This is ridiculous. You are actually confusing being competitive with being anti-competitive.
Yes, so very much this. There is an awful lot of whining that "it isn't fair, because Spotify can't make a profit". As though Apple somehow sits on Spotify's board of directors and is responsible for running their company. Spotify chose to get into music streaming, okay fine, lots of companies trying that. Then Spotify chose to put an app in Apple's App Store, which was up and running and had an established set of rules and clear pricing structure. Apple isn't the villain taking a 30% cut away from the artists, Spotify is the one who put themselves and the artists in that position, knowing full well what the App Store's terms were before they submitted their app. Apple recently entered the streaming market - if Spotify was blindsided by this, that's their fault - the idea that the leading seller of digital music might eventually try out the distribution method that has been gaining popularity... that was pretty predictable. Is this unfortunate for Spotify? Sure. Sucks to be them. Is it unfair to Spotify? Absolutely not. Does Apple have an advantage here? Sure. Apple designed, built, and popularized an entire multi-billion-dollar ecosystem, and one of the side effects of that is Apple doesn't have to pay itself to play in that ecosystem. If Spotify would like a similar advantage (thus the "level playing field" so many are clamoring for), they are free to design, build, and popularize their own phone and operating system.
SPOTIFY chose to write a streaming music app and put it in Apple's App Store, knowing full well that Apple charged 30% for all transactions, whether initial app purchase, in-app purchase, or subscription purchase (the reason for the across-the-board pricing is pretty obvious, if they'd made any one of the avenues cost less, pretty soon all the apps would use the cheapest avenue, even if it wasn't the best choice for the customers - unless you want subscription-based calculator apps). The artists did not force Spotify to put an app in the App Store. Apple did not come to Spotify and put a gun to Spotify's head and demand they put an app in the store. Spotify chose to put an app in the store, knowing full well the terms of the deal ahead of time. They are the ones you should be directing your anger towards. Apparently you're using the "I was only following orders" defense for Spotify, and holding them blameless for this situation that Spotify has created.
Apple has submitted a proposal to the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board calling for a simplified way to pay songwriters and music publishers for streaming music, according to Billboard. While the change would benefit labels, artists and publishers, it would make it more difficult for streaming services like Spotify to continue offering free tiers.
Apple's suggested rate is 9.1 cents per 100 plays, which would make the songwriting royalties for 100 streams equal to the royalties for a single song download. However, the change would make it more expensive for companies like Spotify and YouTube to offer free music tiers.
The current system sees streaming companies paying songwriters and publishers between 10.5 and 12 percent of their revenue using what Billboard terms a "complicated formula." The money is then divided into public performance and mechanical royalties, which is then paid to publishers and "collected societies." Currently, Apple and other streaming music providers don't have to pay publishers the statutory rate set by the Royalty Board because they can negotiate their own deals. However, negotiations between publishers and streaming services would start at a different place should Apple's proposal become rule.
The Copyright Royalty Board, which is made up of a panel of three judges, is still in the early stages of determining potential statuary rates for 2018 to 2022 so it's unclear whether Apple's proposal would take hold or ever come to be.
While Apple Music has garnered about 15 million paying subscribers in the year since its launch, rival Spotify has twice as many, with the company citing Apple's entrance into paid music streaming as a boon to its business. Despite user and revenue growth, Spotify continues to operate at a loss due to expensive royalties and revenue sharing with music labels, with recent losses growing 10 percent to $195.7 million.
Article Link: Apple's New Music Royalty Proposal Would Make Streaming Costlier for Free Services Like Spotify
I think you're misunderstanding when you say, "Apple has opened a platform", as if they have cast it into the public domain as a gift. They haven't. When you go into a business establishment, can you do anything you want? No. They have rules. You want to stay in that establishment, you follow those rules. You're presenting two alternatives: fully ungoverned anarchy where anyone can do whatever they want without consequence, or just shut the doors and turn off the lights. Most of us prefer a middle ground, which also happens to be reality: Apple built a great ecosystem of software and hardware that works together, along with a market for software which anyone can participate in, if they follow a long list of established rules, including the rule that Apple gets paid if you sell digital goods within the market.
So Spotify created a bad situation, and if Apple doesn't fix said mess (by giving Spotify free money), you see Apple as being at fault? Interesting math.
This argument was also one of the main ones used by people looting music in the Napster days. "Well, this is getting them exposure, so it's actually a good thing." (How about maybe letting the musicians choose their business plan themselves?)
