Apple would, out of revenues from those who did pay subscriptions. Apple would wait for profits to manifest. They can afford to. Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP) rules apply to this, just as they do to all corporate income and expenditures. . . that's what some on here and elsewhere simply do not understand. Several years ago, Apple was forced to initiate a $2 charge for an upgrade that had been free before the Sarbanes Oxley laws were passed. . . The license as it existed did not allow them to give it away and some stockholders filed a lawsuit over giving it away on the grounds it caused a loss of stockholder return. The license Apple was offering the artists was a greater payment later for a delay in payment during the trial period.
As usual, there are people who would prefer to HATE Apple and obfuscate the issue than to understand what Apple was offering. . . which was a pretty good deal.
I very much doubt that Taylor Swift is an Apple hater.
So, did Swift not understand what Apple was originally offering, and stupidly stick her foot in her mouth with an open letter that was based on falsehoods? It seems to me her lawyers should have -- and since that's their job, WOULD have -- advised her against making a fool out of herself, if she was in the wrong.
Given that Apple didn't originally plan to pay artists during the 3-month freebie period (due to SOX laws or the threat of stockholder suits or whatever), why have they agreed to do so now? Did Apple's lawyers suddenly discover that there was no reason to delay paying until the subscriptions started rolling in?
Or has Apple not actually decided to pay artists during the trial period, but do something else?
I don't mean to be dense, but I'm not yet understanding the complete BEFORE vs. AFTER statements.