Hey, I'm old school. I can identify with them. I like to buy my music. I don't get subscriptions where if I stop playing I can't listen to anything.... but I find myself listening to podcasts-- 2 hour long podcast of EDM. My favorite one has several YEARS of podcasts and despite skipping months at a time I'm still over a year behind. I'm not paying them anything, they're not paying the artists anything (it's meant for promotion more than anything else.)
I did buy an album once.
So, even though my habits are different the industry has changed.
Apple is progressive. The whole point of the free trial is to get people addicted to the service. In the long run Taylor Swift will make more money from a free trial than if Apple offered the service without a free trial-- because more people will sign up and ultimately end up with royalties going to Taylor.
I think it's hilarious that Apple is (as ever, of course) portrayed as the bogeyman for trying to market a service that will make the artists more money.
Just like they are constantly derided for taking %30 of revenue (which is a huge improvement over the often %95 and worse terms that you had to accept before the iPhone came out).
Things have changed. I'll try this service and see if it changes my habits. If Tayler didn't make out from it in 6 months then go ahead, complain away and have some data to back it up.
But making a big to do about it now is kinda silly. Like people being mad that Apple gave them a free U2 album. Sure they handled it clunky and If they do it again I'm sure they will be better. But OH! Apple gave me free music! #FirstWorldProblems
 near as I can tell, it's a record label that puts out the podcast and I think it's their artists they're putting in it.
1) most producers are DJs as well, and often (or at least historically) singles were used as much to promote the DJ as they were a revenue stream.
2) the few producers that weren't DJs were also engineers for other DJs who weren't very good in the studio. Thus they made their money engineering
3) most clubbers wouldn't be interested in a 7 minute unmixed single of their favourite club track. So the single sales generally go to other DJs (and there's thousands of DJs who never make it out of their bedroom - so the DJ scene is considerably bigger than it sounds).
The modern EDM scene is likely a little different these days since many EDM DJs are now also pop artists. But I think they still essentially follow this model.
Someone did the math and came to a different conclusion: https://www.baekdal.com/opinion/taylor-swift-is-right-about-... . Assuming Apple Music generates $ 10 billion in revenue per year, artists never make up the cost while Apple saves $1.6 billion the first year of Apple Music.
Apple may be right or wrong with their optimistic projections but people need to at least understand the business proposition they are offering. The concept of "making up the cost" has nothing to do with recovering the 3 free months from Apple as if it was a closed economic system. The idea is that the musician recovers the 3 free months from the entire music industry because Apple will have a wider audience and a bigger platform.
flawed model: get $0 for 3 months and never get it back whether the future Apple payments total $1 billion, $10 trillion, or infinity.
Apple's model: get $0 for 3 months but you (potentially) come ahead because we pay higher royalty AND we have the potential to convert a bigger % of 800 million iTunes accounts to paid streaming subscribers which will exceed Spotify's 20 million subscribers.
In other words, the artist is supposed to make business comparisons based on:
-- lost $$ for not being on Apple's platform and only providing music to Tidal & Spotify
-- more $$ from customers switching away from Spotify
-- more $$ from new streaming customers that would never have paid for Spotify but would subscribe to Apple Music because the app is already preloaded on the iPhone and there's less friction
(Each musician was supposed to weigh those bullet points to see if the big picture of skipping 3 months of payment made financial sense. It may or may not.)
As an analogy, it's as if a merchant concludes that accepting credit cards will "never make up the cost" because paying the monthly fees for the VISA/Mastercard mag swipe terminal and the transaction rates of 2% will never be paid back by the VISA/MC corporate entity. That's only true if one has a bizarre concept of thinking of the payment network as a closed system.
However, rational businessmen think outside of the CC payment system and conclude that accepting credit cards is net positive because behavior analysis shows that customers spend more when they can use a credit card instead of cash or checks.
 Thomas Baekdal's arithmetic and logic:
If we assume Apple Music will have $10 billion in revenue per year, we get this:
70% royalty / no free trail = $7 billion to artists
71.5% royalty / 3 months free = $5.4 billion to artists
After five years:
70% royalty / no free trail = $35 billion to artists
71.5% royalty / 3 months free = $33.9 billion to artists
After 10 years
70% royalty / no free trail = $70 billion to artists
71.5% royalty / 3 months free = $69.7 billion to artists
So, the artists never make up the cost while Apple saves
$1.6 billion the first year of Apple Music.*
The costs of trial offers are to be born by the company attempting to obtain subscribers or long term service. You don't have other people bear that cost for you, let alone product you have no legal right to profit off of.
I know, its a trial, how can their be profit. The profit is in the idea they will get a subscriber from the trial which is where the risk comes from. Apple should be taking the risk getting subscribers, not artist Apple chooses to play during the trial