I don't get the same sense from it you do. It looks to me like they realized they needed more income than launches could get them in the time they needed. Rather than solely depending on investors, they came up with a business that plays to their strength that can be a steady/recurring source of income to be less dependent on investors. I don't see SpaceX so focused on profiting from Starlink that they've lost any momentum towards any of the other SpaceX plans. From where I sit, it looks like a pretty smart play on their part. It also just happens to be a very beneficial service that so many other players in the market refused to do.

"SpaceX’s prized Starlink satellite business is still burning through more cash than it brings in" has a fairly plain meaning! And it's that it's not profitable. I'm not sure I have any sense at all other than relaying content. :)

When I read that, I thought it was referring to SpaceX in general not Starlink specific. Reading comprehension let me down yet again

But Starlink is profitable so you’re whole point is wrong

Source?

Note: I don't have a point, I'm just relying content!

Note #2: *your

Spacex still burning investor cash hence the capital raise recently on the backs of another capital raise. Building rockets is a great way to burn capital and also the end product, when working, is a great goal for humanity.

A big chunk of these investment rounds are tender offers for employees looking to cash out.