The perps aren't sniping anymore, they're blowing themselves apart with dynamite.
I'd have thought this would be modded +5 Funny, because it is. But maybe people seriously think that the military no longer needs to deal with snipers. Unfortunately, the presence of suicide bombers does not negate the presence of snipers, and that Iraq is not the only place the US military finds itself these days.
Based on Hollywood's Proven Record of Innovation (tm), I believe Halo and Doom will be excellent films, as will Splinter Cell. The top eschelons of the Hollywood movie machine are stocked by people of talent, creativity, and originality. Why shouldn't we have every faith in Hollywood to adopt content from the video game environment into the utterly different world of motion pictures?
teenagers pick up guitars to impress chicks, not to become millionaires
But the artists who have become millionaires aren't exactly clamoring to change the system, are they? The power is in the hands of artists, but the small number of artists who have benefited by the current system are as a whole uninterested in changing it.
The fact that you and I don't need media conglomerates doesn't mean that they'll disappear of their own accord. Until big-name artists start working for change, and legislation is passed to curb the music industry's excesses, the industry will use its considerable financial and political clout to resist change.
The current music industry profit model is probably doomed, but the labels won't let it go away without a fight. They know they're middlemen, and they know that the Internet is particularly good at weeding out middlement. The problem is no matter how many times they get hit on the head with a cluestick, they still can't figure out a way to shift their profit model. Expect this fight to go on for quite some time before the music industry either is utterly destroyed or is forced to adapt to the new reality.
Slashdot's editors have a point of view. It's a fairly well-articulated point of view. Sometimes it shifts, but the basics are fairly well known. Open source is a good thing. Monopolies are a bad thing. Technology works best when people are allowed to play around with it. Not everyone who reads or posts to Slashdot agrees with this editorial viewpoint, as your post obviously indicates.
Once you get beyond the basic editorial bias of Slashdot, you'll find even less agreement. Slashdot readers argue about everything. Show me a Slashdot article that didn't receive at least a dozen responses that were contrarian. Seriously. Show me one.
You mention "propaganda and rhetoric" and Slashdot "not being taken seriously as more than a niche geek site with very rigid agendas and a strict groupthink policy."
It's very difficult to send out propaganda via an open discussion forum. The term propaganda implies control of the message. Neither the editors nor the thousands of Slashdot users have control over anything but the expression of their own individual opinions. You're obviously using the more modern, less flattering interpretation of the word rhetoric, which denotes argument that sounds good but is lacking in real content. Individual posts frequently fit that bill, but such individual posts are merely part of an open exchange.
Slashdot is "news for nerds" in case you missed it. The whole idea is that it is a place for geeks to talk about things that are important to geeks. It's not trying to be the next New York Times. As for agendas and groupthink, let's take a look at them:
1.) Everything Google does is newsworthy and good
Newsworthy, yes. Good, not necessarily. Google is a technology company first and foremost, and it's one of the few places where geeks really do run the show. The company has a very bold mission statement that eschews conventional corporatespeak. Google is struggling with the contradictions of power and desire to do the right thing. There's nothing more newsworthy in technology right now that what Google is doing. Look at many of the questions raised by Slashdotters over the last few months, and you'll see that people here are watching closely to see if Google really is doing the right thing. The gestalt view of Google has definitely shifted from one of almost unmitigated adulation to one of cautious optimism. That doesn't seem too doctrinare to me.
2.) Everything Microsoft does is newsworthy but bad
Microsoft has a track record of doing illegal and unethical things. They were caught lying to a federal court, among other things. They are convicted monopolists. Their top managers keep on using phrases like "knife the baby," which only confirm people's suspicions about the underlying culture in Redmond. Every once in a while Microsoft does something that looks great on the surface, but Slashdotters are generally suspicious of these overtures until they're proven to be genuine. Some specific Microsoft products get good press on Slashdot (XBox springs to mind). Plus, there are a fair number of contrarians who like to point out that everything Microsoft does isn't evil.
3.) Any attempt by the RIAA in any way, shape, or form to protect its copyright is an infringement on the natural rights given by the Creator of a person to pirate stuff without having to pay for it
Sorry, but I have to call b.s. there. Every discussion about the RIAA draws heated responses from both sides of the aisle. Most Slashdotters think the RIAA is positively antideluvian in their approach, but beyond that it is very difficult to find common ground on how to deal with the numerous issues surrounding digital music distribution.
