[cube13]

>They do not turn a profit because they keep sinking their profits back into expansion.

Uh, that's pretty much the definition of "unprofitable".

[gamblor956]

No, the definition of unprofitable would be a company that does not make net revenues before reinvesting in growth opportunities.

A company that chooses to reinvest its profits is profitable; it is simply choosing not to distribute those profits to its shareholders.

[jdbernard]

My point was that Amazon is unprofitable by choice and that makes all the difference.

Amazon is putting food on the table for thousands of people. They are facilitating the sale of product for tens (hundreds?) of thousands of businesses. Their technology underpins and enables many of the startups we love. Their cash flow was and is healthy. That is very different than being unable to turn a profit.

edit: What I meant by "a profitable business" is that Amazon is in several different industries. They have profitable business. They offset their profitable business with growth expenses, but they have business that is profitable.

[loganfrederick]

Not exactly, there is a difference between a company with no revenues burning money and a company that is unprofitable but could be if it stopped spending money on growth and just sat on the income from its existing business.