While I don’t disagree with your sentiment, I don’t think we should be equating positive world change with successful increase of capitalistic profits.
IPO after becoming a monopoly has been a thing for a while. Amazon ran negative revenue for an extremely long time to run all competition out of business.
But in this case they don’t really have a moat, any invention is copied or surpassed by the competition within weeks/a few months, and there’s no monopoly in sight. And they’re all running negative revenue following the same scheme, high chance that if some start failing, it will scare investors, which in turn makes the negative revenue thing harder to do for the ones still in business
Welcome to startup land. If you’re profitable that means you’re not investing into growth and that means you probably don’t see much scope for growth and that means you’re yesterday’s news. It kinda makes sense, although it can get a bit absurd.
Obviously you don’t understand the amazing . . . science and, uh, mathineering that go into an incredible, world-changing technology like . . like the chat thing. Many people are saying, more and more, that it will totally revolutionize the way we . . do work and make . . shopping lists? I think?
If this amazing product is going to change the world, how is it not making enough money?
This “amazing product” is causing major companies laying off their talents despite record high earnings.
It makes money by making people poorer and the rich richer.
While I don’t disagree with your sentiment, I don’t think we should be equating positive world change with successful increase of capitalistic profits.
IPO after becoming a monopoly has been a thing for a while. Amazon ran negative revenue for an extremely long time to run all competition out of business.
But in this case they don’t really have a moat, any invention is copied or surpassed by the competition within weeks/a few months, and there’s no monopoly in sight. And they’re all running negative revenue following the same scheme, high chance that if some start failing, it will scare investors, which in turn makes the negative revenue thing harder to do for the ones still in business
You don’t necessarily need tech to monopolize an industry. Amazon is warehouses with delivery service.
That’s ominous.
Welcome to startup land. If you’re profitable that means you’re not investing into growth and that means you probably don’t see much scope for growth and that means you’re yesterday’s news. It kinda makes sense, although it can get a bit absurd.
No. No revenue
Obviously you don’t understand the amazing . . . science and, uh, mathineering that go into an incredible, world-changing technology like . . like the chat thing. Many people are saying, more and more, that it will totally revolutionize the way we . . do work and make . . shopping lists? I think?