Joshua Tree landed them on the cover through the strength of its songs.
Songs Of Innocence landed them on the cover through the shamefulness of its release.
Different world.
Different world indeed. In 1987, one could hear tracks from upstarts like a 16-year old Debbie Gibson, as well as talented "old timers" like Paul McCartney. Michael Jackson did not have to endure any over-exposure backlash with "Bad". MTV was happy to play videos, as were many other stations. In fact, U2 set a record at the time for the longest #1 rock video (WOWY). Radio was happy to play a deep album track like "Trip Through Your Wires" along with a big hit like WOWY.
Back then, Soundscan didn't exist, so music shops reported their "sales" with whatever bias they wanted. Music execs loved to see the big new album from one of their artists rise up the charts, hit #1 and then slowly decline.
In today's world, you need to hit #1 (or at least the top 3) immediately (week 1) or your work is a failure. Today, Disney and YouTube play big roles in what artists may hit it big next (Miley Cyrus and Justin Beiber). MTV? No one watches that. Radio is one big corporation and they select "hits" they wish to play. Little artists that aren't well known have almost no chance. Bigger artists may make it, but only if they haven't ticked off the corporate big wigs and made nice songs for the Top 40.
Commercials, sadly, are the big way to hear a lot of new music or even older music. Kings of Leon got a big jump when "Molly's Chambers" was used in a car commercial. Movies can also help artists break out.
The general public no longer buys tapes, CD's, vinyl and are even passing on mp3's. Music is either streamed or stolen.
So yeah, a lot has changed.
We *ALL* get that you don't like the new album (and I felt the same as you initially, but after a few listens, I really enjoy it now - it is a grower). But ALL artists, not just U2, need to find a different way of making a living from their work. U2 don't need the $$. However, a new artist, struggling to get his/her/their work heard might find limited resources. Touring helps, but as an unknown, they'll tour only small places. They can put the album on iTunes, but who will buy it? Radio won't play it. MTV?
Maybe this format that U2/Apple chose for release didn't work as well as hoped (although I think it did brilliantly - you knew there would be backlash). But U2 is trying and maybe their next attempt will change things further. And this, in turn, could help all artists.
My point is that at this time, U2 don't need to be on the cover of Time for their music. They have more than succeeded (and did so again with this album, IMO). Putting them on the cover for a revolutionary way of distributing music is arguably more important - and is worth discussing. 1987 was done, let's think about the future. Because the next album may be one you adore, and you may be the one wishing people would give it a chance.
. 
