I’m a reluctant Spotify user. The company doesn’t pay musicians as well as it ought to, which is one reason some of my favorite artists have gone AWOL. It also doesn’t do enough to prevent AI slop from infiltrating playlists, and being someone with a number of Apple devices in my household, I’d benefit from Apple Music‘s platform integration.
The truth is, though, that Spotify still does some vital things right, or at least better than the other streaming services out there. I sometimes consider making the leap to YouTube Music, given that my wife uses it, and I’m already a YouTube Premium Lite subscriber. For a few reasons however, I can’t bring myself to switch.
Smart speaker support isn’t wide enough
An Alexa-sized hole
Some people don’t care about smart speaker support, presumably because they only listen on headphones, Bluetooth speakers, or their computer. But it can be mighty convenient — I shuffle Spotify playlists on my Echo Studio every workday, and my son has a bathtime soundtrack. Putting on ambient sounds sometimes helps us sleep, and naturally, it’s nice to be able to ask for a specific song when the mood strikes instead of having to fiddle with an app every time.
YouTube Music actually does have support on Apple HomePods, Google Nest devices, and (via apps) some other devices, but there’s a major gap: Amazon Echo speakers and displays. I’ve got more than just the Studio in my house, so switching to YouTube would create a serious inconvenience. In fact, there’s no equivalent of AirPlay or Google Cast on Alexa speakers, so there isn’t even a way of attempting app-based playback short of Bluetooth pairing. Conversely, Spotify Connect is so widely supported that the only significant issue is HomePods.
Arguably this is more Amazon’s fault than Google’s, since it could enable Google Cast if it wanted to, and it’s presumably trying to nudge (or shove) users towards Amazon Music Unlimited whenever possible. Nevertheless, the barrier is there, and Google could stand to be more aggressive about compatibility.
You never know what you’re going to get
Streaming shouldn’t be a box of chocolates
Admittedly, one of the attractions of YouTube Music is that you can hear renditions of songs that would never appear on other streaming services. Usually it’s a question of rights — Spotify isn’t going to license a bootleg mashup, mixtape, or concert recording, and some artists don’t bother pursuing licensing deals in the first place.
Thing is, that approach sometimes results in chaos. If I’m searching for a live recording from a well-known band, I might end up with one of those bootlegs rather than the professionally-produced albums I’m expecting. The service will also sometimes play the censored versions of songs rather than the originals, even if you don’t have any restrictions enabled. That might not sound like such a big deal, but I’m a grown man, and I’d rather not have my music interrupted every few seconds by bleeping or muting.
If I’m searching for a live recording from a well-known band, I might end up with a bootleg rather than the professionally-produced albums I’m expecting.
Ultimately, it’s about consistency. There might be times when I miss the unique artists and tracks YouTube has to offer, but at least I know that when I search for something on Spotify — or discover it in a playlist — I’ll get the most logical result, AI pollution notwithstanding. Heck, it’s not like YouTube is immune to AI either.
Spotify still delivers the best playlists
Adding variety to the familiar
Credit where it’s due — Spotify’s rivals are doing what they can to provide equivalents to the company’s famous playlists, such as Release Radar and Discover Weekly. If I just wanted to hear the latest releases from my favorite artists, or expand my horizons, nothing would stop me on YouTube. Google has even added custom playlists based on AI prompts, just like Spotify.
Spotify has been around for longer, however, and remains vastly more popular than any of its rivals. That often translates not just into well-honed first-party playlists, but more user-created options, which can make a real difference if your tastes don’t align with the mainstream. Some of my favorite genres include ambient electronics, neofolk, dungeon synth, and martial industrial — sure, you’re going to find playlists for those on other services, but the odds of finding one I like are better on Spotify.
Smart Shuffle adds some variety without casting everything to the whims of the algorithm.
One feature I particularly enjoy is Smart Shuffle. This is something you can toggle on any of your playlists to make the app insert fresh tracks occasionally, which will hopefully stay in line with the overall theme. It doesn’t always hit the mark perfectly, but it does add some variety without casting everything to the whims of the algorithm.
My only serious gripe about Spotify is that there’s no equivalent of YouTube’s Supermix. Sure, there are auto-generated Daily Mixes and Daylists, but ironically, those are too short to last a whole workday. I could achieve something similar with my Liked Songs playlist, except that Spotify won’t let me play it at all — it seems to break once you’re beyond an unspecified song count, which is ridiculous.
Spotify’s desktop interface is superior
A website isn’t a replacement
From the way some services market themselves, you’d think that people only ever listened to music on their phones. The truth, of course, is that plenty of people listen to music on Macs and Windows PCs, whether because they work from home or they simply want a soundtrack while they browse the web or play a game. One of my favorite ways to unwind is putting on ambient music while I play PUBG. I know other people like to listen to podcasts or audiobooks, which is another advantage of Spotify, incidentally — just not one I indulge in very often.
YouTube Music’s web-based interface means no offline caching, and no equalizer either, which may be instant dealkillers for some people.
While you can listen to YouTube Music on a computer, Google’s interface is barely good enough to get the job done. To start with, it doesn’t distinguish between musical- and non-musical playlists. If you like to sort your regular YouTube content into playlists too, your Music library can rapidly become a mess. The biggest issue by far, however, is that there’s no native client. You’re stuck with a web interface, which is inherently restrictive for any media service. There’s no offline caching, and there’s no equalizer either, which may be instant dealkillers for some people.
Spotify also lets you customize the app’s layout to your liking. Not that you have to do much — its triple-panel interface is just about perfect once you adjust the zoom level to fit more onscreen. Any further flaws I could point out would be nitpicking, whereas YouTube Music seems oriented around providing a “clean” interface instead of a functional one. I’m okay dealing with a little claustrophobia, since I’m here to listen, not admire the aesthetics.
