Hacker News Reader

I don't have any dog in this fight, but listing Netflix is not correct. They went public in 2002, and were profitable in 2003, so not in the same camp as Amazon and Twitter at all.

(If you want to be pedantic, they were unprofitable for "year", not "years" after IPO)

View on HN

Netflix is an interesting example. Every time they've approached profitability the market shifted and most of their investment was for naught. Now they look profitable because they can play with depreciation to book a profit. Cash flow is still negative and it remains to be seen if it every becomes positive.

In their 20 years they've managed to burn 10s of billions of dollars and they're still burning cash. Best case scenario they are still a decade away from generating more cash than they've consumed.

They were positive in April. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-netflix-reached-p...

Sustained profitability is a different hurdle.

There’s a parsing ambiguity I think. Is it “(reached profitability after years of not) && (reached profitability post-IPO)” or “reached profitability after (years of not, all of which were post-IPO)?

Ebiester’s initial comment on becoming profitable after IPOing with losses allows for either as a follow-up. We seem to have taken opposite readings without ill intent on either side.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com