4.) Violating the copyright of the GPL is "stolen code" that the EFF should pursue legally, going after individual infringers
Violating the GPL is a violation of a contract not formed under duress. The GPL is not owned by a monopoly. It is not the result of corporate-sponsored legislation. Use of the
Yep. You know someone in the movie industry got a huge promotion for coming up with the idea of fuggin' Pepsi ads before the previews. "Hey, they're a captive audience! Let's treat our customers like lab rats, because we can make more money if we bombard them with ads."
It's only a matter of time before someone goes postal after seeing one too many Fandango ads at the theater.
If I wanted ads, I'd have stayed at home, turned off my Tivo, and watched television.
Apparently, the entire wired staff wrote that article.
Wired doesn't like to fess up to it, but they devoted an entire issue (this was back when a full Wired issue weighed in at just under a metric ton) to push media. When that issue came out, I knew Wired had jumped the shark (actually, this was before that term appeared, but you get my drift).
One of the biggest gripes people have about managers is that they always duck their responsibilities and pawn off mistakes on the people who work for them. When you take responsibility for your own actions, you're establishing yourself as not just a manager, but a leader. It's not always easy - human nature is to pass the buck.
Also, manage laterally. Whenever possible, cultivate good relationships with managers who are at your level in the hierarchy. At many organizations, top level managers like to play off the subordinate managers against each other. If you can establish solid quid pro quo relationships with your peers, if top management tries to screw with you, they'll be more likely to help you out in some fashion, even if it is not direct.
Cozying up to the boss, as some people have suggested, is not really a good idea imho. Bosses, like mid-level managers, come and go. It's better to have a reputation for doing good work and being easy to work with, than for toadying up to the boss. Many times when a management change happens, the first thing the new boss does is clear the deck of people who are seen as partisan.
Remember that politics of any kind is not about implementing a system and staying with it religiously. Your tactics will have to shift as circumstances dictate. Don't be too rigid, but always remember that you have to face yourself in the mirror. If you get too enmeshed in playing the game, you may wind up being one of the very people you don't want to be.
It seems some of the facts are a bit muddled. The Register posted a similar article which attributed the comment to Warner's Nash. They then issued a correction, stating that the "we'll cut him off" comment was made by Kenneth Hertz, a partner at Goldring Hertz and Lichtenstein LLP. Interestingly enough, GHL represents major recording industry artists, which seems to indicate that the big name artists are still quite happily in bed with the RIAA, all protestations to the contrary.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: As long as the big name artists all acquiesce to RIAA control of the music industry, they're complicit. A lot of smaller artists understand that the music industry cartel props up a small number of big name artists at the expense of all other recording artists. Unfortunately these smaller players don't have the clout that the big acts do.
Millionare recording artists, wake up and smell the coffee! The system that built you up is crumbling at the foundations. It won't be around forever.
As for the RIAA, the original Reg article indicated that they were feeling full of piss and vinegar supposedly because their profits have been better than expected, and they have a lot of faith in wireless networks to deliver the Next Big Thing in music. Yep, because ringtones are the bellweather of the future and everyone wants to use a cellphone as a music player.
There's been a slowdown in adoption. Maybe it will kick back up again, maybe it won't. There are all kinds of variables here that we're only really guessing at. Ultimately what matters is that Firefox has shown it is not a flash in the pan, and that it is possible for browsers to take marketshare from IE. I understand that in the Internet age we're supposed to assume that rate of growth is more important than actual growth, because "momentum" is the new Holy Grail, but I don't buy that line of reasoning.
Firefox doesn't have to beat IE in order to win. Forcing Microsoft to get off their ass and make a better browser, showing users that there are valid alternatives to IE, and encouraging the development of new browser capabilities are all valid goals.
A lot of soldiers, particularly in the combat MOSes, chew tobacco. It's a nasty habit, and not particularly tactical (you can smell tobacco spit fairly easily, depending on the environment).
That said, this could be a real godsend for grunts. Hands-free is definitely where it's at. You need to be able to shoot, move, and communicate at all times. If you have to negate your ability to shoot even for a moment while you're communicating, it makes you vulnerable. The more distributed and essentially "always-on" communications becomes, the better.
