Because the tech and finance industry is kinda stupid like that, we pretty much only know how much revenue YouTube have, not the profit. I think it's fairly saf

Because the tech and finance industry is kinda stupid like that, we pretty much only know how much revenue YouTube have, not the profit. I think it's fairly safe to assume that YouTube is generating a substantial profit for Alphabet, has they have no qualms about shutting down a service if the profit isn't large enough (Google Domains comes to mind). So there's a level of greed at YouTube as there certainly could be fewer ads, and lower margins. I also don't think it's unreasonable to question if there is a "quality" ad market large enough to support YouTube at it's current profit level. They show a lot of ads, and they are pretty terrible, they also can't be worth much. For $23 you get YouTube Music and YouTube Premium, for six people. The largest chunk of that money is actually for YouTube Music (I believe it's $11 for Music and $4 for Premium, for a single person). I'd be surprised if YouTube isn't making money on both the single and family plan. YouTube channels like Linus Tech Tips have pointed out publicly that YouTube Premium contributes a fair chunk of money in their revenue, so not all of the cost of the subscription goes to YouTube. That means that either the ads are subsidizing Premium or the ads bring in just a few dollars per month per user. While I have no insights and I'm just speculating, it's currently my belief that online video ads are close to worthless, meaning that they are also cheap enough that the shittiest companies can afford to buy them. So you need to show more and more, and accept increasingly intrusive ads to generate the same profit as earlier.