The attitude you describe can easily hurt their business. They may be future paying customers that are exploring your service, or don't have the money yet to subscribe. And even in the latter group there is an opportunity for building brand loyalty.
But to see these opportunities, the first step is to not have a hostile attitude towards your users.
No, that was just "pay me for this service/good". Most businesses who ventured into "fuck you" territory would soon be out of business because disgruntled customers opens up opportunities for competition to rise.
Sadly, you don't have that anymore with today's economy-of-scale effects.
I've been trashing Windows for ages too, but there's a big difference here: people who really want to run some particular (usually proprietary) software generally have to use Windows to do that, and Windows has a lock on non-Apple computers for that and for many other reasons.
Spotify doesn't have any kind of lock on music. The Apple fans are all using Apple Music, after all, and there's lot of other choices out there. Ditching Spotify isn't going to affect your life or digital device using in any significant way.
Well it worked on me and I'm usually wary of consumer-facing subscription services.
I heard about Spotify through a musically-minded, but not technical, friend. I joined because of their insistence that it was a good service 3+ years ago.
Today, they complain about the desktop client and ads. I no longer use Spotify.
A non-paying customer who doesn't listen to ads has absolutely zero value to Spotify.
I'd challenge this because they can convert to paid users or advertise the service via word of mouth, or probably provide other value as well (user data, listening habits, etc.).
However, even if these users have zero value to Spotify, then why terminate them? Spotify is getting some negative press over it, so it seems like a net loss for them...
Mostly a privacy and ownership issue: Spotify doesn't own the device receiving their service nor are they paying for the bandwidth used for the ad payload, and it's none of their concern how these are used. In the end it all boils down to whether Spotify's right to run a business supersedes a person's rights of ownership.
But without some incentive to do so, they won't. If they're already getting around basically one of the biggest dealbreakers for the Free tier (the ads), then there isn't really incentive to pay 9.99 a month when they're already getting essentially the same service for free.
