Spotify says “every monopolist will suggest they have done nothing wrong”, that Apple's response is not new, and is entirely in line with Spotify's expectations
In Friday's early hours, Spotify and Apple traded potshots in their ongoing battle over the App Store.
Context & Ripple Effects
This is round two of a fight that has been running for years. After Apple publicly answered Spotify's antitrust complaint — arguing Spotify wants the benefits of the marketplace 'without making any contributions' (Apple's response) — Spotify is now dismissing that rebuttal as exactly what it predicted a monopolist would say.
The exchange also has history: back in 2016, Apple accused Spotify of demanding 'preferential treatment' after an app rejection complaint (the earlier preferential-treatment accusation), so both sides are re-litigating an old grievance in public rather than settling it privately.
First-order effects
- Spotify and Apple are locked in a dueling-statements war over the App Store, with each new release aimed at shaping how regulators and developers read the same facts.
Second-order effects
- Other subscription apps watching the fight get a template for challenging Apple's cut publicly, while Apple's response signals it will defend the App Store's terms rather than negotiate them case by case.
Third-order effects
- If the pattern holds, App Store fee and gatekeeping disputes migrate from private developer complaints into public antitrust framing battles, raising pressure on regulators to define what counts as monopolist conduct on app platforms.
The trend: Platform-fee conflicts between big app developers and gatekeepers are shifting from quiet negotiations to public relations campaigns aimed at regulators.