zlacker

> [...] it was a very old, very large startup [...]

Can we start to call companies with almost 18 years old just "companies" and not startup anymore?

>>felipe+(OP)
Totally agree with you. It was only a startup in the sense that it was still struggling to find profitability / solid market fit.

As opposed to something like Amazon which grew and grew for nearly 20 years, always burning more cash than it made to fuel growth, but they understood the business really well and when they decided to optimize for profitability rather than growth, never never gone back.

>>shon+K
Didn't it take Amazon 15-20 years to blunder into AWS?

>>HWR_14+b3
Amazon's retail side was almost always marginally profitable and that was while they were reinvesting like mad in retail infrastructure (data centers, warehouses, etc).

>>felipe+(OP)
I'm starting to think today the word startup means a non profitable company that only exist, because interest rates are low and investors don't have any better options than invest into them.

>>oblio+F5
They had lots of Free Cash Flow. It was always routed directly back into growing the business instead of taking profits. Which is always the right thing to do if you can grow the business without hitting any walls, and you avoid paying any taxes that way.

Companies that behave that way and have good returns on capital employed and have large growth in earnings, free cash flow, etc are good investments. Doesn't matter if they're not showing profits.