This is true for facebook, but false for 99% of other companies. At the end of the day, revenue - costs (profit) is what you're optimizing for.
I think dmor's point is that revenue can be a lagging indicator, and that some startups can suddenly turn on a revenue pump that makes watching revenue silly.
I agree with her - in 1% of cases. The problem is that for dmor, that 1% of cases is all that matters - because those cases are going to be the all or nothing billion dollar company cases, which is what she's aiming for. Facebook, AirBnB etc - all would have terrible numbers while starting up, then suddenly their numbers start to look great.
Their revenue numbers maybe, but there were other signals. I am gonna find the next Airbnb with what I'm building mark my words
If you can really do that, become a VC or full-time angel vs. starting some silly startup index SaaS platform.
Nah that path is too obvious, I'm making the new Dow Jone Industrial index. Way less plausible, way more fun.
You're drastically overestimating how many people care about startups (and will pay for a product related to them). This is a small market and VC as an asset class is shrinking (so it's getting smaller). VCs are terribly intuition driven and the good ones already do what you're thinking of and they'e good at it. And even if they bought, it's less than 50.
If you're trying to build one of those shoot for the moon startups (the kinds VCs like), this idea won't be it.
Not being a hater.
If you are in a market with network effects, you need to acquire users FAST. What would grow faster: Facebook monetizing each user from day 1 at $1 a user or Facebook growing fast, kicking in network effects, and delaying monetization. What would ultimately have more value?
So this isn't saying "don't make money", it's about examining the market you are in and making a strategic, thoughtful choice.