That's kind of the nature of any subscription that isn't pay-per-use for every action... you're always going to be paying for various things that you don't use/consume.
YouTube premium recently added a “lite” tier. I don’t use YouTube music and I don’t watch shorts or music videos on YouTube, so I’m able to have the channels I watch get compensated without paying for what I perceive as unnecessary and non-core features of the platform.
Clearly such a thing is possible, and a company which insists it isn’t is fundamentally either uncreative or user hostile.
Maybe I perceive monetized videos on YouTube as an unnecessary and non-core feature - I'd like a tier where I only have access to non-monetized videos, but get the other perks of membership (background playback, etc.)
So what is it about subscription that makes this impossible? There are other factors that favor dumbed down user interfaces, but they are not unique to subscriptions
> So what is it about subscription that makes this impossible?
Just the nature of it? A subscription is always going to be a regular fee that pays for an aggregate of multiple things, some of which aren’t used by every subscriber. (And which some subscribers are going to object to paying for.) The only way to ensure that you only pay for what you use is a pay-per-use model.
And conceptually I really like pay-per-use models, but the public tends not to love them - in particular for things with low marginal costs of production/serving, like software services. (As opposed to medium marginal-cost goods, like say, home gas utility, where non-usage-based pricing is available, but tends to be poor value.)
