[IncPen]

I, for one, will never believe that this wasn't cooked up by Swift's management and Apple's marketing department well in advance.

Because I remember the time Karl Rove got some nobody to create a controversial ad criticizing a candidate Rove opposed, and run it one time on a podunk cable station in the middle of the night (after 'tipping off' the local Dems). The ad got hundreds of plays on local and national news (for free) as outraged liberals bleated about it, before disappearing down the rabbit hole.

The point is that these are sophisticated marketing plays, designed to generate conversation and brand awareness (Swift: cocky and confident, David v. Goliath; Apple: innovative, reasonable, flexible, artist-friendly).

It's not mistake in any way, shape or form.

_{It is equally funny to see the haters take the bait on this...}

[Swordmaker]

I, for one, will never believe that this wasn't cooked up by Swift's management and Apple's marketing department well in advance.

I suspect you may have the right take on this. Apple is very innovative in their advertising and can cook up ways to create buzz about new services. This has certainly done that in the social media. Apple has always found ways to pay the artists, programers, developers, etc. iTunes was always about producing content that made it easier for musicians to get their music to end users without being filtered through producers who strangle them, taking the lion's share of the loot. Apple has always shared revenues 70/30, with the 30 covering Apple's expenses, distribution, overhead, and profit, and the 70% going to the developers, artists, authors, suppliers.

This kerfuffle just did not ring true with Apple's way of doing business. . . but did ring true with what I know of accounting principles.