4 ms·

Exactly! It's the difference between losing money on a macro-level and losing it on a micro-level. You can't lose money on every transaction and make it up in v

Exactly! It's the difference between losing money on a macro-level and losing it on a micro-level. You can't lose money on every transaction and make it up in volume, as the old joke says. But you can make money on every transaction and choose to invest it in expansion, so that you lose money overall.

jwhitlark 8y ago
It appears that moviepass is mostly an arbitrage play,where amazon is not....
- doingmything 8y ago
  I wouldn’t even call it arbitrage. There is usually some gain in the difference in price with an arbitrage
  - ShabbosGoy 8y ago
    It’s not arbitrage, it’s “let’s burn all our runway til the next round”.
mjevans 8y ago
There's a key flaw in the wording that might lead to confusion if trying to explain this to someone new to investing. Amazon stopped making /losses/ rather quickly. They /invested/ in the health of their business and future opportunities instead of delivering profits to outside investors. Arguably, a better structure for incorporation does exactly that; it provides benefits to it's employees and the community it serves.
CamelCaseName 8y ago
As Sliceline discovered, you can't make up for losing money on each order with volume.
nradov 8y ago
To a limited extent large retailers like Amazon and Walmart actually can lose money on every transaction and make it up in volume. By delaying payments to their suppliers they get 2 - 3 months of float and can earn extra income by investing that capital. Of course in today's low interest rate environment it isn't much, but at their scale it adds up.
cornholio 8y ago
> You can't lose money on every transaction and make it up in volume, as the old joke says. You actually can. It's the oldest trick of the industrial age, mass production and economies of scale. A good rule of thumb is that increasing production of a physical good by a factor of 10 will drop the unit cost by half. For non-tangible goods the effect is even more pronounced. The fist copy of Microsoft Windows might cost 1 billion dollars to produce, while every next copy is essentially free. What this new breed of money loosing company signifies is a shift of business models to the software-eat-world paradigm: high upfront capital investment, zero marginal cost, exceptionally strong consumer lock-in (thus profits) once you break through and dominate the market. There is nothing fundamentally different between Amazon Prime and MoviePass, they are both loss leaders designed to increase foothold in the market, with a view to later use that dominance to dictate the rules. One was built on good economics and well executed, the other is not and will fail, but it's essentially the same business move.
- matlock 8y ago
  But what you're saying is that eventually you'll make money on every transaction which just goes along with the comment made before. The joke is really about goods where you can't lower the cost or increase the price enough to make the economics work. > The fist copy of Microsoft Windows might cost 1 billion dollars to produce, while every next copy is essentially free You'd have to split R&D costs by the units sold here. If you spend 1B and sell 1000 copies a price of 100$ per copy won't help you.
  - ergothus 8y ago
    You are of course correct in your math, but the point is that it reverses the equation. Windows doesn't cheaper to make if you plan to sell fewer copies: the production cost is set (Roughly) so you have to target volume. Then you have the secondary effects of lock in (with software/services) that makes every sale also reduce the cost of a future sale or economies of scale (physical goods) that again make volume more desirable. This doesn't contradict the adage about having to sell at a per unit profit, but it complicates figuring out what number that is and can lead to some non-intuitive results, which does trash the value of the adage as a simple way of looking at things. Not saying every company that is selling at a loss to get customers in hopes that they'll mysteriously figure out how to later profit is doing so correctly, but some are. Oversimplification adds little value to these problems.

jwhitlark 8y ago

It appears that moviepass is mostly an arbitrage play,where amazon is not....

doingmything 8y ago
I wouldn’t even call it arbitrage. There is usually some gain in the difference in price with an arbitrage
- ShabbosGoy 8y ago
  It’s not arbitrage, it’s “let’s burn all our runway til the next round”.

mjevans 8y ago

There's a key flaw in the wording that might lead to confusion if trying to explain this to someone new to investing. Amazon stopped making /losses/ rather quickly. They /invested/ in the health of their business and future opportunities instead of delivering profits to outside investors. Arguably, a better structure for incorporation does exactly that; it provides benefits to it's employees and the community it serves.

CamelCaseName 8y ago

As Sliceline discovered, you can't make up for losing money on each order with volume.

nradov 8y ago

To a limited extent large retailers like Amazon and Walmart actually can lose money on every transaction and make it up in volume. By delaying payments to their suppliers they get 2 - 3 months of float and can earn extra income by investing that capital. Of course in today's low interest rate environment it isn't much, but at their scale it adds up.

cornholio 8y ago

> You can't lose money on every transaction and make it up in volume, as the old joke says. You actually can. It's the oldest trick of the industrial age, mass production and economies of scale. A good rule of thumb is that increasing production of a physical good by a factor of 10 will drop the unit cost by half. For non-tangible goods the effect is even more pronounced. The fist copy of Microsoft Windows might cost 1 billion dollars to produce, while every next copy is essentially free. What this new breed of money loosing company signifies is a shift of business models to the software-eat-world paradigm: high upfront capital investment, zero marginal cost, exceptionally strong consumer lock-in (thus profits) once you break through and dominate the market. There is nothing fundamentally different between Amazon Prime and MoviePass, they are both loss leaders designed to increase foothold in the market, with a view to later use that dominance to dictate the rules. One was built on good economics and well executed, the other is not and will fail, but it's essentially the same business move.

matlock 8y ago
But what you're saying is that eventually you'll make money on every transaction which just goes along with the comment made before. The joke is really about goods where you can't lower the cost or increase the price enough to make the economics work. > The fist copy of Microsoft Windows might cost 1 billion dollars to produce, while every next copy is essentially free You'd have to split R&D costs by the units sold here. If you spend 1B and sell 1000 copies a price of 100$ per copy won't help you.
- ergothus 8y ago
  You are of course correct in your math, but the point is that it reverses the equation. Windows doesn't cheaper to make if you plan to sell fewer copies: the production cost is set (Roughly) so you have to target volume. Then you have the secondary effects of lock in (with software/services) that makes every sale also reduce the cost of a future sale or economies of scale (physical goods) that again make volume more desirable. This doesn't contradict the adage about having to sell at a per unit profit, but it complicates figuring out what number that is and can lead to some non-intuitive results, which does trash the value of the adage as a simple way of looking at things. Not saying every company that is selling at a loss to get customers in hopes that they'll mysteriously figure out how to later profit is doing so correctly, but some are. Oversimplification adds little value to these problems.