In other words, there's a clear function being offered and a clear path to giving them money in exchange for that function.
While both Twitter and Snap are functional, their only real offering is a slight twist on you general social network, and their only way to make money is by advertising to their vast consumer base.
As an investor I'd be far more interested in the revenue streams provided by Dropbox and Spotify.
Spotify is also insanely cheap in terms of getting basically all the music you would want in the world for around 10 euro's. It's a solid product with a good reason to exist, which fills a niche for many people.
Twitter is selling user generated content, which costs nothing and not going anywhere. Twitter is as popular as ever. Trump, et al.
Spotify is selling something that belongs to major recording labels; Spotify just license it. Majors can change the licensing rules and torpedo the whole business in a one year, and there is nothing Spotify can do about it.
Of course they won't do it, it reckless, but I think they will be adjusting the licensing rules so Spotify will have almost zero profits for the years to come.
As investor, I would sleep much better as a Twitter shareholder.
"For the years ended December 31, 2015, 2016, and 2017, we incurred net losses of €230 million, €539 million, and €1,235 million, respectively"
How is it better than Twitter?
EBIDTA is also negative.