Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It was very obvious that Amazon wasn't unprofitable in any real sense. They only raised $100m, and they kept growing.

The difference with Amazon is that they have a very capital-intensive business, and when these grow very quickly then the accounting is basically useless (you see this with some ecomm companies, in some countries the market literally does not understand operating leverage in these businesses...so the business will build a new warehouse, the stock will drop 75%, top-line is growing 50%/year, and then the stock 10x when operating leverage comes through).

I think profitability is a sign that your business works. The "first-mover" advantage is way, way, way overstated. Investing is growth is great, but some businesses are clearly investing in growth that is unprofitable (one interesting example here is NFLX, they generate a profit in accounting terms but it is pretty clear that their business is either not profitable or taking on massive risk for marginal profit).




I can’t find it now. But I can swear I read that Amazon was lucky enough to get a line of credit right before the dot com bust.

But Amazon wasn’t profitable. It used cash flow from the time it received money from customers and paid suppliers to grow.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: