They took a $150 million loss in 2007, and then made projections for 100% growth (and hired 100% more staff) for 08, which we now know is a recession year.
That means they are still losing money. It doesn't matter if they have $1B in revenue, if it costs them $1.1B to operate, things are not sustainable.
I meant that they had ~$200mm in revenues, not profits. As I said, I think it's very clear that they can operate at a profit with those revenues, and are choosing to invest in future growth. Huge investment in growth isn't "sustainable", in that you can't do it forever.
It's fine if you think they're going to fail in their bid to take over the world -- I'm undecided, personally -- but it's silly to claim that they're "unprofitable" without acknowledging that they could be if that was their goal (or refuting that point).
> but it's silly to claim that they're "unprofitable" without acknowledging that they could be if that was their goal (or refuting that point).
But you do the exact opposite. You are claiming that they could be profitable but you don't back it up. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that you haven't flushed out your point at all.
I too could say that General Motors could be profitable, they'd just have to stop paying pensions, salaries and leases on equipment.
So the question to you is how can Facebook be profitable if they pay out more than they take in?
That means they are still losing money. It doesn't matter if they have $1B in revenue, if it costs them $1.1B to operate, things are not sustainable.