I would argue that: a) Dr. Dre is a performer. Rap, distasteful as you may find it, is performance art. It's the same as gangster movies. Would you object to A

I would argue that: a) Dr. Dre is a performer. Rap, distasteful as you may find it, is performance art. It's the same as gangster movies. Would you object to Apple working with Scorcese? It's a character, albeit slightly autobiographical, but not much different than someone like Bukowski, IMO. b) The Dr. Dre - Dee Barnes incident took place in 1991, almost 25 years ago. Should an isolated incident, for which he has made amends, haunt the man for the rest of his life? I don't think comparing it to the RadiumOne CEO, a current crime, is reasonable. c) It would be rather hypocritical for Apple to profit off the musical talent of young black males creating "offensive" music, but not deign to work with them due to some moral qualms.