You are presenting it in terms of economics, from the standpoint of this current question, but ignoring the economics of why the App Store charges 30% across the board in the first place. I do agree that Spotify is at a disadvantage.Lets try to look at this in terms of economics and not add in politics and any bias for a second. With Apple's current policy, Spotify is at a disadvantage. ...
Now, hopefully that point is a no-brainer and everyone can agree on it, so there should be no point to keep arguing over it. So, where the disagreement comes is whether Apple has the right to create this disadvantage or not.
(To step back a little, if I had a swing set in my back yard and my kids got to play on it and yours didn't, your kids would be at a disadvantage - but does that necessarily lead to a requirement to "level the playing field"? It would certainly be nice of me to let your kids play on my swing set - should I be somehow obligated or required to do so? Should the government get involved? Not every disadvantage equates to a situation that must be changed. This is in no way an exact analogy - I'm trying to get at the idea of: is it a requirement that all advantages, regardless of how they came about, be removed, so that nobody is at a disadvantage?)
Saying "whether Apple has the right to create this disadvantage" not only questions whether Apple should be compelled to share, but is kind of implying intent on Apple's part to create a disadvantage, rather than it simply being one of many eventual cascading consequences of actions that Apple took for other reasons. Another bad analogy: If we're both circling the block looking to park our cars, and we both spot a space, and I park in the spot (not racing to edge you out, I'm just closer this time), was my intent to deprive you of that space? Or was my intent to get to my appointment on time? (I might not have even been aware that you had also seen the parking space.)
Last edited: