3 ms·
Original writer here again. There is a difference here though, which is that those companies openly tell investors, "we're not profitable," and even have proje
by gjsman-1000 4y ago
Original writer here again.
There is a difference here though, which is that those companies openly tell investors, "we're not profitable," and even have projections in their documentation for when they will be profitable assuming current growth continues. For example, Disney+ warns investors that it is not a profitable business but is trying to get to the point of profitability by the end of 2024. They also have regular public financial statements clearly outlining exactly how much revenue they received, expenses they paid for, and profits received if any.
Now, sometimes these projections are... very optimistic like Spotify; but they are still there and check many legal boxes. Unprofitability is not a concern if it is disclosed. Basically anything is OK if there is clear and full disclosure. Purism does not have a disclosure anywhere saying whether this is, or is not, true. You are just left to assume that the company is solid, happy, and solvent without much substance that I could find (not even the most basic Profit/Loss statement), unless I missed some obvious documentation.
- clnq 4y agoHmm, that assumption or expectation can be very disappointing. Perhaps that is a part of why you feel so negatively about Librem? I would assume that most companies of that size have some sort of financial concerns, challenges or problems in the near to mid future. Do they publish financial statements to their investors or prospective investors? Perhaps it would be useful to ask for those and see for yourself. If they mislead investors through not providing statements or playing games with the numbers, then you have evidence (!) — something that would strengthen your article a lot.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]