Until now, those who wanted to avoid ads on YouTube had two options. The first was to pay for a YouTube Premium subscription, which costs $13.99 per month. The second option was to use tools like ad blockers to prevent these ads from appearing. However, Google has taken measures to eliminate this second option.

Black screens and interruptions. Users on Reddit and the Brave forum have reported issues when using the Brave browser, which includes an ad blocker, and similar tools while visiting YouTube. Posters noted that videos often display a completely black screen during the pre-roll ads (the ads that appear before the video starts) when the page is first loaded. Additionally, YouTube shows a warning message that reads, “Experiencing interruptions?” along with a link to its support site.

Disable ad blockers. On the support page, the company advises that users affected by these problems should “check whether [their] browser extensions that block ads are affecting video playback.”

Browse in incognito mode. Another recommendation is to “try opening YouTube in an incognito window with all extensions disabled and check if the issue continues.” In my tests with the Brave browser, I didn’t encounter these messages or see them while using Firefox with the uBlock Origin extension.

More from Xataka On

YouTube Declares War on Clickbait, Says Videos That Lie Will Get Deleted

Cat and mouse. YouTube has been working to combat the use of ad blockers for some time, but developers of these tools tend to respond quickly to Google’s measures. Some suggest that these issues may be limited to user accounts that have previously been detected using ad blockers. In my tests, I wasn’t logged in, which supports this theory.

Netflix comparisons. Comparisons with other streaming platforms are inevitable, though the differences are clear. Netflix has achieved significant success with its ad-supported plan, while Prime Video has struggled. A few months ago, Prime Video indicated plans to increase advertising, and it has now confirmed it’ll double it.

Ads are the future. YouTube provides free content supported by ads, and its business model is similar to that of other Google services. However, the key difference is that users generate the content. YouTube is merely the platform connecting creators with viewers.

Advertising benefits both parties, given that the ads help compensate creators. Still, the increasing intensity of advertising on YouTube is making the viewing experience more frustrating. The alternative is to pay $13.99 per month for YouTube Premium.

YouTube Premium Lite. Google’s strategy has become clearer with the introduction of YouTube Premium Lite. The main advantage is that most videos won’t have ads. However, it lacks features such as downloading videos for offline viewing and background playback. This new subscription option represents a middle ground but also raises concerns about the likelihood of more ads in the future.

Images | Christian Wiediger | Google

Related | YouTube Turns 20: From a 19-Second Video at a Zoo to a Global Media Powerhouse

After more than a decade, Sesame Street has a new home. Here’s a hint: It starts with the letter “N.”

This week, Netflix announced that it would be the new distributor of the children’s show, ending months of uncertainty over its future. The deal is not only a win for Netflix and Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit that produces Sesame Street, but also for the public.

The new deal. In a press release, Netflix said that a new reimagined 56th season of the show would hit the platform later this year, along with 90 hours of past episodes. The move will allow the show to reach the platform’s more than 300 million subscribers, giving it a significant boost in reach.

HBO, Sesame Street’s previous distributor, only gave it access to roughly 122 million subscribers. The financial conditions of the deal between Netflix and Sesame Workshop were not disclosed.

Free for the public. While Netflix will become Sesame Street’s new distributor, episodes will still be broadcast on PBS. Importantly, the streaming company said that new episodes will premiere the same day on both the public broadcaster and Netflix.

This will be the first time in years that new episodes of the show air on PBS with a significant delay. Under the previous deal with HBO, PBS had to wait several months to broadcast new episodes after they had been released on streaming or cable.

PBS has broadcast Sesame Street since 1970.

Losing a lucrative distribution deal. The beloved children’s show had been under turmoil in recent months. In December, HBO announced that it would not renew its distribution deal for Sesame Street, which it had maintained for more than a decade. The deal was estimated to be worth $30 million and $35 million, according to The New York Times.

Previous episodes of the show will still be available on HBO under a separate $6 million per year deal.

HBO told the outlet that its decision on Sesame Street was based on a broader corporate shift away from children’s programming. Previous episodes of the show will still be available on HBO under a separate $6 million deal.

“Based on consumer usage and feedback, we’ve had to prioritize our focus on stories for adults and families,” an HBO spokesman told the Times in December. “And so new episodes from ‘Sesame Street,’ at this time, are not as core to our strategy.”

