Addressing Spotify’s Claims
As with so many matters that involve money, arguments fly around left and right that claim to be on principle, but really aren&#x27;t.<p>When you see ESPN and Comcast argue over showing the World Series, don&#x27;t buy the argument that one of them is &quot;trying to prevent loyal customers from being able to see their favorite game&quot;, or when your local hospital group withdraws from your employer health plan that &quot;the other side is trying to deprive you of consumer choice&quot;.<p>Each side is wanting to make a share of the money, and they&#x27;re disagreeing over the price (or often the royalties share).   No one is entitled to any particular provision of service in <i>any</i> of these cases.  Except in regulated industries there&#x27;s no law governing the &quot;fair&quot; share that someone has to offer, or someone has to accept.  And in most cases, each side could choose to compromise what it&#x27;s asking for with no damage to its model of business (not talking about $, just the principles they claim).<p>Spotify wants a lower $ charge.  Apple owns the platform and controls that access and $ charge.  That&#x27;s it.<p>This is a private contract dispute and only of interest because you care about listening to music.   There&#x27;s no public right to have a music app be charged a certain amount that&#x27;s called &quot;fair&quot;.  Spotify could charge nothing to consumers, and be charged nothing by Apple.   It&#x27;s their choice.  It&#x27;s Apple&#x27;s choice.<p>Don&#x27;t be fooled into &quot;principles&quot; when there&#x27;s money involved.