I think one difference between Dropbox and Spotify and Twitter and Snap is that Dropbox and Spotify sell a desirable, useful product to end users.

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.

I would disagree. I think Spotify is in much vulnerable position.

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.

Also, spotify makes money by offering you a service, instead of data mining your information and making money that way.

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.

Spotify very much is an ads business though given their free user base. Opened up their Ads Manager for self service recently.

So how do you feel about Airbnb (profitable?) and Uber (still at huge losses)?

Excuse me, but Spotify is not profitable, or I miss something?

"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?

I haven't reviewed yet but from the synopses above, it sounds like they are generating FCF / are cashflow positive? "Profitability" can mean many things (FCF, NI, EBIT, EBITDA, OIBA, GAAP-figures, non-GAAP, etc)... But cash is king in reality so FCF generating isn't a bad meaning here.

Their net cash flow from operations is increasing, but they have negative cash flow from some investing activities (licensing music? buying startups?), which makes total cash flow negative.

EBIDTA is also negative.

How are they profitable? They made a loss of € 1,235 last year.

Haven't checked directly but from comments above seems they are profitable in terms of cash flows?

Did you mean unprofitable? Spotify lost $1.5B last year.

Can you name a profitable tech company or unicorn going public who is profitable?

Google and Facebook were both profitable when they went public.

“Going public”, not gone public. Dropbox, Spotify, Blue Apron, Cloudera, Twilio, Uber (expected) are not profitable.

What's your point? Blue Apron, Cloudera and Twilio have gone public already... Financials are secret until filing for an IPO and at any given point there are not many companies (tech or otherwise) who have filed, but not yet listed. We don't know who's profitable or who will go public, so the best we can go off of is past history.

Going public is not success if you’re hemorrhaging money. You’re just a pyramid scheme with better marketing, not a profitable business worthy of public investment. That’s my point.

Avast.