I have no doubt that Swift (and her management) made the decision based on the math. However, I think your comment is very telling of the current environment; she's now perceived as "ripping off her fans" by asking them buy her music. The horror!!! I think the key question is, "the same amount of revenue" as what? What artists use to make? Or what they might expect to make now, under the diminished expectations created by pervasive digital piracy? I think to describe "money now" as simply "more exciting", undermines the true value of it. "Money now" can be the difference between an artist being able to sustain themselves and/or funding their current tour or next album. I think we must first acknowledge how ludicrous an idea it is that a song must be listened to 150 times to have value or that art has somehow become a win/lose value proposition. Even more ludicrous is how this value is determined. Based on the graph you linked to, it would seem Spotify pays the label $0.005 per play. This makes the value of playing a song worth 1/1000th of a Vanilla Latte. It's still a bit strange to me to see how significantly the paradigm has shifted in some people's minds. The very idea that an artist enticing you to actually buy their music can now be equated with a casino trying to mask the true odds of a table game and underhandedly trying to shift the numbers in their favor, underscores just how drastically our perception of music has changed.