Things are moving in the right direction. The concept of an RTO (radio telephone operator) who tags along with an officer, making both of them obvious targets, needs to disappear. The trick, of course, is effective miniaturization. This great, but it needs to be paired with long-range radios that are small enough to be part of a combat leader's load. No doubt the US military is spending a lot of money on just this sort of thing, and I'm sure there are spec ops units running around right now using commo equipment that blows doors on the stuff we had to use even ten years ago.
Most science fiction and fantasy fiction sucks goat balls. But I still occasionally find a book that transcends genre and blows my mind.
TV is a vast wasteland of crap, with a few great exceptions like Galactica and Six Feet Under.
The blogosphere is full of nonsense, self-referential mental masturbation, and useless blogrolls. Then there are blogs like Daring Fireball, The Long Tail, and WWDNK which are each compelling in their own way.
Spam, though, is 100% crap. In that 10% lies the difference.
I'm not sure they were necessarily so openly perverted *at the time*, but your point is well taken.
It is a shame that we Americans seem hell-bent (sorry, couldn't resist) on turning back the clock to one of the most socially and psychologically repressive eras in human existence.
American taxpayers pay to send paid corporate representatives overseas to lobby foreign governments. Like Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle, et. al. aren't strong enough to do their own fuggin' lobbying?
We're already spending ourselves into a gigantic hole.
The tax breaks Dubya gave to the wealthy haven't demonstrably had any effect on the economy.
We're going to throw vast sums of money at Katrina cleanup, likely in the most backwards fashion imaginable, if our infrastructure rebuilding in Iraq is any indicator.
This is about priorities. The Bush Administration has consistently equated corporate welfare with American economic interests, when there is no proof that the two are related. Propping up already successful American companies ultimately makes those companies less competitive. Look at what happened to the automotive industry (and it's happening again - prepare to send some bailout money to Detroit within the next three years).
I know I'll get the usual, "It doesn't work, you're a loser, the political system doesn't care about individuals" rhetoric, but the time is really now. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican or something else, let your legislators know that you think this is a misallocation of valuable government resources. I'm sending notes to Boxer, Feinstein, and Lofgren as soon as I post this. It may not make a difference, but it beats doing nothing.
If you don't know who your Representative or Senators are, or how to contact them, you can use Thomas to do so.
True, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the intention of the original designers has anything to do with what is going on now. History is rife with examples of inventions being shoehorned to suit purposes other than those originally intended. In fact, Slashdot tends to celebrate novel applications of technology. Stories of web servers on Newtons, KDE on OS X, Linux on the XBox, and so on abound. Development of the Web is being driven by economic, not technology forces at this point in its lifecycle. It is a medium that the public knows, using metaphors people understand. There is also an established base of experienced Web developers, who have become comfortable with the tools of the medium. Think about how long it took for anything truly useful to be produced with Java. Even though the technological advantages of using other ports, developing other protocols, and so on are numerous, it will be very difficult to deflect the momentum that the Web has established.
This isn't necessarily a good thing, but I'm not sure how anyone can get around it. If anyone is going to break the stranglehold the Web has on Internet apps, it's going to be with something along the lines of iTunes, which fairly gracefully merges offline and offline activity into a moderately seamless experience.
No, not that "C word", this one:
Oh yeah, there were definitely things we wished we could have done differently during the development of World of Warcraft. But we learned from those challenges and used that knowledge to improve the game at every opportunity.
PR people are taught never to use the word problem, except when referring to a competitor's products and services. When your own company has a problem, it's a "challenge," usually one that gives you an "opportunity" to continue to "innovate" or be creative.
System is stable. - Defined how? What criteria will be used to judge stability?
... functions are working as expected. - As expected? By Bill Gates? By my grandmother? By the developer? By SOL?
SpecOpS will Email you the Challenge Registration Form and further instructions. - Which tells us that the text we're reading isn't the true offer.
Validation of the solution using SpecOpS Lab's criteria - Again, we don't know what the criteria are, and if they don't stipulate the criteria in the "further instructions" any promise they're making is too vague.
The decision of SpecOpS Labs for the award is final. - Paraphrase: "If we want to give you the money as a gift, we will. If we don't want to give you the money, we won't."
Gee, I wonder if this all was just a big publicity stunt?
They pay nearly ALL of that to the labels for the license.
That's what I've heard. But I wonder what the numbers amount to. "Something like 94%" is pretty vague. I'm not bashing on you, I just wish there was some way of finding out a bit more definitively how much Apple actually pockets from iTMS.
