This whole browser thing has been going on for so many years, and yet I don't think the question has ever been answered; if a company/group wins the browser wars, what does it get them? Microsoft, Apple, etc. pour how much money into development of software they give away - where's the reward/compensation for the investment?
The only thing I can think of is an assumption that people would choose an OS based on its proprietary browser (Explorer7 or Safari) but I think everyone would agree that the decision would probably work the other way around (OS first, browser selection consequential).
If that's not it, what's the answer (the answer to a shareholder's question, perhaps) for pumping money into browser development? Is there a day of reckoning fast approaching when we'll all start paying for browsers and this long-running war is just for future market credibility and establishing a price point?
Well, no, managers of major artists most likely don't do these things directly, they arrange for these things to be done. (much like how a manager would receive payments and pay the bills, but would likely hire an accountant, and the manager also reviews contracts, but still hires a lawyer)
In the case of major artists (and keep in mind, we're talking about a business arrangement that would most probably only apply to Major Artists), when it came time to tour the manager would shop around for a merchandiser. Why source it out? One, recording artists' business is cyclical, with recordings and tours only happening once every year or two, or less; setting up and tearing down the infrastructure to handle the merchandising every other year would be a waste of time, effort and money. Second, the merchandising companies would be a step ahead anyways - are the kids buying tank tops or long-sleeve shirts? Do they want toques or headbands? Will keychains sell or would necklasses do better? A good merchandising company would already have current market data and be able to show this to the band, via their manager.
As for sponsorship/marketing deals, there are companies which handle this, they do market research and studies to back up the value of the artist and arrange these promo deals, and again, the manager would deal with these middlemen. It would be unlikely that an artist's management would deal directly with a corporation looking for a spokesperson.
Then there's touring: even with a regular manager, many bands will have a separate tour manager and/or booking agency. Again, while a manager is handling day-to-day business, a tour manager and booking agents would take care of the touring parts of the business, with the manager overseeing it all.
So what we have is recording companies wanting set up a merchandising division, an advertising/marketing division to handle corporate sponsorship, and a tour management/booking agent division. None of the work done by these parts of an expanded record company would negate or reduce the role of the manager, nor would they upset an artist's bargaining position. Once again, these types of deals would be for Major Artists, who could take their business just about anywhere they want. Small-time bands would probably never see this type of deal with an entertainment company.
"This takes time, people and money." You realize all the label does is spend the artists money right? They put the money out upfront but this is a loan, the label takes all these expenses out of the artists cut.
Yes, with the release of a CD, expenses are recouped from the artist, but that's why it's called an advance - they are lending money. If you started a new job and the boss offered you a year's salary up front, you wouldn't be working for nothing for the rest of the year - you'd be working for the money you've already been given. Whether you get paid now or later, you get paid. Once the advance is paid, if sales continue, then there's more money for the artist With this responsibility in mind, some bands don't get/take an advance.
If you look at business from the label's side of the deal, say they sign a band, and the band sells tons of CDs and the label makes lots of money. That's great for them, but for every band that sells well, plenty take a dive and the labels lose money on these. The entertainment business is very speculative, and whether it's music, movies or television, the money from the winners goes to pay for the losers. Even in a hypothetical scenario like the one presented by Steve Albini (which doesn't include the writer's royalties, by the way), the label doesn't make a frighteningly huge sum of money, and from the money they do make, salaries must be paid for everyone from executives to stock boys in the warehouse, rent must be paid, phone bills, insurance, etc., etc., and losses from CDs that tank must be covered.
Don't the labels get a fee whenever a song is performed? (Some of which might be back to the writer, if the label feels like it...) Wouldn't that include the artist performing their own song?
Royalties are supposed to be paid when a song is performed. That royalty goes to whoever owns the copyright, which would be the artist if they were smart, or someone else if they voluntarily sold the rights to the song. It wouldn't include the artist performing their own song if they own the copyright.
I guess the new part is wanting a percentage of merchansing? Oh, and the article says sponsorship, too. Ouch. You mean you can't even sell out to Pepsi without losing a cut, now?
This comment makes it sound as if the labels are taking a cut without doing any work, like perhaps mafia protection money. Deals such as these are not extortion, but the record companies branching out into other areas of the entertainment business that have existed for years - merchandising; someone must make, market and sell the stuff - sponsorship; someone must produce the numbers and charts, seek out potential sponsors and sell the artist to them as a good marketing investment. This takes time, people and money.
