Can anyone explain the intent here? It seems like a ridiculous decision by Apple any way I look at it... and I'm an active opponent of the major labels & right-

Can anyone explain the intent here? It seems like a ridiculous decision by Apple any way I look at it... and I'm an active opponent of the major labels & right-holder organizations. If Apple is trying to shift to a user-subscription model and pay the labels (ultimately, artists) net-90, that's great, however it's obvious to anyone who's run a bootstrapped business that an unforeseen, 90 day break in cash flow can be an unrecoverable setback. Not for big labels. They can weather the storm (though precedent dictates they'll pass as much of this cost on to their artists as legally possible). The financial situation of end content creators and smaller studios is far more variable. Some will be fine. Others (especially those with content scheduled for release within this 3-month window) could be completely overwhelmed. This simply consolidates more market power into the hands of currently-large labels, and generates ill will toward Apple elsewhere. Why would a company that seems to want to attract self-publishers into its walled garden not find a structured solution to bridge the gap? I'm all for forcing artists to stream their music (I'm looking at you, Taylor Swift), because I see how that can ultimately make everyone more money. Arbitrarily disrupting cash flow, though, in order to run an experiment and offload your acquisition costs is a pretty offensive, and surprising move by a company with hundreds of billions in fungible assets.