layout: post title: iTunes is successful…or maybe not created: 1054125300 categories:

• Mac

There have been some interesting deconstructions of Apple’s iTunes Music Store business. There has also been a 25% increase in Apple’s share price.

Greg sent me a story from Business 2.0 entitled Giving iTunes a Careful Listen:

One million downloads per week sounds nice, but a closer look at the numbers shows that the service isn’t the boffo success it’s made out to be. And it doesn’t justify the 25 percent run-up it’s created for Apple stock.

Then, Don Park links an article called Micropayments Redux at the iTunes Music Store:

Has Apple broken the code on micropayments? Yes and no. The success of the Store demonstrates that there is a broad market for premium content?sold ala Carte, immediately accessible, and fairly priced. In this sense, the Apple iTunes Music Store is the best micropayments proof point to date. Its success should encourage others to pursue similar models or to provide a cross-merchant micropayments infrastructure.

Controlled Not§

• [[quantum-computing]]
• [[push]] [[CNOT]]
• quantum equivalent of XOR
• written $\operatorname{CNOT}_{1 \rightarrow 2}$ for when $\left(x, y\right)$ becomes $\left(x, x \oplus y\right)$

• [[2026-07-31T00:45:13.075Z]] @[[flancia.org]]: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:xu4fhdxwmrptiwfvq5ymbkxx/post/3mrvq27eelw2u pull

It might be reasonably controlled; it might not.§

I recommend avoiding writing misleading descriptions of robust experiments that make them seem dubious. It discourages readers from…

It might be reasonably controlled; it might not. It’s not like PNAS hasn’t published really dubious stuff before. All the major journals have been bitten by peer review failures, sometimes spectacularly; the scientifically literate audience is aware of these.

I recommend avoiding writing misleading descriptions of robust experiments that make them seem dubious. It discourages readers from trusting you or the experiment — which reflects poorly on the experiment.

You’re making a fairly controversial argument (although it’s one I agree with), and it bothers me that it’s being presented in such a sloppy way. Your post will probably do net damage to the popularity of your thesis.

(Yes, somebody could go ahead and read every paper you reference. Why would they, when your post makes them seem flawed — and makes it seem like you don’t recognize those flaws? You’d be better off, at that point, simply posting a list of papers to read and allowing readers to come to their own conclusions!)

By John Ohno on November 6, 2017.

[Canonical link](https://medium.com/@enkiv2/it-might-be-reasonably-controlled- it-might-not-9c7ce990951)

Exported from Medium on September 18, 2020.