Spotify vs Apple Podcasts: The Battle for Audio Supremacy in Europe
Apple built a directory that points at feeds it does not own. Spotify built a platform that would rather host them. That difference matters more than which app has more users.
Coverage of this contest counts users. That is the least informative way to read it, because the two companies are not building the same thing. One runs a directory pointing at files it does not host. The other runs a platform that would prefer to host them, insert the advertising and report the numbers. Which model prevails determines what a podcast is as a business, and the answer is being settled market by market.
Two architectures
Apple Podcasts is, structurally, an index. It catalogues RSS feeds hosted elsewhere and its app fetches them. Apple does not sit between the publisher and the audio file, which is why Apple has historically provided limited data and why podcasting remained an open ecosystem long after comparable media consolidated. Its later additions — paid subscriptions, delegated delivery, better analytics — extend the model rather than replace it.
Spotify is a platform. Audio is served from its own infrastructure, its acquisitions brought hosting and ad-insertion technology in-house, and its advertising marketplace sells inventory across the shows it hosts. Every part of that stack works better when more of the listening happens inside it.
Neither is a villain in this description. An open directory gives publishers control and poor data. A closed platform gives better data, real monetisation tools and less independence. Publishers keep choosing both because the trade is genuine.
| Apple Podcasts | Spotify | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | Directory over open RSS | Platform with owned delivery |
| Who hosts the audio | The publisher's host | Increasingly Spotify |
| Data returned to publisher | Improved, still limited | Richer, platform-scoped |
| Monetisation offered | Paid subscriptions | Ad marketplace, subscriptions, video |
| Strategic interest | Device and ecosystem retention | Owning the audio ad stack |
Why measurement decides more than share
A publisher's revenue depends on being buyable. Media agencies need verified, comparable numbers, and the platform that supplies them shapes how inventory is sold. This is where a closed architecture has a real advantage: Spotify knows what was played, for how long, and by whom in aggregate, because the audio passes through its own systems.
The open ecosystem answers with certified download measurement, which is credible but describes distribution rather than listening. As long as that gap persists, the platform that can prove attention will attract the advertisers who insist on proof — and the publishers who need that revenue will follow.
The counterweight is that platform-scoped data only describes platform listening. A show distributed widely gets a fragmented picture: precise numbers from one destination, estimates everywhere else. Publishers who care about the whole audience end up reconciling sources rather than trusting one.
The third force in Europe
The two-way framing omits the most distinctive feature of European audio. Public broadcasters operate their own on-demand apps — BBC Sounds in the United Kingdom, Radio France's platform, ARD Audiothek in Germany, and equivalents across the Nordics — carrying substantial audiences with no obligation to monetise them.
That changes the competitive picture in ways it does not in the United States. A significant share of quality spoken-word listening in Europe sits inside applications funded by licence fee or public budget, produced by organisations with newsroom scale, distributed without advertising and without the need to prove commercial return. Commercial operators compete with that for attention and cannot compete with it on cost.
It also means European podcast audience data is more fragmented than headline platform figures suggest, because a large and well-served segment of listening never appears in either company's numbers.
What publishers should actually do
- Distribute everywhere; concentrate nothing. An open feed reaches every directory at no marginal cost. There is rarely a reason to withhold from one platform.
- Decide deliberately where the paid relationship lives. Subscriptions inside a platform are convenient and not portable. Subscriptions through your own infrastructure are harder to sell and yours to keep.
- Reconcile measurement rather than adopting one source. Platform analytics and certified download data answer different questions; using either alone produces a distorted view of the audience.
- Weigh exclusivity against what it removes. Platform exclusivity pays for the audience it costs you. Those deals can be worth taking, but the payment is the whole benefit.
- Account for the public broadcasters in your market. In several European countries they are the main competitor for listening time in exactly the categories commercial publishers want.
Where this lands
The likely outcome is not that one wins. It is that podcasting splits: an open, portable layer where publishers retain control and monetise directly, and a platform layer with better tools, better data and less independence. Most serious audio businesses will operate in both, and the ones that keep their leverage will be those that treated the feed as an asset rather than as plumbing.
Note on data. Platform listening shares in audio vary substantially by country and are measured differently by each provider; figures published by platforms are not directly comparable with certified download measurement. Public broadcaster audio audiences are reported on yet another basis. Treat any single European market-share figure in this category with caution.
Sources
The claims in this article rest on the documents below. Each is linked to what it establishes, so you can check any statement against its origin rather than taking ours for it.
- Spotify, fourth quarter and full year 2024 earnings — the scale one side of this contest operates at: €15.67bn revenue and 263m subscribers
- IAB, US Podcast Advertising Revenue Study (PDF) — the advertising pool both platforms are ultimately competing over
- Radio Ink, on IAB's 2025 digital audio figures — the growth rate that makes the distribution fight worth having
Frequently asked questions
Which is bigger in Europe, Spotify or Apple Podcasts?
It varies significantly by country and depends on what is being counted. Shares differ between Nordic, German-speaking, French and southern European markets, and platform-reported figures are not measured on the same basis as certified download data. Country-level answers are meaningful; a single European figure generally is not.
Should publishers give Spotify exclusive rights to a show?
Only if the payment covers the audience given up. Exclusivity removes listeners on every other app and ends the open distribution that costs nothing to maintain. Some deals are large enough to justify that; the money is the entire benefit, so it needs to be sufficient on its own.
Why does Apple provide less data than Spotify?
Because of architecture rather than policy. Apple indexes feeds hosted elsewhere and does not sit between listener and file for most delivery, so it never sees much of what Spotify sees by serving the audio itself. Apple's analytics have improved but the structural limit remains.
Do public broadcasters really compete with Spotify and Apple in audio?
In several European markets, substantially. BBC Sounds, Radio France's platform and ARD Audiothek carry large audiences for spoken-word content, produced at newsroom scale and distributed without advertising. Commercial publishers compete with them for listening time without being able to match their cost base.
Is RSS still relevant for podcasting?
It remains the only distribution layer a publisher controls. An open feed reaches every directory at no marginal cost and can be moved between hosts. Platform-native distribution offers better tools and data, but it is granted rather than owned, which is the difference that matters over time.