Some profitable companies operated at a loss for extended period of time at first. Sure, nobody disagrees with that. The point of the post was that it isn't the operating at a loss that makes a business a success, no matter how large the revenue stream. Operating at a loss may turn out to have been worth it, in retrospect, once the profits start rolling in.

It may even be the case that great business success is always preceded by years of operating at a loss. Let's assume that for the sake of discussion. It still doesn't show that any company that operates at a loss, no matter how large the revenue stream, is going to be a great business success. And it certainly doesn't show that the business, while operating at a loss, is currently a success. Operating at a loss, with a large revenue stream, may be a necessary condition of success, but it surely isn't a sufficient condition.