If I sold a bunch of dollars for 95 cents, my revenue would be astronomical. But does that make it a sound business model?
Which is a better business model? An Indy writer with 3000+ people charging $100 a year for a newsletter (Ben Thompson/Stratechery) or a multi million dollar news organization employing dozens of people with higher revenue losing millions per quarter?
What you're saying makes perfect sense to me though.
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/net-in...
Facebook was profitable before they went public. The main reason they went public if I remember correctly, is because they had more than 500 shareholders and it made it more difficult to stay private.
As far as Amazon, Amazon wasn’t GAAP profitable. But it did have positive cash flow and was investing in infrastructure. The companies mentioned above have very slim to no marginal profit. They are literally selling dollars for 95 cents.
I disagree with the notion that the success of a for-profit company is solely defined as "profitability". Factors such as growth or value are also often cited as success criteria. I couldn't find literature supporting your statement that profitability is the only measure of company success.
Intuitively, it also seems wrong to me to claim that a children's lemonade stand netting $10 in profit is a more successful business than Tesla.