Right now these things are going on (whoever got Led Zepp their $500,000 fee from Cadillac took a cut), record labels just want to enter that part of the biz. If the artist thought someone else could do these things better, they are free to work with them. I could see big labels being in a good position to excel in these areas as they have lotsa cash to work with and plenty of contacts.
Please notice that this article only discusses mega-huge acts. It could be a sound business move for a major artist and label to enter into all-encompassing contracts which cover recording, merchandising and touring, instead of bouncing back and forth between several companies. This type of deal probably wouldn't be effective with or for smaller acts.
As many a Slashdotter has pointed out, musicians make their money not from selling records but from going on tour.
Correction: As many a misinformed, incorrect Slashdotter etc., etc...
Writing royalties are where artists make the big bucks.
The idea that concerts and touring are the big money-makers is quoted fairly frequently, although it is the fantasy/excuse created and embraced by those who want, want WANT to believe that downloading free music has no ill effect on artists or performers.
Yes, this is a bit of a digression, but let's keep the facts straight.
Yet another useless case mod, and yet another design example of aesthetic taking overwhelming precedence over practicality. This guy should work for Umbra. Whoopity doo.
I think the pumpkin case mod was more interesting and useful than this one.
While hi-tech safety gizmos are great, why is it so hard to get simpler solutions put into place? The manufacturers' answer to SUVs high centre of gravity, poor handling and associated rollover problem has been to develop software/hardware which helps the driver control the vehicle - why not just build a better car? (I know - cost-effectiveness, plus the ability to gloat in sales campaigns about high-tech gizmos)
How long will it be until the auto manufacturers decide the public is 'ready' to want four-point seatbelts? They've been 'testing' them for ages.
Then there's the issue of car seats collapsing backwards in rear-end accidents (which can crush the legs of rear passengers and render front seatbelts useless, so front passengers are thrown about), but the Big 3 in North America claim this is not an issue and current strength specifications (imposed by the government) are more than sufficient.
I suppose I am jaded by the auto industry's long history of fighting, tooth and nail, against safety regulations and standards imposed by washington. To the corporate mind, auto safety is an issue only to the extent that it can reduce payouts due to litigation.
I agree about the price - my first thought when reading this was 'who would pay for this?'
My second thought was 'why use robot dogs to check for pollutants? Why not just have a person walk around with sensors on a stick? If someone thought the area was really toxic, so toxic that a person couldn't safely be in the area (but for some reason a school was going to be built there), then why not just use a radio controlled car and save $1350 per unit?
I do believe that nerds have a tendency to let the 'gee-whiz' get in the way of common sense sometimes.
Oh, but wait - I forgot this point - this idea is to "create a local mediagenic event" and "enable and change typical lay-expert communication patterns, by raising the standards of evidence, or at least changing who produces this evidence". So, if I'm Mr. Burns and I find these things crawling around on the land around my powerplant, what's stopping me from sending Smithers out to pick them up and throw them in the lake?
Uh, I think most people would realise it's not that simple, but I'll bite anyways...
Last year honda (including acura) sold about 2.7 million cars/trucks globally.
This ad cost 750K GBP just to produce. It is one ad for one model of car, a model of car only available in a few countries/markets, therefore having limited usefulness (this ad has become a novelty, so it's getting extended exposure, but that is unusual). Add to that the production costs of ads for all of Honda's other car and truck models in all the different countries/markets, then the cost of buying airtime on television to broadcast the ads. Then there's radio and print ads (newspaper and magazine), which also have production and media costs, and then promotional programs for dealerships. It starts to add up, don't you think?
$500 000 USD was paid to use the Led Zeppelin song Rock'n'Roll in Cadillac tv and radio ads. That was just for the song - there's a lot more to production costs than just a song. It cost $2 million to air a Cadillac ad on the superbowl. That's one airing, and I'm not even scratching the surface of the total cost of promoting Cadillac over the past year or two. Recently Cadillac sales have been about 175 000 annually.
While the arguement you (i think) suggest by your brief post may have some validity for the Cola Wars (raising brand awareness to the highest level possible, so that any competition is lost in the glare, therefore justifying the huge sums of money spent by Coke and Pepsico), in other fields it is not; name the company that did the "cat herding" ad. Whoever it was (i really can't remember, although I'm sure it was a tech company) certainly had plenty of competition in their industry. I'll bet the cats didn't help them much.
