Though this might seem a raw deal for artists I think it should be considered that the artists (and record labels etc) are effectively business partners with Ap

Though this might seem a raw deal for artists I think it should be considered that the artists (and record labels etc) are effectively business partners with Apple. What they are really doing here is asking the other side of the partnership to participate in the loss leader effort. Apple provides the platform development + storage and delivery infrastructure, the artists provide the content. When you consider it as a partnership it doesn't seem so reprehensible, they are both forgoing income to secure future recurring income. I think what people are upset about is the fact Apple has a big war chest when many artists do not. Fundamentally this isn't really Apple's fault though, likely this deal was brokered by their biggest partners - huge record labels. Huge record labels also have big war chests and are probably fine with the arrangement. It makes good business sense if you are a record label or Apple, less so if you are an independent artist but maybe not no sense at all, I don't know what exposure is worth. Unfortunately Apple can't create a 2 tier system where they have the big record labels foot the cost of the indie artists nor can their ignore the obvious good business sense of the loss leader approach.