This article seems to miss the point of the critique: the valuations (and increases thereof) are absurd given the visible fundamentals. The WNBA's loss doesn't look like an "investment" because it appears to result from declining sales, with no reason making itself apparent as to why sales should increase in the future.

Athletes wearing protest shirts makes me less interested in the sport, not more, no matter what they're protesting for.

As for Apple, the point of the article is that the streaming service was created in 2019 and is still in the red by this much. And it's still unclear (at least to me) why future users of streaming services would suddenly prefer Apple's to the competition, on a scale that would offset that previous loss.

For that matter, this is the first I've heard that Apple has a streaming service that has apparently existed since 2019. How much of that money went into advertising?

I don't think enough people think about how the current tax / economic system is made up, and we can change it if we collectively work together.

The article is providing too much good faith.

Companies easily act on the Hollywood accounting. They pay their shell corps to do whatever inflated bills less they want and claim they're losing money.

Investing is just a angle when there might be growth.

Regardless, everyone treats corporations with more respect than they deserve.