The Trump effect. Besides losing its distributor, the show also had to deal with heat from President Donald Trump, who signed an executive order to slash funding to PBS and NPR to spread what he claimed was “radical, woke propaganda disguised as news.”

The public broadcaster announced this week that it was furloughing 25% of PBS Kids staff after the Trump administration cut one of its grants.

More from Xataka On

'Montoya, Por Favor': How a Spanish Reality TV Star Became a Worldwide Meme

A bet on children’s programming. Netflix’s move underscores its bet on children’s programming, which makes up 15% of its content. In addition to acquiring the distribution to Sesame Street, the streaming platform also announced a new Peppa Pig mobile game.

Images | Netflix

Related | Years Ago, a Finnish Company Shortened Its Name to Lumon. Apple TV+’s Severance Has Turned This Into a Problem

Many countries have a strong culture of dubbing content, consuming movies, series, and programs in their local language. As one of YouTube’s top content creators, MrBeast knows this. That’s why he said that if he were Facebook’s CEO, his first move would be implementing a dubbing system for videos—something YouTube already has. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg didn’t push back.

Speaking the same language as the audience. MrBeast and Zuckerberg appeared on the Colin and Samir Show podcast, where the interviewers asked Jimmy Donaldson (the YouTuber’s real name) what he would do if Zuckerberg appointed him CEO of Meta.

Donaldson pointed out that Meta’s video platforms lag behind in offering content in multiple languages. According to him, the lack of dubbing options negatively affects a video’s reach on the platform.

Limited reach in other languages. The YouTuber explained that audience engagement is significantly lower when watching a video in a language people don’t speak. That’s why he was particularly concerned about the translation tools of Meta.

“One thing I think really sucks [about Meta] is like on YouTube you can have different audio tracks. So, 70% of my audience on YouTube don’t speak English, so I upload videos, and then you just upload a bunch of different files, so if you click on my video in Mexico, it autoplays in Spanish. What’s brutal is when I post those same videos on Facebook or any of your platforms, I can’t import the dubs over, so my viewership is always just infinitely lower because people from Mexico and Brazil and things can’t watch it with dubs,” Donaldson said.

Audiences in India, Brazil, Indonesia, and Mexico. MrBeast’s traffic data is not public, but according to GMI, about 2.7 billion people worldwide use YouTube each month. Of these, 476 million are from India, 147 million from Brazil, 139 million from Indonesia, and 84.2 million from Mexico.

Viewers in more than 100 countries watch his videos in 80 languages, making multilingual accessibility key to his success.

More from Xataka On

MrBeast Has Found a More Lucrative Business Than Creating YouTube Videos: Selling Chocolate

That’s where Facebook comes in. MrBeast was clear: If he were Meta’s CEO, improving dubbing options would be one of his first priorities. He emphasized that Meta should help creators reach more people and increase engagement with their content. One of the most effective tools for that is voice.

“It’s pretty crippling once it clicks in your head. You’re like ‘Woah only like 20% of the world … or whatever the number is consumes content in English’ … it’s brutal,” Donaldson added.

Interestingly, Zuckerberg agreed. He acknowledged that the lack of dubbing options is a problem and that AI systems could be the solution. MrBeast has already found that using AI-generated dubs in his voice has increased audience engagement on other platforms.

Meta’s AI-powered multilingual future. Zuckerberg agreed with MrBeast on the importance of language accessibility, adding that AI systems could play a big role in solving the issue.

“The retention’s actually 1% higher in that language because when you do AI dubs you can use my voice instead of sounding like a voice actor,” Donaldson concluded, noting that his production company already uses AI voice cloning tools to dub videos rather than relying on a neutral dubbing voice or subtitles.

This option is even more crucial for Meta as it seeks a stronger global presence and a return to Facebook’s algorithm-free origins. By incorporating AI-generated dubs, Meta could boost engagement, expand its user base, and compete more effectively in the social media landscape.

Image | Colin and Samir Show | Muhammad Asyfaul (Unsplash) | Meta

Related | Meta Has Fired 35,600 Employees Since 2020. Mark Zuckerberg Has a List to Decide Who Can Return

Thanks to his YouTube videos and challenges, MrBeast has become a global Internet superstar. However, he’s successfully expanded beyond content creation, turning his fame into a diversified business empire valued at billions of dollars.

Interestingly, the driving force behind this empire is no longer MrBeast’s impressive following of more than 377 million or his unique challenges. Instead, selling chocolate has proven to be much more profitable.

