> They could easily be profitable if they cared to. They don't. I frequently wonder about this. Funny thing is that none of these latest crop of tech ipo's, wh

> They could easily be profitable if they cared to. They don't. I frequently wonder about this. Funny thing is that none of these latest crop of tech ipo's, which are mostly saas or social media companies, actually make money. NONE. Not one. Years ago, non-saas software companies didn't seem to have much trouble earning money when they were in growth mode. Adobe, to pick one, ipo'd in 1986. Between 1984 and 1988 their revenues grew from $2 million to $83 million (including 110% in 1988), aka hypergrowth. Guess what? They had positive net income every single year...huge margins, too. I see stuff like this and wonder about today's saas and social media craze, and I cant help but be very skeptical about these business' abilities to make any kind of meaningful profits ever. Is it really a coincidence that they're all managed like this, strictly for revenue growth? Or are these businesses structurally incapable of earning a profit? I honestly have no idea anymore. Salesforce has been public for almost 10 years and if they had to pay all of their comp in cash there would be almost no cash flow at all. Maybe these companies just dont add as much value as we think.