It’s not uncommon for certain songs or albums to be available on one music streaming service but not others. This is especially noticeable when comparing the catalogs of the two biggest players in the market – Spotify and Apple Music.
Spotify and Apple Music have been fierce competitors ever since Apple entered the market in 2015 [1]. While Spotify still leads in terms of total users, Apple has quickly grown Apple Music’s market share, especially in countries where it operates [2]. However, there are key differences in their content libraries.
Music Licensing
Streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music need to obtain licenses in order to stream music legally. This involves acquiring rights from major music labels, independent labels, publishers, performing rights organizations (PROs), and directly from artists and songwriters (source). There are a few main types of licenses that streaming services require:
– Mechanical license: Allows the streaming service to reproduce and distribute a musical composition. This license is typically obtained from publishers and PROs.
– Public performance license: Allows the streaming service to publicly perform the musical composition. This type of license is also obtained from PROs like ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.
– Master use license: Allows the use of a specific recording of a song. These licenses are acquired from record labels and directly from artists (source).
The exact licenses required depends on the type of streaming service. For example, on-demand streaming services like Spotify need to obtain all three types of licenses mentioned above. Radio-style streaming requires only public performance and master use licenses.
Spotify’s Open Approach
One key difference between Spotify and Apple Music is that Spotify works with a wider range of music distributors and labels. Spotify has partnerships with over 450 distributors globally, allowing them to offer a more comprehensive music catalog [1]. Their open platform model means they are more flexible in working with different rightsholders, ranging from major record labels to independent artists and labels.
In contrast, Apple Music has more restrictive policies and works with a smaller subset of distributors. Their walled garden approach gives them tighter control over licensing and exclusives, but limits the scope of their catalog. With over 70 million tracks, Spotify still maintains a significant lead in overall catalog size over Apple Music’s estimated 60 million songs [2].
By embracing partnerships across the industry, Spotify aims to provide the most comprehensive music streaming catalog on the market. Their open platform philosophy has been a key factor in Spotify’s growth and maintaining their leading position in music streaming.
Apple’s Walled Garden
Apple is well known for maintaining a “walled garden” around its products and services, exercising tight control in order to provide a highly curated user experience. This approach extends to Apple Music, where Apple maintains strict limits on what content is allowed on the service.
The company carefully vets all music before adding it to Apple Music, in contrast to Spotify’s more open approach. Apple has complete control over what is included in the Apple Music library, rejecting songs and albums that don’t meet its standards for content, quality or licensing permissions.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Apple uses a combination of human curators and algorithms to determine what music makes it into the Apple Music catalog. Songs are evaluated not just on technical metrics, but also on more subjective factors relating to lyrics and artistic merit.
This strict curation and closed ecosystem approach allows Apple to offer a polished product, but necessarily limits the scope of Apple Music’s library compared to streaming services with more open access. While spotty licensing is also a factor, Apple’s walled garden philosophy inherently restricts what users can access on the platform.
Case Study: The Beatles
One of the most notable examples of music missing from Apple Music but available on Spotify is The Beatles. Though Apple Inc and Apple Corps (The Beatles’ company) reached a trademark agreement in 2007 (https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/02/05Apple-Inc-and-The-Beatles-Apple-Corps-Ltd-Enter-into-New-Agreement/), the deals regarding music licensing remained complicated. Apple Records owns the rights to The Beatles’ music recordings and videos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Records), which may contribute to why the band’s full catalog is not available on the Apple Music platform.
Specific songs like “Here Comes the Sun” have been noted by users as missing from Apple Music but present on Spotify (https://www.reddit.com/r/beatles/comments/16jduct/does_apple_own_the_rights_to_here_comes_the_sun/). The complex legal agreements between Apple Inc and Apple Records likely play a role in which Beatles songs are available on each streaming service.
Regional Availability
There are differences in regional availability between Apple Music and Spotify due to licensing agreements in various countries (Source 1). Spotify has a presence in over 180 markets globally, while Apple Music is available in 167 countries and regions (Source 2).
