I agree with this, but then look at Uber: Without the cooperation and approval of Apple and Google via their respective developer programs and app stores, they wouldn't exist because you couldn't do notifications or location in webapps at the time.
There are myriad examples like this of downright giant startups that would not exist if they refused to proceed just because Apple can veto them. Instagram is probably the largest example. Look what happened to Tumblr.
Depends on the size of the business. Apple/Google can screw over small businesses all day long, but once they start getting bigger there is some assumed risk on A/G's part in future anti trust lawsuits if they screw over companies with enough wealth to hurt them in court.
The moving fear is being vetoed only works for well funded startups. A small independent startup would have to consider this before betting the farm on a product that might get smashed by the feeling of the day Google and Apple app moderators have.
Uber could sell their own devices to users and drivers. The app is _that_ useful for millions (billions?) of people, that people would buy it. People used to buy separate GPS devices, so it's not something out of the ordinary.
Maybe Spotify didn't put enough effort into it? And besides, listening to music was nothing special, people had portable music players for decades before Spotify. Uber opened up a completely different way of transport. I don't doubt that they would have success with their own device.
Amazon have been extremely successful with their dedicated book reading device, the Kindle. So thank you for that example. That really shows that Uber could have had success with their own device, better than I can argue for it.
Kindle was pre-smartphone popularity (same year as first iPhone) so it had a chance to become established before it was competing directly. Alexa and other smart home devices are better examples now that I think about it more. Also, looks like they already make some hardware for drivers
If you used taxis before Uber, you'd know. Taking taxis used to be dreadful, except for in a few cities, because taxi drivers were/are rouges, always looking to scam their customers in any way conceivable. On top of that it was insecure in other ways. In places were they were not scamming their customers, it would be very expensive. The person who has to take a taxi is generally a visitor to a new city, who is not familiar with public transit and doesn't have their own vehicles. Uber has been a blessing for taking a taxi in unfamiliar and unsafe locations.
There are many cases of Uber and Lyft drivers beating or robbing or raping their passengers, including some victims known personally to me. They’re still potentially dangerous, ridesharing apps did not solve this problem.
There are myriad examples like this of downright giant startups that would not exist if they refused to proceed just because Apple can veto them. Instagram is probably the largest example. Look what happened to Tumblr.