I'm afraid I agree with the alternative sentiment, that is to say that this whole thing is a 'PR hoax'. Kudos to Apple for playing the game and coming out looking like the benevolent and merciful master, humbled by the pleas of his peons.
Having worked in Advertising for the last 10 years including a tiny bit with Apple (freelancing) I have a hard time believing this was a 'PR hoax'. Advertising and PR at that level is extremely conservative and taking a risk like that would get someone fired even if the result was beneficial.
Look at Apple's campaigns and you see well designed but generally very conservative creative direction that goes through so many reviews it dulls any edge.
They are risk averse enough they will finish multiple spots with the intent of choosing one (because they aren't 100% sold on creative direction) rather than risk reaching a deadline without having approved deliverables (the only account I've ever worked on that does this). This doubles and triples a campaign's production budget without any tangible benefit.
They will become even more conservative as they move more of their Ad creative in house.
The other evidence that goes against the 'hoax theory' is the fact that Taylor's 1989 album still will not be available on Apple Music at launch (from everything I've read). If they were designing this huge PR stunt wouldn't it end with Taylor agreeing to release her latest album on their service?
No company will ever intentionally bring its contract terms into the public spotlight. Not to mention the amount of coordination this would take is just too risky for a PR stunt. Apple would have been better off just paying Taylor Swift some money for exclusive streaming rights. It's not like they need to save money through use of guerrilla marketing.