My theory is that they're purposely keeping it secret, and letting everyone believe that it's a loss-leader for them. Yes, the labels are taking a huge chunk of the profits from Apple, but once you get sunk costs out of the way, my unsubstantiated hunch is they're making more money at iTMS than people suspect.
I reiterate. Apple, which incurs none of the costs of a record company, MAKES NO MONEY AT A DOLLAR A SONG.
I agree with your overall reasoning. But although we've heard it repeated endlessly that Apple doesn't make a dime off of iTMS, and that they just do it to sell iPods, nowhere have I seen any real numbers showing that Apple isn't making any money selling music.
My guess is they're not making big bucks at it, but I wouldn't be so sure they're not making some money. After all, it's to their long-term benefit to downplay any fiscal success their having with iTMS.
Does anyone have any actual reliable numbers that define how much money Apple is making or not making on the iTMS?
Slashdot Mirror
You just made my point for me. The only artists that have chosen to *exercise their power* are the ones who have gone independent.
I'd have thought this would be modded +5 Funny, because it is. But maybe people seriously think that the military no longer needs to deal with snipers. Unfortunately, the presence of suicide bombers does not negate the presence of snipers, and that Iraq is not the only place the US military finds itself these days.
Hey! Wait a minute! You say that as if Super Mario Brothers sucked, Tomb Raider blew chunks, and Wing Commander was an embarassment to humanity.
Based on Hollywood's Proven Record of Innovation (tm), I believe Halo and Doom will be excellent films, as will Splinter Cell. The top eschelons of the Hollywood movie machine are stocked by people of talent, creativity, and originality. Why shouldn't we have every faith in Hollywood to adopt content from the video game environment into the utterly different world of motion pictures?
But the artists who have become millionaires aren't exactly clamoring to change the system, are they? The power is in the hands of artists, but the small number of artists who have benefited by the current system are as a whole uninterested in changing it.
The fact that you and I don't need media conglomerates doesn't mean that they'll disappear of their own accord. Until big-name artists start working for change, and legislation is passed to curb the music industry's excesses, the industry will use its considerable financial and political clout to resist change.
The current music industry profit model is probably doomed, but the labels won't let it go away without a fight. They know they're middlemen, and they know that the Internet is particularly good at weeding out middlement. The problem is no matter how many times they get hit on the head with a cluestick, they still can't figure out a way to shift their profit model. Expect this fight to go on for quite some time before the music industry either is utterly destroyed or is forced to adapt to the new reality.
Once you get beyond the basic editorial bias of Slashdot, you'll find even less agreement. Slashdot readers argue about everything. Show me a Slashdot article that didn't receive at least a dozen responses that were contrarian. Seriously. Show me one.
You mention "propaganda and rhetoric" and Slashdot "not being taken seriously as more than a niche geek site with very rigid agendas and a strict groupthink policy."
It's very difficult to send out propaganda via an open discussion forum. The term propaganda implies control of the message. Neither the editors nor the thousands of Slashdot users have control over anything but the expression of their own individual opinions. You're obviously using the more modern, less flattering interpretation of the word rhetoric, which denotes argument that sounds good but is lacking in real content. Individual posts frequently fit that bill, but such individual posts are merely part of an open exchange.
Slashdot is "news for nerds" in case you missed it. The whole idea is that it is a place for geeks to talk about things that are important to geeks. It's not trying to be the next New York Times. As for agendas and groupthink, let's take a look at them:
1.) Everything Google does is newsworthy and good
Newsworthy, yes. Good, not necessarily. Google is a technology company first and foremost, and it's one of the few places where geeks really do run the show. The company has a very bold mission statement that eschews conventional corporatespeak. Google is struggling with the contradictions of power and desire to do the right thing. There's nothing more newsworthy in technology right now that what Google is doing. Look at many of the questions raised by Slashdotters over the last few months, and you'll see that people here are watching closely to see if Google really is doing the right thing. The gestalt view of Google has definitely shifted from one of almost unmitigated adulation to one of cautious optimism. That doesn't seem too doctrinare to me.
2.) Everything Microsoft does is newsworthy but bad
Microsoft has a track record of doing illegal and unethical things. They were caught lying to a federal court, among other things. They are convicted monopolists. Their top managers keep on using phrases like "knife the baby," which only confirm people's suspicions about the underlying culture in Redmond. Every once in a while Microsoft does something that looks great on the surface, but Slashdotters are generally suspicious of these overtures until they're proven to be genuine. Some specific Microsoft products get good press on Slashdot (XBox springs to mind). Plus, there are a fair number of contrarians who like to point out that everything Microsoft does isn't evil.