A teenage gamer turned a millionaire. Jimmy Donaldson, the man behind MrBeast, began his YouTube journey in 2012 at the age of 11. Like most kids, his early videos featured him playing popular video games such as Call of Duty and Minecraft.

For years, he studied which types of content resonated best on the platform, mastering the algorithm’s intricacies and learning how to capture the audience’s attention.

Outgrowing YouTube. MrBeast clearly struck the right chord, transforming what started as a hobby into a lucrative business. This ultimately led him to drop out of college and fully commit to his YouTube career.

In recent years, his videos have reached blockbuster status. He’s garnered hundreds of millions of views worldwide for popular challenges such as recreating Squid Game in real life and engaging in extreme survival experiences. He’s even hosted his own show on Amazon Prime Video.

Business expansion. While his YouTube channel remains a cornerstone of the Beast Industries holding company, it’s not Donaldson’s most profitable venture. MrBeast’s conglomerate includes snack brand Lunchly and Viewstats, a software company for content creators. However, the true standout is Feastables, his chocolate bar brand.

More from Xataka On

Volkswagen Has a Backup Plan in Case Its $22,000 EV Doesn’t Succeed: Selling Sausages

Feastables. MrBeast’s venture into the world of chocolate began in 2021 with the launch of Feastables. The brand quickly gained popularity. He often featured the chocolates in his videos, even making them central to some of his content.

To promote his chocolates, MrBeast went into full Willy Wonka mode. In one of his videos, he challenged his followers to find a golden ticket hidden in some of the chocolate bars and invited the winners to compete for a $500,000 cash jackpot. This promotional strategy, combined with the quality of the chocolate, propelled Feastables to remarkable sales success.

When the chocolate empire surpasses the media empire. According to Bloomberg, Feastables made $250 million in sales in 2024, with profits exceeding $20 million. In contrast, MrBeast’s media business, including his YouTube channel and Prime Video reality show, also saw similar sales volumes but reported losses nearing $80 million. “I lost tens of millions of dollars on [Beast Games],” Donaldson recently said on The Diary of a CEO podcast.

The snack business outperformed YouTube. The Bloomberg figures reveal that MrBeast’s chocolate business is currently more profitable than his video content. In fact, forecasts from Beast Industries suggest that Feastables will triple in size over the next two years.

According to this data, UAE-based investor Alpha Wave led an investment round for Beast Industries in 2024. Alpha Wave also valued Donaldson’s holding company at around $5 billion, a significant increase from its valuation of $1.5 billion in 2023. By 2026, MrBeast’s company estimates that revenue from video creation will account for only one-fifth of its total revenue.

Images | Feastables

Related | The Latest Status Symbol Isn’t a Car or a Handbag: It’s a Chocolate and Pistachio Bar That’s Gone Viral

Infinite Reality, a company specializing in immersive technology, has struck a massive deal by acquiring Napster for $207 million. The company has ambitious plans to compete with existing streaming platforms by leveraging its expertise to introduce virtual 3D concerts.

Goodbye, old Napster. Generation X and older millennials will remember the days of Napster, Soulseek, and other early peer-to-peer platforms. Napster was especially controversial, becoming a scapegoat for the rapidly growing early Internet. It also challenged a music industry that had yet to figure out how to monetize digital content. Notably, artists such as Metallica, Madonna, and Dr. Dre sued Napster in 2000, which ultimately led to the company’s bankruptcy in 2002.

Hello, new Napster. The Napster brand has undergone several transformations and changed owners several times. Best Buy was probably the most notable owner before selling it to Rhapsody in 2011. Rhapsody sought to capitalize on Napster’s established name to expand its business. In recent years, Napster has evolved into a legal streaming service similar to Spotify. It’s available in 34 countries and boasts a catalog of 110 million songs.

More from Xataka On

The Podcasting Crown No Longer Belongs to Apple or Spotify. Google Is Now King, Through YouTube That Is

Infinite Reality enters the scene. Infinite Reality recently acquired Napster to transform it into “a social music platform that prioritizes active fan engagement over passive listening.” This new direction aims to incorporate more social media features than competitors like Spotify. Napster’s vision is for artists to “deepen connections with fans, and access new streams of revenue.” Some of the company’s ideas include creating official 3D virtual spaces for virtual concerts, social listening parties, merchandise, event tickets, and AI-powered customer service.

