You should look up the financial statements of the companies in your list.
More generally speaking, take a look at Goldman Sachs' Non-Profitable Technology Index:
No doubts on the access to cheap debt, though.
So much of this world is driven by idiotic speculation based on slick websites and charismatic presenters.
Impossible engineering soybeans to produce more heme to make fake meat behave more like meat is a technology, in that it is a novel innovation applied to solve a real world problem.
But in modern common parlance "tech" tends to mean either that a company's offering is either entirely or heavily augmented by new software, or that the company has ties to a specific network of talent/investors/etc, or that the company has very low incremental costs per user. In those cases, they might not be a tech company.
Or is pharma part of tech in your definition? What about NASA?
It's technology innovations in food rather than electronics, but it's still technology innovations that are based around disrupting the existing industry.
I haven't paid attention for many years, but at one point is was an extremely profitable company.
It sounds weird because it assumes that every tech business has either insurmountable lock-in or insurmountable first mover advantage, without explicitly stating that. To fill in that assumption requires a lot of cultural knowledge of tech - the vast majority of businesses don't have either.
The problem is these assumptions are very likely incorrect for most modern "tech" businesses. It looks like over-generalisation. For example:
1. Slack has relatively little lock-in. The last company I worked for was in the process of migrating to Teams when I left. The justification was cost savings. Slack is trying to build network effects and lock-in with shared inter-firm channels, but most employees don't need to interact with other firms at least in today's business world, so even if Slack becomes the Bloomberg Terminal for the rest of us, it won't be the foundation of a huge business: only the people who need to communicate with other Slack-using firms will have Slack accounts and they charge by account.
2. Snapchat is a social network, and the iron law of social networks seems to be that they're at the top for only a relatively short period. Facebook is by far the longest lasting but even so, they've had to shore up that position by buying Instagram and WhatsApp. Snapchat's value won't last forever, so burning cash to get to the top in the hope of monetising it over the long run seem a bit optimistic.
3. Uber is basically a taxi firm. There is no moat there. Me using Uber doesn't really make it more useful for you, except in the sense that it attracts drivers. But drivers are capable of using multiple apps at once and switching between them. If Uber's prices were to increase really significantly, their market share would probably go into free-fall yet the hallmark of a company with lock-in is that they can charge very high prices for decades without facing competition.
4. Amazon was never able to convert high market share in retail to high profits. Its profits come mostly from AWS: a pure tech supply chain business.
It's also worth noting that Google and Facebook became profitable quite quickly relative to the sorts of companies people are criticising these days. It took Google less than 6 years to reach mega-profits. There are now firms that are doing Series G (!) raises, which aren't profitable after 15 years.
To elaborate a bit for GP: No I would not have classified early stage Google or Facebook or Amazon as "perpetually unprofitable tech" because, frankly, they clearly weren't. All 3 of these companies had strong, obvious moats that enabled them to preserve pricing power. All 3 of these companies had a small handful of initial cap raises and have grown entirely via Free Cash Flow ever since. The fact that all 3 of these companies continue to operate with staggering profitability decades later confirms this. (You can of course debate the ethics of having such a moat, antitrust etc., but you cannot deny it's there.)
2. Your point is hard to refute and may be correct - it isn't obvious they will do well or poorly over time.
3. This is almost certainly wrong. If Uber had no moat there would be more than Uber and Lyft in the US. It's going to be impossible to enter this market for a new player short of having self driving all worked out.
4. Yep, it wasn't/isn't clear on Amazon's retail biz, I'll agree with that.
You have some examples which are correct - there are specific situations where you are right. But the statement cannot be generalized.
These stories persist, of companies deliberately running their companies so as to give away a $1 for $0.80 or whatever - but with very few exceptions it's a bs story.
I'm spinning it as positive because I'm attempting to break out their fixed and variable costs. If one looks through the line items and imagines themself as CEO, there are items which can easily cut and/or don't need to climb as revenue climbs. EG, their R&D is probably too high and doesn't need to double for their revenue to double. By breaking out their costs one can figure if they are likely to be "perpetual money losers" or just "currently money losers", which is the question at hand.
They are valued in public markets at over $100 billion. Usually the public markets do a reasonable job at getting a reasonable number for a company's value. Thinking about Uber's cost structure in some depth is how folks have arrived at that number.