Re: Oh look...
It's about time we stopped only considering whether somebody is a monopoly and actually have rules and practices that apply fairly to everybody - whether they are a minority player, or a monopoly.
Take the 30% Apple cut on App Store sales. OK, reasonable for one-off sales / in-app purchases, where Apple will (probably) host the content, review it, etc. - and it is broadly in line with what other retail outlets would retain for selling somebody else's product.
But subscriptions? Generally, Apple aren't hosting the content, or acting as anything more than a payment processor. So is it fair that they retain so much of the revenue? It should simply be legislation that if you are effectively only acting as a payment processor, then your retained revenue should be broadly similar to other payment processors - e.g. the 1% - 2% charge of cards. If you provide other services, charge them separately - even clearly, and transparently add a service charge fee to the consumer if need be (so, a subscriber would see £9.99 Spotfiy in-app subscription, and then a separate line item of Apple Service Fee £3). That is a ruling which is fair regardless of whether you are running a store that has 20% market share, or 95% share.
Same with preinstalling applications - the Apple Music streaming app should not be preinstalled. Ever. (Same goes for Google, etc. offering apps with streaming subscriotions). There is no justification for it, as if you can use a streaming app, you can go into the app store and download it. Pre-installing your own products whilst "burying" your competitors in anti-competitive. Doing so whilst also taking a 30% cut of your competitor's revenue should be taken very, very seriously, regardless of market share.
I also have sympathy with artists in all fields - I know a fairly significant number personally - and yes, creative people have to be fairly rewarded for their efforts. But the majority of complaints about the payments of streaming services miss out one very big factor - that there is usually a man in the middle of the service and the artist who is sucking up unfaiirly an awful lot of the otherwis fairly reasonable payments.
And I sympathise with your view on free content, but lets not forget that Spotify, etc. were always paying *something* for their free service provision. It was Apple that wanted to not pay anything for the three months of giving stuff away.