Uncertainties. However, Infinite Reality’s vision for Napster is surrounded by doubts. A significant question is how the company plans to implement these innovations and whether they make sense for the platform. While the idea of virtual spaces may appeal to some users and investors, it might also come across as complex and odd to others.

Notably, Infinite Reality CEO Jon Vlassopulos took the helm in 2022 after overseeing the music segment at Roblox. This billion-dollar company had aspirations of creating a cultural metaverse but struggled to gain traction. Same old, same old?

Further doubts. The project’s economic viability remains uncertain. Infinite Reality raised $3 million in a recent investment round, but the company hasn’t disclosed the source of the funds. Additionally, the ambitious use of AI and augmented reality may face challenges in gaining acceptance from the music industry. In the end, the sector isn’t known for quickly embracing big changes. The original Napster is a prime example of that.

Image | James Allenspach

Related | Spotify Wants to Compete More Directly With YouTube: It’ll Start to Pay Creators for Popular Videos

In this post, we’ll explain the main streaming devices available for your TV. These devices connect to your television to enhance your entertainment system and allow you to install a variety of apps, including popular streaming services.

Certain models and manufacturers have dominated this sector for several years, although some names have changed over time. The list below includes the best options currently available.

Chromecast

The device aims to succeed the Chromecast but features a desktop form factor. This design allows for the inclusion of an Ethernet port to optimize Internet connectivity, the ability to locate the remote control, improved storage, and a control center for Matter. All of this is available for $99.99.

The Chromecast was a true revolution in streaming devices. Although Google recently discontinued it, it’s still available in many online retailers. In fact, it remains one of the best value alternatives.

There are two types of Chromecast. The older models only allowed users to cast content. Meanwhile, the newer versions come equipped with a full operating system capable of turning any TV into a smart TV. For just $60, you can buy a model that supports 4K quality and HDR. It also comes with its own remote control, featuring the Google TV operating system. This system allows you to install a wide range of apps. Even today, it remains an unbeatable choice.

Google TV Streamer

The Google TV streamer is the successor to the Chromecast. The device maintains the same functions and uses the Google TV operating system but has advanced capabilities and a slightly higher price. It supports 4K resolution and comes equipped with Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos technologies. Additionally, it has a more powerful processor and can manage home automation systems.

The device aims to succeed the Chromecast but feature a desktop form factor. This design allows for the inclusion of an Ethernet port to optimize Internet connectivity, the ability to locate the remote control, improved storage, and a control center for Matter. All of this is available for $99.99.

Check out our Google TV vs. Chromecast comparison.

Xiaomi TV Box

The Mi Box has long been a popular alternative to the Chromecast. Although it’s undergone a name change, Xiaomi still offers devices that serve the same purpose. There are two form factors available: a TV stick, which resembles a dongle that connects via HDMI, and a TV box, which is an external unit that you connect to your TV.

The flagship model is the Xiaomi TV Box S, which is priced at around $70. It features 4K resolution and runs on Google TV OS. It’s also equipped with a powerful processor and supports Dolby Vision, HDR, and Dolby Atmos. Additionally, it provides reliable Bluetooth and Wi-Fi connections. Overall, it remains one of the best alternatives on the market.

Fire TV

Amazon has been positioning itself for years with strong alternatives in the streaming market. It’s done so through devices like the Fire TV, especially the Fire TV Stick models. While these devices may not be the most powerful options available, they incorporate the latest connectivity technologies, making them fast and efficient.

The most powerful model in the lineup is the Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K Max, which features 4K resolution, Wi-Fi 6E, and an ambient experience. It also supports Dolby Vision, Dolby Atmos, and HDR. However, a significant drawback is that the operating system has traditionally had a more limited selection of available apps. However, it still includes almost all major streaming platforms.

More from Xataka On

The End of Prestige TV: How Streaming Killed HBO and Ended the Golden Age of Content

Apple TV

The Apple TV is ideal for anyone within the Apple ecosystem because it offers classic Apple product interactions, including the ability to send files via AirDrop. You also have access to the same App Store, which features apps from virtually all the streaming services you need.

The price is somewhat higher than many other similar devices. However, this model is a classic choice for those seeking quality finishes and compatibility with Apple’s own apps, such as Fitness+, Photos, and Apple Arcade. Additionally, you can make FaceTime calls with ease. The current model is priced at $149 and supports 4K quality, HDR, and Dolby Vision.

