Spotify and Apple Music compete for listeners. But the most important fight between Spotify and Apple was never really about playlists, audio quality or which service had more users.
It was about something more structural: Apple owned the App Store, competed with Spotify through Apple Music, and also set the rules governing how Spotify could sell subscriptions to iPhone users.
That distinction matters because the old “David beat Goliath” version of this story turns a regulatory case into a business fairy tale. The evidence is more specific, and more interesting.
Spotify’s complaint was about the rules, not just the 30% fee
Spotify filed a complaint with the European Commission in March 2019. It argued that Apple’s App Store rules disadvantaged competing services by requiring Apple’s in-app purchase system in certain circumstances and restricting how developers could tell users about cheaper ways to subscribe outside the app.
The second part became especially important. These “anti-steering” rules limited what music-streaming apps could tell iPhone and iPad users about prices, promotions and subscription options available outside Apple’s payment flow.
Spotify described Apple as both a platform operator and a competitor. Apple disputed Spotify’s framing and argued that developers benefited from the App Store’s distribution, technology and security infrastructure.
The European Commission eventually agreed that Apple crossed the line
In March 2024, the European Commission fined Apple more than €1.8 billion after concluding that Apple had abused its dominant position in the distribution of music-streaming apps to iOS users in the European Economic Area.
The Commission’s finding was specific. It said Apple restricted music-streaming developers from informing users about alternative and cheaper subscription offers outside the app. The Commission ordered Apple to remove the anti-steering provisions covered by the decision and not repeat equivalent conduct.
That is stronger than saying Spotify merely complained about an “Apple tax.” A regulator found that particular restrictions on communication with customers breached EU competition law.
The fight did not end with the 2024 fine
The Digital Markets Act created a separate layer of obligations for large platform gatekeepers. In 2025, the European Commission fined Apple €500 million after finding that its App Store steering terms did not comply with the DMA’s requirement to let developers direct users to offers outside the App Store.
Apple has continued to challenge parts of the EU regulatory framework. At the same time, its current developer documentation includes mechanisms that let qualifying music-streaming apps use external-purchase links or alternative purchase flows in applicable European markets, subject to Apple’s eligibility rules and terms.
So the rules changed, but “Apple was forced to abolish its 30% fee” would still be too broad. Payment options, commissions, entitlements and regional rules differ by market and program.
Did Spotify beat Apple Music?
That question mixes two different competitions.
Spotify is enormous. In its second-quarter 2026 results, the company reported 300 million Premium subscribers and 777 million monthly active users. Those are Spotify’s own reported figures and they show the scale it has reached.
But Apple does not publish a current Apple Music subscriber number that is directly comparable to Spotify’s quarterly Premium and MAU reporting. That means claims such as “Spotify is 5.5 times bigger than Apple Music” rely on mixing Spotify’s disclosed numbers with third-party estimates for Apple.
Robius would not call that a clean comparison.
What Spotify actually won
Spotify did not win ownership of the music-streaming market, and Apple Music did not disappear. What Spotify helped win was regulatory scrutiny of a platform rule that affected how competitors could communicate with customers.
That matters beyond music. The deeper question is whether a company that controls a major distribution platform can set commercial rules for third parties while competing against some of those same businesses.
The European Commission’s 2024 decision answered part of that question for music streaming. The DMA is addressing a broader version of it across the App Store.
The Robius view
The useful lesson from Spotify versus Apple is not that a clever startup “outsmarted” a giant. Spotify itself is now a global platform with hundreds of millions of users.
The lesson is that distribution rules matter. If one company owns the gateway, sets the payment rules, controls what competitors can tell customers and operates a competing service, the design of that gateway becomes a competition issue, not just a product decision.
Action Brief
Assessment: Spotify’s strongest victory was regulatory, not proof that it “defeated” Apple Music.
Evidence: Spotify filed its European Commission complaint in 2019. The Commission fined Apple more than €1.8 billion in 2024 over anti-steering rules affecting music-streaming providers. A separate 2025 DMA decision fined Apple €500 million over broader App Store steering restrictions.
What changed: European users and qualifying developers now have more routes for communicating and purchasing outside Apple’s traditional in-app payment flow, although the exact rules still depend on market and program.
Last checked: September 9, 2026.
Source: European Commission, Apple music-streaming antitrust decision
Source: European Commission, March 2024 fine
Source: European Commission DMA non-compliance decision
Source: Apple Developer, music-streaming external purchase entitlement
Source: Spotify Q2 2026 earnings
Robius.news — Dubai, UAE — 2026 | Built to be first. Built to be trusted.
