If people are going to make the argument that they are a little tone deaf/clueless on how to market themselves and retain credibility these days, they'll get no argument here. However, lets not make the mistake of calling them greedy or "only focused on money" or falsely claim that they "never give anything away" just because they don't take our preferred approach!
It's almost like " with fans like us, who needs detractors?" Seriously. I can be as critical as anyone, but was the Elevation Boston show streamed on U2.com not for free? How about Invisible being available as a free download and proceeds going to global health? How about the fact that U2 is a bargain to see live compared to some legacy acts with more "street cred" these days? In general, but especially with the GA pricing structure.
We can say whatever we want, try to rewrite history all we want, but 2 things are undeniable facts.
1) U2 has always had the same business philosophy. This is evident many places over they years, but can be summed up by Larry saying, in response to criticism a few years back "the fact is, as soon as we sign our names on that dotted line to sell our art for money, we've become businessmen. " He was responding to criticism they "sold out" and basically stated they work with people/businesses they agree with.
Eg -they declined Coke's offer to pay for Even better than the real thing for their commercials but signed on with Apple because they were developing a download service that compensated artists.
2) If they only care about money, they have a strange way of showing it over the years.
In addition to things they give away for free (regardless of they're what we would give away) and the concert pricing structure, there's the money they give to charities from almost every album or tour. If they were greedy, they'd be keeping that.
Also, just like we may not agree with WHAT they allow access to for free or the business deals they make, we may not find much to enjoy in the musical direction they take on particular albums/tours. However, what is a FACT, is that they could've just toured on their legacy after ZOO TV and raked in far more money than they have with simple stage productions and no new material costing them money to make.
They could've billed ATYCLB as their return from the experimental wilderness even without Pop. Pop could've been replaced by JT 10 in 1997. With the ATYCLB success and increase in the fan base, they could've made still more money. Tour the U2 catalog, make it a big annual or semi annual thing like DMB used to do, or Billy Joel does, and then have big birthday parties for whatever big album is turning whatever age.
Instead, they put lots of time, money and effort into new material that they believe in and continue to innovate on tour. Just since Elevation, we've seen the heart/ellipse concept, the floor length screen/run way from I/E and the Vertigo light curtain copied by other acts. Probably more I'm missing. Even JT 30, though it had nothing revolutionary, went to great lengths to have the highest tech screen with all original photography/videography when that would've been the easiest time to just recreate the canvas tree with a few screens showing the band.
This is not how a band that's just about money tours.
This idea that U2 are money hungry whores is a ridiculous leap to make from "I don't agree with X or Y move by the band and it's lost them cred."