Also, going back to the cola thing, their competition isn't just the other cola, but every other cold drink available. Fortunately for Coke and Pepsico, they own just about every product you could imagine drinking, except milk.
While your point about the scale of the market and its ability to absorb this sort of cost is correct, one must remember that this car ad will be just one part of a campaign, and the 750K GBP was just the cost of production and doesn't include airing the ad and tie-in ads in other mediums.
"Obviously the increased sales from advertising must offset the necessary increase in price and resulting loss of sales."
Well, the next question is, 'who determined that?' The advertising industry? They have a vested interest in keeping advertising costs high. Superbowl ads make for a spectacle (I still can't believe that canadian football viewers were upset that they couldn't see the US ads - they're ads ferrchrissake, but anyways) but have you ever switched from coke to pepsi or vice versa because you were impressed by an advertisment? If the cost of coke or pepsi, whichever you drink, were slashed by, say 20%, would you buy more?
My point, in response to your comment, is that just because something is the way it is, doesn't make it right, or the most effective. The ad industry (which is Big Money) has their vested interest, and I'm sure Big Corporations would be too scared to try advertising on a reduced budget - it is all they know, and taking chances and being wrong is like having the business plague.
£750,000 for an ad which will run for 7 1/2 weeks - I'm sure it's not unusual; just don't forget what you're really paying for when you buy a car - a big chunk of the cost of autos is just covering advertising - it's the same with many consumer items.
I wonder what the math is on the idea of lowering advertising costs to bring down end price of the product which might increase sales, balanced against the decreased exposure which might decrease sales. As long as people are willing to pay what they are currently paying, I guess it doesn't matter.
It's sunday morning and I'm not in the mood to be doing math, even simple math, so I'll just outline my thoughts and leave the equations to someone else: if CD prices were, say $16 15 years ago, and $16 now, does the reduction in manufacturing cost really compensate for 15 years of inflation? What is $16 in 1988 dollars really worth now, and how are profit margins affected?
When I was a teen (early-mid-80s) new vinyl albums cost around $10 (? - memory fading) and the music industry was operating on slim profit margins (one reason for the big price jump when CDs came in), so in 2003 is $16 really that far-fetched for teens or are they just whining?
Please, don't act like the cost of CDs is a big scandal - this wasn't news in 1988, it's not news now. Besides, this ongoing boo-hoo session about the entertainment industry being greedy beyond all remorse and burning in hell etc., etc. is really getting boring. They're not selling air, water or salt - it is entertainment and you don't NEED it. If you insist that you do, then you are a sucker who has fallen for the hype of the advertising machine and should either give your head a shake or just seal your mouth.
Really, who is more greedy? The entertainment industry for charging what most people are obviously willing to pay for a product (free market economy, etc.) or the people who insist on pirating copyrighted material, acting as if there is some basic human right being infringed upon because they can't afford, or are unwilling to pay for, the latest (and coolest, if that is a quantifiable value, which it surely is, in the entertainment industry) entertainment.
I don't mean to troll, but you should work on your web search skills. I found this, a newscast report from fox13 itself here, then there's a support site here... aw hell, just take a look at my page of search returns here.
"...it offers an opportunity to study a complexity rarely seen in other sports but much evident in the real world: the tension between cooperation and competition that is necessary for modern victory.
The real world must be a lot simpler than I have always believed, or perhaps they should be studying a sport like european bicycle road racing, which shares the cooperation/competition thing, but has nine or ten guys per team in scenarios where, because of terrain or the type of race, certain teams/riders can excel and have a real chance to win one day, but not the next, and everyone knows what everyone else's strengths and weaknesses are. Also, things like national loyalty, even between riders on different teams, often plays into things, as well as riders "thanking" other teams for giving them a nice contract for the upcoming season, and blowing off their current team.
whether EVH ever used a ripley in battle is one thing, but I know he endorsed it - the first time I saw a ripley was on a kramer poster in a music shop, the guitar being held by eduardo. There was a similar magazine cover, the name of which escapes me. Anyways, doing a quick web search for 'kramer ripley' produces returns including "...1983 Kramer Ripley, USA, as made famous by EVH back in the day with special Bartolini with 6 individual pickups (one for each string that you can pan left or..."
I never knew much about this instrument, other than reading a brief article about it and thinking at the time it was a curiousity and questioning its practical applications, so I can't provide much more information.
