But that means that if revenues rise as a result of the new service, Apple should keep all the extra profit rather than sharing it with the artists.
Is that what you really want?
Revenue rising with the new service will eat into the other revenue streams from sales. Subscription revenue has already been proven to be laughable with Spotify.
Saying that Apple gets to keep all the extra profit because they paid the artists during arbitrary terms set by Apple is incredibly short sighted, as the profit you speak of means profit to Apple, but a loss to the music industry.
True, but that's because the labels keep the vast majority of Spotify's payout.
http://recode.net/2015/06/15/heres-what-happens-to-your-10-a...
My point is not that I believe that Apple should keep the excess profit. It's that if Apple's service increases the overalls profit for the artists it's reasonable that they should share in the costs of marketing. Otherwise the artists are double dipping.
Most services eat the cost of trial periods in hopes of snaring subscribers and making up the loss. Apple is being dishonest by claiming free trial while passing off the costs to the artists by relying on Apple's name and status so as not to have people question it. In other words, they are spinning the story faster that old 78s