Profile of the Coalition for App Fairness, a group created by Epic, Spotify, Match Group, and others, seeking to open Google and Apple app stores to competition
Ben Brody / Protocol : Tweets: @benbrodydc , @appfairness , @adamkovac , and @wexler Tweets: Ben Brody / @benbrodydc : Of all the Big Tech antitrust fights, the hardest punches probably landed in apps v. Apple this year. But how did developers actually take on one of the biggest companies in the world? That's what I've been digging into the last several months https://www.protocol.com/... @appfairness : “Those close to CAF say there's more work to do, but the victories they have already racked up have emboldened members to continue speaking out in the hopes that they can have more of a say in the future of competition.” @BenBrodyDC w latest in antitrust: https://www.protocol.com/... https://twitter.com/... Adam Kovacevich / @adamkovac : Good deep look at Epic/Spotify/Match's lobbying strategy against Apple. Despite all their efforts, all of their state bills have failed so far, mostly because state pols don't see a reason to intervene in a fight between $$ companies. But they'll keep trying in 2022 anyway. https://twitter.com/... Nu Wexler / @wexler : Interesting @BenBrodyDC story on how midsize tech companies are pushing policymakers and the big app stores for better deals https://www.protocol.com/...
Context & Ripple Effects
The Coalition for App Fairness began in September 2020 when Epic, Spotify, Match Group, and others banded together to pressure Apple and other store owners over marketplace rules — an unusual move by large developers who had mostly lobbied quietly before. The profile lands after a year in which the group's members took their case public, including testimony at a Senate hearing where Spotify and Match accused Apple of abusing its power over developers.
The piece also arrives amid mixed results: state bills backed by the coalition have failed so far, but the victories it has racked up have emboldened members to keep speaking out — and federal attention is building, with the Open App Markets Act heading toward a Senate vote aimed squarely at large store operators like Apple and Google.
First-order effects
- Apple and Google now face a permanent, organized counter-lobby rather than episodic individual complaints, forcing them to defend store policies simultaneously in courtrooms, legislatures, and public opinion.
- Coalition members like Spotify, Match Group, and Tile gain a shared platform that lowers the cost of speaking out individually — the profile notes early victories have emboldened members to continue.
Second-order effects
- Smaller developers who lacked Epic's or Spotify's leverage get a vehicle to push for rule changes they could never negotiate alone, shifting bargaining power away from the two store operators.
- Apple's self-favoring decisions — which commentary as far back as 2020 flagged as invitations to scrutiny — now feed directly into a coordinated narrative, raising the political price of each new policy that benefits Apple over third parties.
Third-order effects
- If the Open App Markets Act pattern holds, app distribution moves from a private gatekeeper model toward a regulated one, with take rates and marketplace rules set partly by lawmakers rather than Apple and Google alone.
- The coalition's structure — rivals funding a common cause against a shared gatekeeper — is emerging as a template for how dependent developers organize against platform power generally.
The trend: App store economics are shifting from unilateral gatekeeper control toward contested, potentially legislated marketplaces, with organized developer coalitions supplying the political pressure regulators are responding to.