Slashdot Mirror
This whole browser thing has been going on for so many years, and yet I don't think the question has ever been answered; if a company/group wins the browser wars, what does it get them? Microsoft, Apple, etc. pour how much money into development of software they give away - where's the reward/compensation for the investment?
The only thing I can think of is an assumption that people would choose an OS based on its proprietary browser (Explorer7 or Safari) but I think everyone would agree that the decision would probably work the other way around (OS first, browser selection consequential).
If that's not it, what's the answer (the answer to a shareholder's question, perhaps) for pumping money into browser development? Is there a day of reckoning fast approaching when we'll all start paying for browsers and this long-running war is just for future market credibility and establishing a price point?
Yes, but remember Queens and Waterloo are Canadian universities. So those figures are in Canadian dollars.
...so it's tree-fitty ann two-bucks, four-coppers american, respectivitily.
Please, humour me...
Is the fact that this thing runs on Linux so important that it should lead the headline? Really, is the story about the robot or the OS it uses?
Would there be a similar headline if it used XP or OSX?
I'm just wonderin'.
Well, no, managers of major artists most likely don't do these things directly, they arrange for these things to be done. (much like how a manager would receive payments and pay the bills, but would likely hire an accountant, and the manager also reviews contracts, but still hires a lawyer)
In the case of major artists (and keep in mind, we're talking about a business arrangement that would most probably only apply to Major Artists), when it came time to tour the manager would shop around for a merchandiser. Why source it out? One, recording artists' business is cyclical, with recordings and tours only happening once every year or two, or less; setting up and tearing down the infrastructure to handle the merchandising every other year would be a waste of time, effort and money. Second, the merchandising companies would be a step ahead anyways - are the kids buying tank tops or long-sleeve shirts? Do they want toques or headbands? Will keychains sell or would necklasses do better? A good merchandising company would already have current market data and be able to show this to the band, via their manager.
As for sponsorship/marketing deals, there are companies which handle this, they do market research and studies to back up the value of the artist and arrange these promo deals, and again, the manager would deal with these middlemen. It would be unlikely that an artist's management would deal directly with a corporation looking for a spokesperson.
Then there's touring: even with a regular manager, many bands will have a separate tour manager and/or booking agency. Again, while a manager is handling day-to-day business, a tour manager and booking agents would take care of the touring parts of the business, with the manager overseeing it all.
So what we have is recording companies wanting set up a merchandising division, an advertising/marketing division to handle corporate sponsorship, and a tour management/booking agent division. None of the work done by these parts of an expanded record company would negate or reduce the role of the manager, nor would they upset an artist's bargaining position. Once again, these types of deals would be for Major Artists, who could take their business just about anywhere they want. Small-time bands would probably never see this type of deal with an entertainment company.
"This takes time, people and money." You realize all the label does is spend the artists money right? They put the money out upfront but this is a loan, the label takes all these expenses out of the artists cut.
Yes, with the release of a CD, expenses are recouped from the artist, but that's why it's called an advance - they are lending money. If you started a new job and the boss offered you a year's salary up front, you wouldn't be working for nothing for the rest of the year - you'd be working for the money you've already been given. Whether you get paid now or later, you get paid. Once the advance is paid, if sales continue, then there's more money for the artist With this responsibility in mind, some bands don't get/take an advance.
If you look at business from the label's side of the deal, say they sign a band, and the band sells tons of CDs and the label makes lots of money. That's great for them, but for every band that sells well, plenty take a dive and the labels lose money on these. The entertainment business is very speculative, and whether it's music, movies or television, the money from the winners goes to pay for the losers. Even in a hypothetical scenario like the one presented by Steve Albini (which doesn't include the writer's royalties, by the way), the label doesn't make a frighteningly huge sum of money, and from the money they do make, salaries must be paid for everyone from executives to stock boys in the warehouse, rent must be paid, phone bills, insurance, etc., etc., and losses from CDs that tank must be covered.
If running a record label is such a fanta
Don't the labels get a fee whenever a song is performed? (Some of which might be back to the writer, if the label feels like it...) Wouldn't that include the artist performing their own song?
Royalties are supposed to be paid when a song is performed. That royalty goes to whoever owns the copyright, which would be the artist if they were smart, or someone else if they voluntarily sold the rights to the song. It wouldn't include the artist performing their own song if they own the copyright.
