The core argument in 'Bad Analogies' from Not Boring is simple: burning cash is not a business model, and citing Amazon as justification for indefinite losses is a broken analogy. The piece was written as a direct rebuttal to a recurring claim circulating online, one the author calls wrong every time it surfaces.
What makes this worth reading is not the conclusion but the mechanics of the takedown. The author walks through why the Amazon comparison fails on structural grounds, not just intuitively. The specific conditions that made Amazon's reinvestment strategy work are not generalizable, and most companies invoking that precedent share none of those conditions.
The piece is short by design. It does not build a comprehensive framework or hedge its position. It makes one claim, supports it with precision, and stops. If you have ever heard someone defend a money-losing company by saying 'Amazon lost money for years too,' this is the rebuttal to read.
[READ ORIGINAL →]