@Slimebeast: I think that Plaupius noted earlier in his post about the external money. Well, he didn't mention it as basis for growth. But the thing ir, that Google is in its position due making profit.
You see, at the turn of millennium, there was huge amount of companies in information technology, into which people invested huge amount of money due to their growth potential. In one night, companies that basically were "two guys in a carage", became companies worth of millions. Not many of them were able to continue their business, without being bankrupted or bought by another company. Google, Skype and what others did you mention, are just exceptions in the trend. The point is, that they were able to make profit eventually, and that's how i understand what Plaupius was saying. And besides, Skype and Google weren't making much revenue either.
I'm not sure what was your Ford/BMW examples point. Ford creates more revenue? Or that Ford still exists despite making no profit? Or Ford is somehow doing better? The example is what Plaupius said. Ford uses its assets and investors (this counts in banks as credit companies) money.
The Ford/BMW example is a good example how stupid it is just to look at revenue, since revenue doesn't count for anything without the ability to make profit. Of course, it shows the potential, but it looks like Ford needs to focus (haha) on certain market segments, instead of trying to cater the full market. While Ford is the 3rd biggest car manufacturer and BMW is one of the smallest, BMW as a company, is financially much healthier.
Ei Kiinasti.
Eikä Japanisti.
Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.
Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.