A key factor is that Spotify has been more aggressive about securing licensing deals worldwide. For example, Spotify launched in India in February 2019, while Apple Music did not debut there until June 2015. Similarly, Spotify arrived in the Middle East and North Africa in November 2018 before Apple Music’s launch in those markets in June 2019 (Source 3).
The regional availability impacts music fans in countries where one service is present but the other is not. Users sometimes turn to workarounds like VPNs if their preferred service is unavailable where they live. Overall, Spotify’s wider global footprint gives it an edge in markets where Apple Music has not yet launched.
User Uploads
One key difference between Spotify and Apple Music is that Spotify allows users to upload their own music to the platform, while Apple Music does not offer this capability. Spotify users can upload up to 10,000 songs from their personal collection to listen to alongside Spotify’s catalog of over 70 million tracks (How to Upload Music to Spotify, Apple Music & All Digital …). This allows indie artists to get their music on Spotify without going through a label or distributor.
In contrast, Apple Music does not let users upload their own tracks. All the music available on Apple Music must be officially licensed and delivered through authorized aggregators like CD Baby, TuneCore, DistroKid, etc. (Get your music on Apple Music). While this ensures high audio quality, it also means unsigned DIY artists cannot directly share their music via Apple Music.
So Spotify provides more opportunity for lesser-known acts to reach listeners through direct uploads. However, Apple maintains tighter control over its catalog quality via mandatory licensing.
Exclusive Releases
In recent years, streaming platforms like Spotify and Apple Music have competed for exclusive releases from major artists in order to attract more subscribers. Some high profile examples include Coldplay’s A Head Full of Dreams, released exclusively on Apple Music in 2015, and Rihanna’s Anti, released exclusively on TIDAL in 2016 (Source). More recently, Kanye West’s album The Life of Pablo was exclusive to TIDAL for its first six weeks before becoming available on other platforms.
However, after pushback from fans and scrutiny from labels, the practice of platform exclusives seems to be declining. Spotify in particular has moved away from seeking exclusive content, instead preferring an open model to reach the largest possible audience. While Apple Music and TIDAL still occasionally secure exclusive windows for album releases, the streaming market has largely consolidated around leading platforms all offering similar catalogs (Source).
Still, exclusive releases allow artists and labels to capitalize on the competition between streaming services. Short exclusivity periods can drive subscriptions and awareness before a wider release. But longer exclusives risk alienating parts of an artist’s audience. Overall streaming services now aim for comprehensive catalogs, relying on personalization rather than exclusives to retain users.
Audio Quality
One key difference between Apple Music and Spotify is audio quality. Apple Music offers lossless audio quality up to 24-bit/48 kHz, as well as high-resolution lossless audio up to 24-bit/192 kHz, while Spotify’s maximum bitrate is 320 kbps.
Lossless audio provides CD-quality sound that captures all the detail and nuance of the original recording. With lossless, there is no data compression so no audio quality is lost in the file conversion process. Spotify uses lossy compression like Ogg Vorbis and AAC, which remove some data to shrink file sizes. This can degrade sound quality, especially with detailed instrumentation and vocals (Source).
For discerning listeners with high-fidelity audio equipment, Apple Music’s lossless and hi-res lossless options offer superior sound quality over Spotify’s maximum quality. However, Spotify’s 320 kbps rate is sufficient for most listeners using smartphones, laptops, or bluetooth speakers. Still, audiophiles may find Apple Music better suits their needs.
Conclusion
In summary, the main reasons why some songs may be available on Spotify but not Apple Music include differences in music licensing approaches, regional availability, user uploads, and exclusive artist deals. Spotify’s open platform means they license a wider collection of music, whereas Apple takes a more curated walled garden approach. Licensing issues in particular affect legacy artists like The Beatles, whose full catalog is not available on Apple Music. Looking ahead, both platforms will likely continue working to expand their catalogs and offer exclusives. However, Apple Music’s closed ecosystem and Spotify’s user uploads will likely preserve some gaps between their libraries. Music fans may need to utilize both platforms to access the widest array of songs.