Taylor Swift single-handedly brought Apple to its knees, pushing the company to pay royalties to artists during the free three-month trial membership of Apple Music, set to launch June 30. How did this 25-year-old Grammy award-winning singer-songwriter get her way? By sharing her ire publicly.On Sunday, Swift wrote a post on Tumblr citing her concern that Apple would not be paying artists royalties for songs played on Apple Music during trial memberships of the new streaming music service. In the post, Swift told Apple she’d be withholding her blockbuster album 1989. The album sold nearly 1.3 million copies in its first week in late 2014.”I feel this deserves an explanation because Apple has been and will continue to be one of my best partners in selling music and creating ways for me to connect with my fans,” Swift wrote. “I find it shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.””I realize that Apple is working towards a goal of paid streaming. I think that is beautiful progress,” she added. “Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing. I say this with love, reverence, and admiration for everything else Apple has done. I hope that soon I can join them in the progression towards a streaming model that seems fair to those who create this music. I think this could be the platform that gets it right.”Sunday evening Eddy Cue, senior vice president of Internet software and services for Apple, responded to Swift on Twitter, acquiescing to her demands.

      Swift replied an hour later.

     And they lived happily ever after…we think.Insider Take:Swift had previously removed her music catalog from Spotify in a dispute over payments, causing many to speculate that Swift was merely whining about not making enough money. We see it differently, and we think Swift and Apple both acted admirably.Reading Swift’s post, she approaches Apple respectfully, highlighting the positives in their artist-platform relationship, and stating her reasons for her concern. She wasn’t rude, nor did she lash out. She stated her case and was clear about what she felt was fair for all artists, not just her. Apple responded in kind.For some, waiting all day for a response from Apple seemed like an excessive time period…but it was a weekend, and Father’s Day, and decisions to give up sizable royalties over a three-month time period don’t come quickly, and they can’t be made my one person. Apple was prudent in taking some time to consider Swift’s request and the possible ramifications – financial and otherwise – of doing so.What we find particularly interesting is that this conversation took place publicly via social media. Swift took to Tumblr, and Apple took to Twitter to negotiate. Would Swift have been as successful if the dispute had been handled behind closed doors and out of the public eye? Probably not.Swift had the support of millions of fans behind her, as well as that of artists whose music will be played on the new service. Apple, on the other hand, was on the hot seat, and people were watching and waiting for its response. Rejecting Swift’s request would have been a PR nightmare for Apple. Instead, the tech giant acted swiftly, pun intended, and opted to take a financial hit in favor of the long play. This was a good example of the role social media can play in the subscription world. Well done, Ms. Swift and Mr. Cue!