I guess the new part is wanting a percentage of merchansing? Oh, and the article says sponsorship, too. Ouch. You mean you can't even sell out to Pepsi without losing a cut, now?
This comment makes it sound as if the labels are taking a cut without doing any work, like perhaps mafia protection money. Deals such as these are not extortion, but the record companies branching out into other areas of the entertainment business that have existed for years - merchandising; someone must make, market and sell the stuff - sponsorship; someone must produce the numbers and charts, seek out potential sponsors and sell the artist to them as a good marketing investment. This takes time, people and money.
Right now these things are going on (whoever got Led Zepp their $500,000 fee from Cadillac took a cut), record labels just want to enter that part of the biz. If the artist thought someone else could do these things better, they are free to work with them. I could see big labels being in a good position to excel in these areas as they have lotsa cash to work with and plenty of contacts.
Please notice that this article only discusses mega-huge acts. It could be a sound business move for a major artist and label to enter into all-encompassing contracts which cover recording, merchandising and touring, instead of bouncing back and forth between several companies. This type of deal probably wouldn't be effective with or for smaller acts.
As many a Slashdotter has pointed out, musicians make their money not from selling records but from going on tour.
Correction: As many a misinformed, incorrect Slashdotter etc., etc...
Writing royalties are where artists make the big bucks.
The idea that concerts and touring are the big money-makers is quoted fairly frequently, although it is the fantasy/excuse created and embraced by those who want, want WANT to believe that downloading free music has no ill effect on artists or performers.
Yes, this is a bit of a digression, but let's keep the facts straight.
"Today disk-capacity growth continues at this blistering rate, maybe a little slower."
What is a bit slower than a blistering rate? A skin-reddening, sensitizing-to-the-touch rate?
Will this give me porn a million times faster?
Yet another useless case mod, and yet another design example of aesthetic taking overwhelming precedence over practicality. This guy should work for Umbra. Whoopity doo.
I think the pumpkin case mod was more interesting and useful than this one.
Keith Hodson, a Microsoft spokesman, said the contract could help the Army reduce its costs and "validates the Army's belief in our security model."
It's also commonly known that the US Army (the US Military in General) isn't well known for spending its money wisely.
I'm a little surprised /. has yet to report on my patent of the knife, fork and spoon, as used in human food delivery.
I've been away for a while - are people still cracking those 'beowulf cluster of these' jokes? If so, I want in on this one.
They are applying technological band-aids to flawed designs.
While hi-tech safety gizmos are great, why is it so hard to get simpler solutions put into place? The manufacturers' answer to SUVs high centre of gravity, poor handling and associated rollover problem has been to develop software/hardware which helps the driver control the vehicle - why not just build a better car? (I know - cost-effectiveness, plus the ability to gloat in sales campaigns about high-tech gizmos)
How long will it be until the auto manufacturers decide the public is 'ready' to want four-point seatbelts? They've been 'testing' them for ages.
Then there's the issue of car seats collapsing backwards in rear-end accidents (which can crush the legs of rear passengers and render front seatbelts useless, so front passengers are thrown about), but the Big 3 in North America claim this is not an issue and current strength specifications (imposed by the government) are more than sufficient.
I suppose I am jaded by the auto industry's long history of fighting, tooth and nail, against safety regulations and standards imposed by washington. To the corporate mind, auto safety is an issue only to the extent that it can reduce payouts due to litigation.
My second thought was 'why use robot dogs to check for pollutants? Why not just have a person walk around with sensors on a stick? If someone thought the area was really toxic, so toxic that a person couldn't safely be in the area (but for some reason a school was going to be built there), then why not just use a radio controlled car and save $1350 per unit?
I do believe that nerds have a tendency to let the 'gee-whiz' get in the way of common sense sometimes.
Oh, but wait - I forgot this point - this idea is to "create a local mediagenic event" and "enable and change typical lay-expert communication patterns, by raising the standards of evidence, or at least changing who produces this evidence". So, if I'm Mr. Burns and I find these things crawling around on the land around my powerplant, what's stopping me from sending Smithers out to pick them up and throw them in the lake?
Uh, I think most people would realise it's not that simple, but I'll bite anyways...
Last year honda (including acura) sold about 2.7 million cars/trucks globally.