3.) Any attempt by the RIAA in any way, shape, or form to protect its copyright is an infringement on the natural rights given by the Creator of a person to pirate stuff without having to pay for it
Sorry, but I have to call b.s. there. Every discussion about the RIAA draws heated responses from both sides of the aisle. Most Slashdotters think the RIAA is positively antideluvian in their approach, but beyond that it is very difficult to find common ground on how to deal with the numerous issues surrounding digital music distribution.
4.) Violating the copyright of the GPL is "stolen code" that the EFF should pursue legally, going after individual infringers
Violating the GPL is a violation of a contract not formed under duress. The GPL is not owned by a monopoly. It is not the result of corporate-sponsored legislation. Use of the
Yep. You know someone in the movie industry got a huge promotion for coming up with the idea of fuggin' Pepsi ads before the previews. "Hey, they're a captive audience! Let's treat our customers like lab rats, because we can make more money if we bombard them with ads."
It's only a matter of time before someone goes postal after seeing one too many Fandango ads at the theater.
If I wanted ads, I'd have stayed at home, turned off my Tivo, and watched television.
Wired doesn't like to fess up to it, but they devoted an entire issue (this was back when a full Wired issue weighed in at just under a metric ton) to push media. When that issue came out, I knew Wired had jumped the shark (actually, this was before that term appeared, but you get my drift).
Also, manage laterally. Whenever possible, cultivate good relationships with managers who are at your level in the hierarchy. At many organizations, top level managers like to play off the subordinate managers against each other. If you can establish solid quid pro quo relationships with your peers, if top management tries to screw with you, they'll be more likely to help you out in some fashion, even if it is not direct.
Cozying up to the boss, as some people have suggested, is not really a good idea imho. Bosses, like mid-level managers, come and go. It's better to have a reputation for doing good work and being easy to work with, than for toadying up to the boss. Many times when a management change happens, the first thing the new boss does is clear the deck of people who are seen as partisan.
Remember that politics of any kind is not about implementing a system and staying with it religiously. Your tactics will have to shift as circumstances dictate. Don't be too rigid, but always remember that you have to face yourself in the mirror. If you get too enmeshed in playing the game, you may wind up being one of the very people you don't want to be.
How can you not be stoked about Wired. After all, they were totally prescient about push media. They predicted that Castanet and Active X would RULE
They're not about hype. They're all about keepin' it real!
The just had to be something informative in the artical
so why not at least hint at that.
I'm not sure I'd cast stones if I were you. ;-)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: As long as the big name artists all acquiesce to RIAA control of the music industry, they're complicit. A lot of smaller artists understand that the music industry cartel props up a small number of big name artists at the expense of all other recording artists. Unfortunately these smaller players don't have the clout that the big acts do.
Millionare recording artists, wake up and smell the coffee! The system that built you up is crumbling at the foundations. It won't be around forever.
As for the RIAA, the original Reg article indicated that they were feeling full of piss and vinegar supposedly because their profits have been better than expected, and they have a lot of faith in wireless networks to deliver the Next Big Thing in music. Yep, because ringtones are the bellweather of the future and everyone wants to use a cellphone as a music player.
Morons.
Firefox doesn't have to beat IE in order to win. Forcing Microsoft to get off their ass and make a better browser, showing users that there are valid alternatives to IE, and encouraging the development of new browser capabilities are all valid goals.
Everyone knows the Apple Store, one of the largest online stores, runs on.. oh, wait.
We do know that Macs are useless for clustering and could never be used to build a supercomputer.
I know, old ideas die hard.
That said, this could be a real godsend for grunts. Hands-free is definitely where it's at. You need to be able to shoot, move, and communicate at all times. If you have to negate your ability to shoot even for a moment while you're communicating, it makes you vulnerable. The more distributed and essentially "always-on" communications becomes, the better.
Things are moving in the right direction. The concept of an RTO (radio telephone operator) who tags along with an officer, making both of them obvious targets, needs to disappear. The trick, of course, is effective miniaturization. This great, but it needs to be paired with long-range radios that are small enough to be part of a combat leader's load. No doubt the US military is spending a lot of money on just this sort of thing, and I'm sure there are spec ops units running around right now using commo equipment that blows doors on the stuff we had to use even ten years ago.
