Hacker News Reader

I don't understand this argument. How does it make the subscription any less subsidised if the losses are only because developing the product is just so darn expensive?

Feels like arguing that it's not clear if Bugatti's losses came from selling the Veyron instead of designing and developing the Veyron.

The equivalent is when Amazon was running a loss because they were spending all their money on building warehouses. It exactly make sense, but that's the argument.

How often does Amazon have to rebuild their warehouses?

> It (doesn't) exactly make sense

I missed the word don't, originally. Apologies.

this argument assumes that capex and training costs will go down over time. but theyll have to keep up with one another and stay on top of latest knowledge so Im not sure if thats true

"Our 2015 car models are totally profitable if we will just stop making new cars and continue producing only 2015 models for the next decade."