I feel like Apple is a much stronger offender than Spotify. You can literally not use billions of devices on this planet for your app* if you don't send something like a 25-50% cut of all your possible profits (15-30% of revenue(!)) to them. That makes apple effectively (in monetary terms) an owner of many businesses they shouldn't own.
Apple is a much bigger company than Spotify. In. fact, it's quite impressive how monopolistic they managed to become for their size. There are a lot of monopolies and wanna be monopolies about. That's why big tech profit margins are so high.
All I am saying is that if your business model is entirely based on market monopolisation, to the extent that spotify's model is... go f##$ yourself. Yes, Apple charges you a take-it-or-leave-it fee. Does that "makes apple effectively an owner of many businesses they shouldn't own?" Maybe. But if it does, then Spotify is an effective owner of Black Sabbath. Should Spotify own Black Sabbath?
In many industries, Google & FB are "effectively an owner." Without their advertising, many businesses can't function. Lots of startups, even established businesses have to advertise on adwords. Google can also takes a massive* cut.
Apple has all the best customers. You can't have a great online business without apple users. That's why Google pay Apple >$100bn pa to be their default search engine. Apple also do this to spotify. Spotify do it to music artists. They want to do it to podcasters.
My estimates from the information I have found suggest that the amount Google has paid to Apple for being the default search engine (on Macs, iPhones, etc) to be less than 65 billion nominal dollars total for all time, or less than 80 billion present value (ie, CPI-adjusted) dollars total for all time.
* no, not any application can run fine in safari