This ad cost 750K GBP just to produce. It is one ad for one model of car, a model of car only available in a few countries/markets, therefore having limited usefulness (this ad has become a novelty, so it's getting extended exposure, but that is unusual). Add to that the production costs of ads for all of Honda's other car and truck models in all the different countries/markets, then the cost of buying airtime on television to broadcast the ads. Then there's radio and print ads (newspaper and magazine), which also have production and media costs, and then promotional programs for dealerships. It starts to add up, don't you think?
$500 000 USD was paid to use the Led Zeppelin song Rock'n'Roll in Cadillac tv and radio ads. That was just for the song - there's a lot more to production costs than just a song. It cost $2 million to air a Cadillac ad on the superbowl. That's one airing, and I'm not even scratching the surface of the total cost of promoting Cadillac over the past year or two. Recently Cadillac sales have been about 175 000 annually.
While the arguement you (i think) suggest by your brief post may have some validity for the Cola Wars (raising brand awareness to the highest level possible, so that any competition is lost in the glare, therefore justifying the huge sums of money spent by Coke and Pepsico), in other fields it is not; name the company that did the "cat herding" ad. Whoever it was (i really can't remember, although I'm sure it was a tech company) certainly had plenty of competition in their industry. I'll bet the cats didn't help them much.
Also, going back to the cola thing, their competition isn't just the other cola, but every other cold drink available. Fortunately for Coke and Pepsico, they own just about every product you could imagine drinking, except milk.
While your point about the scale of the market and its ability to absorb this sort of cost is correct, one must remember that this car ad will be just one part of a campaign, and the 750K GBP was just the cost of production and doesn't include airing the ad and tie-in ads in other mediums.
Well, the next question is, 'who determined that?' The advertising industry? They have a vested interest in keeping advertising costs high. Superbowl ads make for a spectacle (I still can't believe that canadian football viewers were upset that they couldn't see the US ads - they're ads ferrchrissake, but anyways) but have you ever switched from coke to pepsi or vice versa because you were impressed by an advertisment? If the cost of coke or pepsi, whichever you drink, were slashed by, say 20%, would you buy more?
My point, in response to your comment, is that just because something is the way it is, doesn't make it right, or the most effective. The ad industry (which is Big Money) has their vested interest, and I'm sure Big Corporations would be too scared to try advertising on a reduced budget - it is all they know, and taking chances and being wrong is like having the business plague.
£750,000 for an ad which will run for 7 1/2 weeks - I'm sure it's not unusual; just don't forget what you're really paying for when you buy a car - a big chunk of the cost of autos is just covering advertising - it's the same with many consumer items.
I wonder what the math is on the idea of lowering advertising costs to bring down end price of the product which might increase sales, balanced against the decreased exposure which might decrease sales. As long as people are willing to pay what they are currently paying, I guess it doesn't matter.
It's sunday morning and I'm not in the mood to be doing math, even simple math, so I'll just outline my thoughts and leave the equations to someone else: if CD prices were, say $16 15 years ago, and $16 now, does the reduction in manufacturing cost really compensate for 15 years of inflation? What is $16 in 1988 dollars really worth now, and how are profit margins affected?
When I was a teen (early-mid-80s) new vinyl albums cost around $10 (? - memory fading) and the music industry was operating on slim profit margins (one reason for the big price jump when CDs came in), so in 2003 is $16 really that far-fetched for teens or are they just whining?
Really, who is more greedy? The entertainment industry for charging what most people are obviously willing to pay for a product (free market economy, etc.) or the people who insist on pirating copyrighted material, acting as if there is some basic human right being infringed upon because they can't afford, or are unwilling to pay for, the latest (and coolest, if that is a quantifiable value, which it surely is, in the entertainment industry) entertainment.
I don't mean to troll, but you should work on your web search skills. I found this, a newscast report from fox13 itself here, then there's a support site here... aw hell, just take a look at my page of search returns here.
The real world must be a lot simpler than I have always believed, or perhaps they should be studying a sport like european bicycle road racing, which shares the cooperation/competition thing, but has nine or ten guys per team in scenarios where, because of terrain or the type of race, certain teams/riders can excel and have a real chance to win one day, but not the next, and everyone knows what everyone else's strengths and weaknesses are. Also, things like national loyalty, even between riders on different teams, often plays into things, as well as riders "thanking" other teams for giving them a nice contract for the upcoming season, and blowing off their current team.
It's a heartless sport really, much like life.
I never knew much about this instrument, other than reading a brief article about it and thinking at the time it was a curiousity and questioning its practical applications, so I can't provide much more information.