users.
But it should be small in comparison. Are you saying the size of the ratio is unexpected?

Multiple users can share one paid account and many users have more than one free account. No user is going to sign up for multiple paid accounts.

Consider this: YT Premium has twice as many Paid Subscribers as Peacock has accounts. Two times the people are willing to pay for a service that has been "free" for nearly 20 years, then use a "free" service bound to something they are willing to pay for.
 
Last edited:
But it should be small in comparison. Are you saying the size of the ratio is unexpected?

Multiple users can share one paid account and many users have more than one free account. No user is going to sign up for multiple paid accounts.

Consider this: YT Premium has twice as many Paid Subscribers as Peacock has accounts. Two times the people are willing to pay for a service that has been "free" for nearly 20 years, then use a "free" service bound to something they are willing to pay for.

My point was that the data provided did not seem to reflect the comments made in the first post (#8) I had responded to on this subject. They seemed to be implying that a significant portion of all YouTube users choose to view the content via a pay ad-free "Premium" subscription which doesn't appear to be the case. That is why I questioned how they reached that conclusion. I wasn't talking about the number of paying users being small compared to OTHER premium services, just small when you consider how many total users behemoth YouTube has.
 
Looks like most of the top apps are content streamers. So no big surprise there! Every crap TV channel now wants us to pay them for content, reruns, and commercials. The only thing this study shows is that we are stupid enough to pay for lousy content, which is mostly reruns and filled with commercials, whenever the content providers hold the metaphorical gun to our heads and extort our hard earned money.
What it shows is that people are willing to pay the so called “Apple Tax” to subscribe from within the App Store. Google passes on Apple’s “30/15% commission” to the end user and they’re still willing to pay it rather than going to the web and paying less. That’s how important Apple’s ease of use, single source of payment details and subscription management service is to Apple users. Android users just don’t understand this.

Opening apps up to have 3rd party payment processors isn’t going to effect Apple all too much if the option to use Apple‘s payment system is also included….even if they shouldn’t have to. I for one will not be using anything other than Apple’s payment method, even if I have to pay more. It’s just a better experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ
The figure also doesn't count regular users that may view YouTube content without being logged in so that 2+ billion could be even higher. As I said, stats like these can always be questioned one way or another but 50 million YouTube Premium/YouTube Music subscribers is low compared to the likely billion, two billion or more non-subscribers.
You’re missing the point that iOS users to the YouTube platform is a smaller amount in comparison to global Android users. The amount that subscribe from within the app is likely even smaller but it still shows up in the top ten paid Apps in the Apple App Store. When Google passes on the 30/15% tax to iOS users, and they choose to pay it rather than going to the web to subscribe, you can see why developers want to use 3rd party payments within the app (to reduce friction). What they fundamentally misunderstand is that Apple users actually prefer to have their credit card details held with only Apple, like the ability to manage subscriptions from a central location and have Apple manage support….it’s just an overall better experience that will not be replicated by a developer handling this on their own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Abazigal
My point was that the data provided did not seem to reflect the comments made in the first post (#8) I had responded to on this subject. They seemed to be implying that a significant portion of all YouTube users choose to view the content via a pay ad-free "Premium" subscription which doesn't appear to be the case. That is why I questioned how they reached that conclusion. I wasn't talking about the number of paying users being small compared to OTHER premium services, just small when you consider how many total users behemoth YouTube has.
Oh, yeah, no. Most people aren't and will not pay for content with money. That's not a condition of YT but a general behavior. If you can pay with something besides money then people will try to do that.

I would be curious what YT premium subscribers watch, and how much of it. My guess is that people who put in a few hours a day of YT are far more likely to pay for an ad-free experience.
 
I would be curious what YT premium subscribers watch, and how much of it. My guess is that people who put in a few hours a day of YT are far more likely to pay for an ad-free experience.
I subscribe to YouTube premium. I watch almost exclusively on my Apple TV. I realized at some point that (1) ads are annoying (well, I realized that many decades ago), and (2) sometimes I watch more YouTube than Disney+ or HBO (AT&T provides HBO "for free" with my fiber connection). Having ad-free streaming available but then watching YouTube with ads was annoying, but it turned out it was a problem I could make go away for $10ish a month. That was worth it to me.

As to what I watch, it's all over the map - commentary on sci fi shows (things like ScreenCrush), documentary-like videos on science and space topics (a few at random: Isaac Arthur, PBS SpaceTime, Scott Manley), some military documentaries, game news, and when I hang out with my nieces, a bunch of music videos. If you have 20 minutes to spare, often it's nice to watch something short in its entirety, rather than watch a third of an hour-long show. And it's lovely not having ads. The above is just a smattering, plenty of other topics too.
 
You’re missing the point that iOS users to the YouTube platform is a smaller amount in comparison to global Android users. The amount that subscribe from within the app is likely even smaller but it still shows up in the top ten paid Apps in the Apple App Store. When Google passes on the 30/15% tax to iOS users, and they choose to pay it rather than going to the web to subscribe, you can see why developers want to use 3rd party payments within the app (to reduce friction). What they fundamentally misunderstand is that Apple users actually prefer to have their credit card details held with only Apple, like the ability to manage subscriptions from a central location and have Apple manage support….it’s just an overall better experience that will not be replicated by a developer handling this on their own.

I also see many android users tout Vanced (whatever that is) as a means of sidestepping ads on youtube on android devices, so it’s also possible that android users have more options with regards to ad-blocking.

For iOS users, they do tend to have a higher propensity to spend, and Youtube Premium likely is the most convenient way of circumventing ads (whether or not you care that your favourite creators continue to get paid or not is another issue, I guess), and so here we are.

I do agree with you that this does help contextualise what Apple is providing for that 15/30% they charge. There’s something about the apple user base, as well as the nature of the iOS App Store that simply leads iOS users to spend more, and Apple feels they deserve a cut to reflect the role they play in expanding the overall pie for everyone. Whether that is worth 30% or not is debatable, but it’s at least worth something.
 
I would be curious what YT premium subscribers watch, and how much of it. My guess is that people who put in a few hours a day of YT are far more likely to pay for an ad-free experience.

My mom stays at home and leaves the TV on whole day (essentially running YouTube, using my account). A single clip of say, Korean street food, easily runs 2-3 hours. That’s a ton of ads potentially not served.

It’s also nice not having to reach for the remote to skip ads or have them interrupt your viewing experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ
You’re missing the point that iOS users to the YouTube platform is a smaller amount in comparison to global Android users. The amount that subscribe from within the app is likely even smaller but it still shows up in the top ten paid Apps in the Apple App Store. When Google passes on the 30/15% tax to iOS users, and they choose to pay it rather than going to the web to subscribe, you can see why developers want to use 3rd party payments within the app (to reduce friction). What they fundamentally misunderstand is that Apple users actually prefer to have their credit card details held with only Apple, like the ability to manage subscriptions from a central location and have Apple manage support….it’s just an overall better experience that will not be replicated by a developer handling this on their own.

My comments were not about iOS versus Android apps or users. I had responded to post #8 where the individual included a link to another article. They seemed to imply from the article that a significant portion of total YouTube users view the content via a pay ad-free "Premium" subscription but this doesn't appear to be the case based on the data provided. Only a small percentage of total YouTube uses have a "Premium" subscription.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.