I'm not entirely sure what you're getting it because it seems like your making a pretty strong correlation between companies that provide physical goods as nece

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting it because it seems like your making a pretty strong correlation between companies that provide physical goods as necessities and thus are worth more than those that provide digital goods that you could argue aren't. I'd argue that's increasingly not going to be true. I think one could've argued at the time that Apple wasn't worth something because they were the struggling vertically integrated supplier of consumer based computers in a sea of horizontally integrated providers. It wasn't until they got more of a foothold everybody started seeing the benefits of software made to run on a single type of device. Intermediaries have increasingly become devalued over time as digitization has meant there's less and less of a need for middle-men. Hence why Amazon's surge has come on the heels of providing Entertainment and Cloud services, something intermediaries in their space never did before. Facebook yeah I suppose, the fact that they have margins almost no other company could dream of kind of rationalizes it to a strong degree though. All in all, I see where you're coming from. Nike yes I see where you're coming from. Disclaimer me posting that comment wasn't suppose to be a riot act that Snap's going to be the next $400+ billion dollar company, I'm as skeptical as most about the future prospects. However, I'd argue against saying they produce nothing. The fact that they are anti to the leading social media provider (of sorts) gives them a production point. As demonstrated in their reports, their user's incessant check in's on the app despite any Facebook-esque notification stream to keep them coming back is pretty envious (in my opinion).