Prank call! Prank call!
TV is a vast wasteland of crap, with a few great exceptions like Galactica and Six Feet Under.
The blogosphere is full of nonsense, self-referential mental masturbation, and useless blogrolls. Then there are blogs like Daring Fireball, The Long Tail, and WWDNK which are each compelling in their own way.
Spam, though, is 100% crap. In that 10% lies the difference.
I'm not sure they were necessarily so openly perverted *at the time*, but your point is well taken.
It is a shame that we Americans seem hell-bent (sorry, couldn't resist) on turning back the clock to one of the most socially and psychologically repressive eras in human existence.
Thank God someone is finally taking us back to the 18th Century. It's about time.
We're already spending ourselves into a gigantic hole.
The tax breaks Dubya gave to the wealthy haven't demonstrably had any effect on the economy.
We're going to throw vast sums of money at Katrina cleanup, likely in the most backwards fashion imaginable, if our infrastructure rebuilding in Iraq is any indicator.
This is about priorities. The Bush Administration has consistently equated corporate welfare with American economic interests, when there is no proof that the two are related. Propping up already successful American companies ultimately makes those companies less competitive. Look at what happened to the automotive industry (and it's happening again - prepare to send some bailout money to Detroit within the next three years).
I know I'll get the usual, "It doesn't work, you're a loser, the political system doesn't care about individuals" rhetoric, but the time is really now. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican or something else, let your legislators know that you think this is a misallocation of valuable government resources. I'm sending notes to Boxer, Feinstein, and Lofgren as soon as I post this. It may not make a difference, but it beats doing nothing.
If you don't know who your Representative or Senators are, or how to contact them, you can use Thomas to do so.
True, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the intention of the original designers has anything to do with what is going on now. History is rife with examples of inventions being shoehorned to suit purposes other than those originally intended. In fact, Slashdot tends to celebrate novel applications of technology. Stories of web servers on Newtons, KDE on OS X, Linux on the XBox, and so on abound. Development of the Web is being driven by economic, not technology forces at this point in its lifecycle. It is a medium that the public knows, using metaphors people understand. There is also an established base of experienced Web developers, who have become comfortable with the tools of the medium. Think about how long it took for anything truly useful to be produced with Java. Even though the technological advantages of using other ports, developing other protocols, and so on are numerous, it will be very difficult to deflect the momentum that the Web has established.
This isn't necessarily a good thing, but I'm not sure how anyone can get around it. If anyone is going to break the stranglehold the Web has on Internet apps, it's going to be with something along the lines of iTunes, which fairly gracefully merges offline and offline activity into a moderately seamless experience.
PR people are taught never to use the word problem, except when referring to a competitor's products and services. When your own company has a problem, it's a "challenge," usually one that gives you an "opportunity" to continue to "innovate" or be creative.
System is stable. - Defined how? What criteria will be used to judge stability?
SpecOpS will Email you the Challenge Registration Form and further instructions. - Which tells us that the text we're reading isn't the true offer.
Validation of the solution using SpecOpS Lab's criteria - Again, we don't know what the criteria are, and if they don't stipulate the criteria in the "further instructions" any promise they're making is too vague.
The decision of SpecOpS Labs for the award is final. - Paraphrase: "If we want to give you the money as a gift, we will. If we don't want to give you the money, we won't."
Gee, I wonder if this all was just a big publicity stunt?
That's what I've heard. But I wonder what the numbers amount to. "Something like 94%" is pretty vague. I'm not bashing on you, I just wish there was some way of finding out a bit more definitively how much Apple actually pockets from iTMS.
My theory is that they're purposely keeping it secret, and letting everyone believe that it's a loss-leader for them. Yes, the labels are taking a huge chunk of the profits from Apple, but once you get sunk costs out of the way, my unsubstantiated hunch is they're making more money at iTMS than people suspect.
I agree with your overall reasoning. But although we've heard it repeated endlessly that Apple doesn't make a dime off of iTMS, and that they just do it to sell iPods, nowhere have I seen any real numbers showing that Apple isn't making any money selling music.
My guess is they're not making big bucks at it, but I wouldn't be so sure they're not making some money. After all, it's to their long-term benefit to downplay any fiscal success their having with iTMS.
Does anyone have any actual reliable numbers that define how much money Apple is making or not making on the iTMS?