PlayStation 5 or Xbox Series X

If you own a next-generation game console, you can also use it as a streaming device. These consoles support apps from all major streaming platforms, including some like Plex. While there may be a few gaps in app availability, most of the well-known names are accessible on these entertainment devices.

One point to consider is that while these consoles can be adapted for streaming, using the apps with a gamepad isn’t as comfortable as using a dedicated remote control. However, consoles support 4K resolutions, HDR, and all the features you need.

Roku

Roku is one of the most popular streaming devices in the world. These devices can function as a standalone TV box or a streaming stick connecting directly to your TV’s HDMI port. Many models also feature 4K capabilities.

Notably, you can install nearly all the major streaming service apps. Roku devices come with a remote featuring shortcuts to several apps, voice control functions, and integrated power and volume controls that can be used with your TV, among other features.

Image | Mahrous Houses

Related | The 12 Best Streaming Apps to Watch Free Movies and TV Shows

In this post, we’ll explain the main differences between Plex and Emby, two of the leading media platforms for setting up your own streaming service at home. These media servers allow you to watch content stored on one device. For instance, you could watch a video saved on your PC via your TV.

Plex has been the dominant player in this area for many years. However, other interesting alternatives, such as Emby, are available. In case you’re interested, we’ve also compared Plex vs Jellyfin.

Main Plex and Emby Features

Two Similar Concepts

Plex and Emby share similar concepts. Both services offer a free platform along with paid features. Notably, Jellyfin was developed when Emby went closed source and transitioned into a private company offering a subscription model.

Both platforms are quite comparable in terms of features. They provide a good selection of proprietary apps developed by third parties, allowing users to access content almost anywhere. Additionally, both have server apps that can be installed on computers and NAS devices.

The above table shows very few differences between Plex and Emby. Their free and paid versions offer comparable functionalities, with only minor distinctions. For instance, Emby offers bulk modification and lyric support for free, while these are paid features for Plex users.

Meanwhile, Plex boasts some unique paid features. These include a limited selection of free ad-supported TV channels and a separate app for music streaming from your uploaded server content. In contrast, Emby integrates music streaming directly into its main app.

The paid versions of both Emby and Plex have similar pricing for their monthly and annual subscriptions. While there is a small difference in the lifetime fee, it’s not significant, especially when considering that paying once for lifetime access is often the best option.

Emby offers more customized features, allowing users to make detailed edits at the server level for several aspects of their files. In contrast, Plex operates more at the folder level. However, Plex is more widely recognized and used, which may enhance the quality of support available. Both platforms have active troubleshooting communities, but Plex’s community may be a bit better.

Image | Kelly Sikkema

Related | Google TV vs. Chromecast: Which Streaming Service Is the Best Fit for You?

In this post, we’ll explain the main differences between Plex and Jellyfin, two popular media servers that allow you to stream content from one device to another. With these platforms, you can watch videos or listen to music stored on your computer through your TV, effectively creating your own home version of Netflix.

Plex is the more established option in this field, having been a leader for many years. While it offers a free version, some features require payment. On the other hand, Jellyfin is an open source alternative developed collaboratively, with no single company behind it.

Overall, Plex is more polished and has more appealing features because it offers subscriptions and is backed by a company that invests in its development. In contrast, Jellyfin provides many functionalities for free that Plex charges for. Although Jellyfin may not be as refined, both platforms perform similarly.

In case you’re interested, we’ve also compared Plex vs Emby.

Main Plex and Jellyfin Features

Two Different Concepts

Plex

The comparison table above illustrates two similar products with different underlying concepts. Plex is backed by a company, while Jellyfin is a community-driven project that operates as a free open source option.

As such, Plex is more visually appealing and polished. However, some of its features require payment. The subscription costs $6.99 per month or $69.99 per year. Alternatively, if you prefer a long-term solution, you can make a one-time payment of $249.99 for lifetime access.

Jellyfin

In contrast, Jellyfin provides a broader range of features at no cost. Due to its limited development resources, it lacks some specific functions. However, these missing features don’t detract from its primary purpose.

More from Xataka On

The 12 Best Streaming Apps to Watch Free Movies and TV Shows

In the end, both services allow you to watch content from a computer or server on your TV for free. Plex offers paid features that enhance the experience similar to Netflix, such as remote access from different devices and the ability to download content for offline viewing. However, you can easily use its basic functionalities without any cost.

In terms of speed, both services are quite fast. However, Jellyfin may perform slightly better on older devices because it has fewer features.

Another key difference lies in the apps available for each service. Plex has a wide range of proprietary apps, while Jellyfin primarily relies on third-party apps. This can lead to varying user experiences because the quality depends on individual developers. In contrast, Plex provides a more consistent and unified experience across its apps.

Which Home Media Server Should You Choose?

If you’re looking for a simple, reliable, and aesthetically pleasing platform, you should consider Plex. Although some extra features are available for a free, the cost remains fairly low.

On the other hand, if you prefer a completely free solution and don’t mind experimenting with different types of apps, Jellyfin is a great choice. Over time, you’ll find that it offers superior free features compared to other options.

Image | Glenn Carstens-Peters

Related | Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K vs. Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K Max: Which Streaming Stick Is the Best Fit for You?

This article explains the key differences between Google TV and Chromecast so you can decide which one to choose. Google no longer manufactures the classic Chromecast, which has been discontinued, but you may still find it in secondhand stores.

Below is a table comparing their features. After that, we’ll dive into their differences in detail.

Google TV vs. Chromecast Specs

Google TV vs. Chromecast: Key Differences

The first thing to know is that Google TV is an operating system, while Chromecast refers to streaming devices manufactured by Google. The company produced two types of Chromecast: the classic Chromecast, designed for casting content, and the newer Chromecast with Google TV.

More from Xataka On

If You Have Google TV, Your TV Will Soon Compete With ChatGPT: Gemini Is Coming in 2025

The classic Chromecast is solely for casting content and depends on a mobile device. In compatible apps, you’ll find a cast button that allows you to send content to the Chromecast. Once selected, the content streams directly to the device for viewing.

Beyond that, the classic Chromecast has no additional functions. It lacks a built-in operating system, internal storage, or the ability to install apps. You can only use it with compatible apps for casting content.

Google TV, on the other hand, is a full-fledged operating system based on Android. It’s available on various devices, including smart TVs and Google’s own Chromecast with Google TV.

Unlike the classic Chromecast, Chromecast with Google TV not only supports casting but also functions as an independent streaming device. It allows users to download apps and games, browse the internet, and store content on internal memory.

Chromecast is a device, while Google TV is an operating system found on smart TVs, streaming boxes, and the latest Chromecast models. While Google no longer manufactures the classic Chromecast, Google TV remains in active development and continues to be available on TVs and streaming devices.

Image | Victor Carvalho (Unsplash) edited by Xataka On

Related | Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K vs. Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K Max: Which Streaming Stick Is the Best Fit for You?

Related | Plex vs. Emby: Which Home Media Server Is the Best Fit for You?

In this post, we’ll explain the main differences between Spotify Free and Spotify Premium so you can understand each option and make an informed decision. While the free plan provides access to the music streaming service, it significantly has more limitations than the Premium subscription.

Spotify Free vs. Spotify Premium

The comparison table below showcases Spotify’s features and highlights which ones are accessible in the free version. It covers all Spotify Premium plans, including Individual, Duo, and Family plans. However, the table focuses on the differences between the free and paid versions rather than the distinctions among the several paid subscriptions.

More from Xataka On

Spotify Wants to Compete More Directly With YouTube: It’ll Start to Pay Creators for Popular Videos

Main Differences

First, it’s important to note that while Spotify advertises its Premium version as offering high sound quality, it actually provides one of the lowest sound quality in the streaming world. It’s the only major service that doesn’t offer HD quality. With a Premium subscription, you receive 320 kbps, which is comparable to MP3 audio quality from 15 years ago. While this may be enough for most users, it’s worth considering that the free plan offers an even lower audio quality.

The most well-known difference between the two versions is that the free version includes ads that interrupt playback every few songs. Additionally, if you opt for the free subscription, you won’t be able to download music for offline listening, nor can you customize or rearrange your playback queue.

Spotify Free also plays random songs, meaning if you want to play songs in any order, you’ll need to pay for a Premium subscription. Moreover, it lacks features such as real-time listening with friends on different devices and several AI functions.

Despite these limitations, both versions allow you to create custom playlists and enjoy social features, such as seeing what your friends are listening to. You can also view song lyrics without having to pay, which was once a paid-only feature, and use Spotify Connect to control playback on one device from another. In addition, all subscriptions, whether paid or free, offer access to the popular Spotify Wrapped feature.

Image | Shutter Speed

Related | How to Activate Karaoke Mode on Spotify